British Columbia Hansard — 11 April 2018, p.m., Issue 111 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20180411pm-Hansard-n111

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 111 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care......................................................................................................................................Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.............................................................................................Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health.....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Commi ttee of the Whole................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Commi ttees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Commi ttees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal)........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal)................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal).......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal)................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal)...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal)..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal)............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal)................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP).............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal).......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal).........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal).............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal)......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (B C Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP)................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kam loops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal)..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal)...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (B C Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal)..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal)................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal)..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (B C Liberal).............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal)................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kam loops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (B C Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal)......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal)................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal).....................................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal).............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal)..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal)................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal).............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Yap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West.................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kam loops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kam loops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm L etnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo...............................................................................

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

Jennifer Rice North Island............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head..........................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North..................................................................................

Dan Davies Peace River South............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast.....................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston.................................................................................. John Yap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena.........................................................................................................

Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale...............................................................................

Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Surrey South...............................................................................Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon. George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek.......................................................................

Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings.............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara.............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant................................................... Hon.

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon.

Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano................................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 3725 Introduction and First Reading of Bills................................................................................................................................ 3726 Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. H.

Bains Statements (Standing Order 25B)......................................................................................................................................... 3727 Take a Hike program for vulnerable youth J. Routledge Holocaust remembrance M. Polak Contributions of Ismaili comm unity A. Kang Clubhouse International program and mental health supports L. Reid Naming of laneways in Vancouver S. Chandra Herbert B.C. Seafood Alliance I.

Paton Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 3729 Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and legal advice to government S. Bond Hon. J. Horgan T. Stone Natural gas royalties A. Olsen Hon. M. Mungall LNG development and transition to low-carbon economy A. Olsen Hon. M. Mungall Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and legal advice to government P. Milobar Hon. J. Horgan J.

Johal M. de Jong Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and referral of issues to court A. Wilkinson Hon. J. Horgan Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)............................................................................................................................. 3734 R. Coleman Petitions.................................................................................................................................................................................... 3734 P.

Milobar Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................. 3734 Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2017 Personal Statements................................................................................................................................................................ 3734 Apology for comm ents made in the House Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 3734 Bill 5 — Comm unity Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018(continued) T. Shypitka J. Isaacs B. Stewart S. Gibson Hon. A. Dix Bill 11 — International Comm ercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. D. Eby M. Lee D. Routley A. Weaver L. Krog R. Sultan A. Kang B. D’Eith Hon. J. Darcy Bill 6 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018 Hon. H. Bains J. Martin Hon. C. Trevena R. Coleman R. Singh B. Stewart M.

Hunt Hon. D. Eby Hon. R. Fleming S. Gibson A. Weaver D. Routley G. Kyllo B. D’Eith Hon. H. Bains Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Commi ttee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3768 Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued) P. Milobar Hon. G. Heyman M. Bernier C. Oakes J. Rustad I. Paton J. Thornthwaite

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 The House met at 1:36 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. J. Darcy: Itis my greatpleasure to introduceseveral people who are here from New Westminster today. Firstof all, and I think they’re seated behind me up here, is the New WestminsterYouth Ambassadors team for 2018. This is a wonderful group of young peoplewho are every- where in the comm unity, volunteering for a wide range of events. They are leaders of today and tomorrow in New Westminster.

They are Samantha Candelaria, IsabelGarcia, Chloe Hill, Nik Filusz, AnastasiaSabininand M.K. Thaosiri. Theirchap- erones are Victoria Henssler and Carli Henssler and coordinator Lynn Radbourne. Lynn Radbourne has accom- panied this group as the directorand has accompanied them every yearforthe lastfew years. Also joiningthem today as a chaperone, and someone who’s no strangerto this House, is formerMLA, formerMinisterof Labourand New Westmin- stercity councillorChuck Puchmayr. I wouldask the House to make them very welcome. We have anotherintroduction today.

Joining us in the gal- lery overhere is the dynamic executive director of the New Westminster Chamber of Comm erce, Lizz Kelly, who has done just an amazing job since she took over that role— a coupleof years ago, I think — really advocating for busi- nesses in ourcomm unity. She’s joined today by herpartner, Shaugn Schwartz, who is actively involved in social enter- prise in the comm unity. Wouldthe House please join me in welcoming them to the gallery today. Hon. H. Bains: I’m really pleased today to recognize a numberof firstresponders seated in the gallery: Gord Ditch- burn, of the B.C.

Professional Firefighters Association; Cameron Eby, Robert Parkinson, Sophia Parkinson and Lindsay Kellosalmi, from the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C.; Jeremy Kerr, who’s a sheriff; and Dean Purdy, who’s a corrections officer. Joining them is aspecialguest,anothercorrections officer who some of you may rememberfrom lastsumm er. Robert Gagnon has been called “the man who walked through the flamesforPTSD.” And indeed he did. Robertis aformercor- poralwith the Canadian Armed Forceswho now works as a corrections officer for Prince George.

Following his military career, Robertfound himselfstrug- gling with post-traumatic stress disorder. Through his own struggles,he became aware of how many others, including firstresponders, were also needing servicesand support.He decided to do something aboutit,and lastsumm erRobert set off on the journey of his life, as he walked solo from Prince George to the front steps of this building to raise awareness around PTSD. [1:40 p.m.] He reached Victoria on July 25, after walking about 30 kilometres per day.

Along the way, he raised funds to help supportan equine therapy ranch forveterans in Quesneland a facility in Kam loops thatworks with firstresponders and veterans with PTSD. He’s here to see some of the fruitsof his labouras we make an announcementrelated to supporting those who develop mentaldisorders as a resultof trauma in theirworkplaces.I thank him forhis tireless effortsand wish him allthe bestas he travels the road to recovery. Wouldthe House please join with me, makinghim and all other heroes in the gallery very welcome. L. Reid: I wouldask the House to please make welcome Jackie Powell.

She’s leading Connections Place. Please do some follow-up — connectionsplace.org. She’s doing some amazing work here in Victoria in terms of building a Path- ways Clubhouse. D. Clovechok: Itgives me a greatdealof pleasure today to welcome three outstanding peoplefrom my riding back home. Wildaand NorbertSchab from FairmontHotSprings are here today. Wilda is the pastchairof the College of the Rockies and stillsitson thatboard and also is an incredibly successfulbusinesswoman. Norbertis aLions Club superstar in our comm unity. Glad to have you here. Also, Mike Guarnery is here somewhere.

Mike is the exec- utive directorof the Kimberley Chamberof Comm erceand also the vice-chairof Comm unity Futures, who we justmet with and had a really nice lunch with. If you would, please letthis House make them feel wel- come. P. Milobar: Itgives me pleasure today to introducethree members here from the Canadian Home Builders Associ- ation of B.C. We have NeilMoody, the CEO; MattMcCur- rach, from Kam loops; as wellas AlyciaCoulter, the manager of governmentand publicrelations. Wouldthe House please make them feel welcome. Hon. M.

Farnworth:It gives me great pleasure to wel- come to the House today a greatgroup of peoplefrom the B.C. Coroners Service, publicservantswho continually work hard and put in the hours to make sure that all unnatural or unexpected deaths in B.C. are investigated with dignity, competence and compassion. Please join me in welcoming chiefcoronerLisa Lapointe, Carla Springinotic, Lori Moen, Cara Massy, Susan Small- wood, MichaelEgilson and Andy Watson. Please wouldthe House make them m ost welcome. 3725

G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by three amazing individuals who do a lotof work for Comm unity Futures offices.They have 34 officesacross B.C., providing servicesto smallbusi- nesses and entrepreneurs, largely in ruralB.C. We’re joined by Mike Guarnery. He’s the vice-chair of Comm unity Futures B.C. Also joining him are CherylJohnson and Troy Dungate. They’re directors with Comm unity Futures. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Hon. L. Popham: Today I have the privilege of welcoming the B.C. Seafood Alliance to the chamber. The B.C.

Seafood Allianceis an umbrellaorganization whose 17 members rep- resent 90 percent of the wild seafood harvested in B.C., worth almost $1 billion in salesannually. These companies represented by the allianceemploy thousands of peoplewho harvestover100 differentamazing seafood productsin B.C. I look forward to meeting with them laterthis week. Please make them welcome. N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introducea friend and town councillor for the beautiful town of Gibsons, an engineer who also sitson the regional board of the Sunshine Coast regionaldistrict,my friend Jeremy Valeriote.

Willthe House please make him welcome. Mr. Speaker: Member for Nanaimo. Member for Nanaimo? L. Krog: Oh, thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s so rare I getto introduce somebody. I got too excited. I’d like the House to welcome, please, from Nanaimo, two peoplewho enjoy the good servicesof Hansard, my friend Peter Cannigan and his son Jason. I would be remiss if I didn’tmention thatJason’s motherand Peter’s wife is the sec- retary of my constituency association, and she does a won- derful job. Would the House please make them welcome. [1:45 p.m.] Hon. B.

Ralston: Many colleagues on both sides of the Legislature today atlunch welcomed members of the Com- munity Futures organization here, led by Cheryl Johnson and her team. They do great work in promoting business development and economic development throughout the province, particularly in ruralBritish Columbia.They’re also an important source of business financing when other sources sometimes may not be forthcoming. They’re here today, and I’d invite the Legislature to give them a warm welcome. Hon. S.

Robinson: I wouldlike to join with the member for Kam loops–North Thompson in welcoming the repre- sentatives of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. to this House. PresidentMattMcCurrachand CEO Neil Moody are here on behalf of more than 2,000 members building residential housing here in British Columbia. When we talk aboutourcommi tmentto buildthe homes thatBritish Columbians need, we know thatit’s these people who willbe buildingmany of those homes.Wouldthe House please join me in welcoming them here today. S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Jenni Capps, who is in the gallery today.

I m et Jenni for the first time when she was running for the municipality of North Cowichan and I was running for area director in Shawnigan back in 2014. I had the pleasure to also sit with heron the Comm unity Safety Advisory Commi ssion at the Cowichan Valley regional district, where she was the youth representative. She was also elected m ayorof the Duncan youth council, and she is currently the vice-pres- ident of the Cowichan Folk Guild. Jenni is the motherof Athena, who is two years old, and this extraordinarily accomplished youngwoman is only 25. I can’t wait to see what life holds for this young person.

R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House — I’m not sure if they’re here — a teacher, Mrs. Joy Tansky. She’s a frequent flyer here from the Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy. She’s here with hergrade11 students.Please make them feel welcome. M. Hunt:In the House this afternoon are going to be two groups from a school in Surrey, which is PacificAcademy. Withinthatgroup are two friends of mine, orfamily friends of ours, StevenjohnSteunenbergand his son WilhelmSteun- enberg. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome. D.

Routley: I’d like to introduce the Cowichan Valley manager of Comm unity Futures, Cathy Robertson, and to thank heron behalfof allthe peoplein the Cowichan Valley for allthe work she does to supportsmallbusiness people, to develop marketsforthe productsof the Cowichan Valley and to support the fabric of our comm unity. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018. Hon. H.

Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. I’m pleased to introduceBill9, the Workers Compensa- tion Am endmentAct,2018. This billam ends the Workers Compensation Act to provide new m ental disorder pre- sumption for first responders, sheriffs and correctional officers. Specifically, the presumption willcovermentaldisorders that may arise from traumatic eventsexperienced at work, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. These mental dis- 3726 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

orders willbe presumed to have been caused by one ormore traumatic eventsthat an eligibleworker was exposed to in the course of theirwork, ratherthan havingto prove in order to obtain workers compensation benefits and support. The new presumption for mental disorders will benefit paramedics, police, firefighters, sheriffs and correctional officers — occupations thatare frequently exposed to trau- matic events at work. In addition, the amendments will extend the cancerpresumptions thatcurrently existforlocal government firefighters to federal firefighters working on military bases in British Columbia.

These amendments recognize the important, dangerous and sometimes traumatic work that the workers covered by these changes do every day to serve and protect British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill. Motion approved. Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day forsecond reading atthe nextsitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1:50 p.m.] Statements (Standing Order 25B) TAKE A HIKE PROGRAM FOR VULNERABLE YOUTH J. Routledge:Rememberwhen Take a Hike came to visit the Legislature lastmonth? It’s a full-time high schoolpro- gram forvulnerableyouth. They use the outdoors to engage studentsand help them learn.

A full-time mentalhealth pro- fessionalis embedded in each classroom for early interven- tion and prevention, and they have an 80 percentgraduation rate. Take a Hike has worked in partnership with the Burn- aby school district since 2014. Earlierthis yearI gotto see the program in action. Skyler, a grade12 student, talked to me about what the program means to him. He explained that all Take a Hike students have a story of defeat.As he putit,he had already checked outduring his firstyearof high school, and he found himself wandering the streetsinstead of the halls. Within a month, he had felt like a failure.

Skyler, a self-described rebel, artist and spatial learner, as he says, “started skipping classes, sassing teachers and hanging out with the wrong people.” Within a year, he’d become isolated from his friends and family, and he turned to drugs to dealwith anxiety. He was kicked outof school. “The nextyear was a living hell,” says Skyler. “I was so far behind I didn’tthink I wouldeverfinish school. Thatsum- merI hitrock bottom, and my mentalhealth was, well, men- tal.” Deciding he needed help, Skylerstumbled across the Take a Hike webpage. Fastforward to today. Skylerthrived in Take aHike.

Dur- ing the overnighttrips, he gotto know himself, and in Sky- ler’s words, he “gotto complete like a billion courses in one year.” Skyleris going to graduate this year with high marks, and he plans to study psychology atuniversity and become an addiction counsellor. Skylerdescribes Take a Hike as the North Star that guided him to success. In conclusion, I wouldlike to thank allthe members who metwith Take a Hike when they were here and are working to bring this beacon of hope to their comm unities. HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE M.

Polak: On the 27th day of the month of Nisan, in the Hebrew calendar, we recognizeYom HaShoah.Every yearwe stand in this House and rememberthe horrors of the Holo- caust.Every year fewerand fewersurvivors join us for this solemn occasion. There willcome atime, likely in my lifetime, when the liv- ing memory of the Holocausthas vanished. Itwillbe on that day, when no man orwoman can speak theirtruth and lived experienceof those terribleatrocities,thatthe responsibility willfallto us. Itis ourobligation neverto forgetand to keep those memories alive for generations to come.

We must not push our darkest chapters away from the light,fearing thatthey willtarnish the good thatdoes exist in this world. Instead, we muststand tall, wellaware of the depths to which humanity can sink, and proclaim: never again. It is only through acknowledgment of the terrible atrocities man has commi tted against fellow man that humanity can truly reach for greatness. In Israel, this day is not simply Holocaust remembrance day; it is Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day. Even during one of the most heinous chapters in our collective human experience, there was still good to celebrate. There was still love.

There was still compassion. There was still bravery. Oskar Schindler, Leon Biletskiy, Irena Sendler, Marianna Szenfeld, Armin Wegner, Ella Lingens — a hand- ful of the many righteous among nations. There is an oldJewish saying: “Whoeversaves asinglelife saves an entire universe.” On Yom HaShoah, we remember the victims, the survivors and those heroes who saved an entire universe. [1:55 p.m.] CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISMAILI COMMUNITY A. Kang: Itis with greatpride thatI share with everyone the amazing work of the ShiaIsmailiMuslimcomm unity.

In celebration of Canada 150, the IsmailiMuslim comm unity pledged one million hours of serviceforCanada as itscom- mitment to improving the quality of life for all Canadians. Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3727

The initiative also comm emorates the diamond jubilee of His Highness the Aga Khan, who is celebrating 60 years of spiritualleadership of the Ismailicomm unity worldwide. The symm etry between Canadian and IsmailiMuslimvalues of voluntary service was highlighted by His Highness the AgaKhan: “The Canadian spiritresonates with a cherished principlein Shia Ismailiculture — the importance of con- tributing one’s individual energies on a voluntary basis to improve the lives of others.

This is not a matter of philan- thropy but, rather, of…‘enlightened self-fulfilment.’” I use this achievement to encourage everyone to give a little more of themselves to their comm unity. Oftentimes you may feel it is hard to do great things, that we are only one, but we all can do something with great love. In the Lower Mainland, the Ismaili comm unity has partnered with, butis notlimited to, the Surrey Food Bank, the boys and girls club, the YMCA and HabitatforHuman- ity, for approximately 149,000 voluntary service hours.

Within the one million hours of volunteerism, Ismailis across the nation volunteeras mentors, supportnewcomers to Canada,providecare forseniors, raise awareness foranti- poverty initiatives and many more. Malik Talib, presidentof the IsmailiCouncilforCanada,proudly asserts:“Volunteer- ism and serviceto the broadercomm unity are both central to Ismaili and Canadian values.” Thank you so much to the Shia Ismaili Muslim com- munity for all your contributions. CLUBHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM AND MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS L. Reid:One in fourpeopleworldwidestrugglewithmen- tal illness.

I’m a huge supporter of the Clubhouse model, which cares for individuals with mental health challenges. Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond has created an incredible sense of welcome and delivers hugely successful program- ming. I couldn’t be more proud of the leadership and of those who call Pathways home. WhatI have in my home comm unity, I wish for the city of Victoria.I am pleased to lend my supportto open aClub- house Internationalchapterin the Victoriaarea.Clubhouses are local comm unity centres that help people living with mentalillness recoverand rebuildtheirlives. Clubhouse is a comm unity.

More than a program ora socialservice, Club- house is, above all, a comm unity of peopleknown as mem- bers who work together to achieve theircomm on goals of recovery and success. Clubhouse International is a globally recognized model that has been successfully implemented around the world. The city of Victoriawouldbe welcomingaknown entity with a stellar reputation for assisting some of oursociety’s most vulnerable.

Clubhouse International works to alleviate and reduce stigma associated with seeking mental health sup- port.Itprovidesa safe, respectfulspaceforthose with men- tal illness to gather and support one another. Many individuals and theirfamiliesare in desperate need of guidanceto locate resourcesin ourcomm unity. However, they fear being judged if they ask for help. Often families with those who are struggling need to know where to start searching for answers. The Clubhouse spacewill be a tre- mendous source of support for anyone needing a placeto start the journey of recovery.

The general m anager of Hom ewood Health’s m ental health and addiction treatm ent centre in British Columbia, Robert DeClark, m aster of social work, wel- com es the potential arrival of a clubhouse to Victoria. Clubhouses would be of benefit to those of us working as professionals in the field of m ental health. It would provide another trusted resource referral to work within an additional stigm a-free environment and resources for those continuing on their travel journey. Again, Mr. Speaker, thanks to JackiePowellforcontinuing to lead the charge. She’s the chair of Connections Place.

Please do anything you can to provide assistance. NAMING OF LANEWAYS IN VANCOUVER S. Chandra Herbert:“What’s in a name? Thatwhich we callarose by any othername wouldsmellas sweet.” So asked Julietof her love, Romeo, and his family name, Montague. Now, of course, were itnotforthe enmity betweenthe Capu- letsand the Montaguesand the family names,we wouldnev- erhave heard of eitherRomeo orJuliet,and they wouldhave lived happily ever after. But that’s theatre. Shakespeare had it right. Nam es do m atter.

They give us a sense of self, of history, of place, of direction, a sense of where we’ve been, of where we’re going. But they also can som etimes be blinding and white outsections of his- tory orhidethe realreality of this placethatwe callhom e. The story of folks thatlook like m e, white and m ale, is too often told, at the loss of other stories, in place-nam es in this province, I believe. In my comm unity, though, we are working to make sure that other stories that are just as important are also told.

Laneways, because we are seeing such a huge increase in density in my comm unity, are now getting names. [2:00 p.m.] I used to know them as alleyways, butnow the realestate folks callthem laneways,and we are now seeingthose names respected with realstories of heroism and difference. Rose- mary Brown Lane — of course, aformerMLA of this House, the first black woman ever elected in Canada and a real human rightsleaderfor lesbian and gay peopleand women across this province and across Canada. Stovold Lane — Kay Stovold, the founder of West End Seniors Network.

Eihu Lane — an originalsettleratKanaka Ranch, a comm unity of Hawaiian and CoastSalish people. And ted northe Lane — one of the firstfighters for gay lib- eration and gay equality. See-em-ia Lane — Mary See-em- ia was the granddaughter of Chief Capilano, a resident of Kanaka Ranch as well. Jung Lane — Vivian Jung, the first Chinese-Canadian teacher hired in Vancouver. 3728 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

These are storiesthatneed to be told, and I’m so gladthat they are finally beingtoldby honourand namingin my com- munity. B.C. SEAFOOD ALLIANCE I. Paton: It’s an honourto rise in this House as Agriculture critic to welcome the B.C. Seafood Alliance to the Legis- lature today. This group has come to speak with MLAs on allsidesof the House, as they do each year, to raise issuesof concern to our significant comm ercial fishing industry. Growing up in Ladner, it seemed your summ er job was eitherfarming orcomm ercialfishing, and I have many com- mercial fishing friends still to this day in my riding. The B.C.

Seafood Alliance was established in 1999 and is the mostrepresentative comm ercialfishing organization in the province. The members of this umbrella organization include traditional capture fisheries, seafood processors, marketers and exporters. Amongthem are anumberof com- paniesrightin my Delta/Richmond area.They includeDelta PacificSeafoods, NorthDeltaSeafoods, Lions Gate Fisheries, Grand HaleMarine Products,SM Products,7 Seas Seafood and Albion Fisheries. The B.C.

Seafood Alliancehas done greatwork to help the publicrecognize how important B.C.’s seafood sector truly is and to encourage peopleto supportthis key industry. It’s nottoo hard to convincepeopleto buy the high-quality sea- food productsthatthe alliance members are offering. They provideasecure, safe and nutritious food sourceforCanada, and the world has noticed. The demand for B.C. seafood exports continues to be high. The organization also advocates forthe effective manage- mentof B.C. seafood resources,and it’s commi tted to con- servation and sustainability. This, of course, benefitsallBrit- ish Columbians.

I expectwe’llbe speaking with them about those issues today as wellas emerging issues thatpertain to recentlegislative changes atthe federallevel. I know the alli- ancewantsto work withmembers of alllevels of government to ensure allBritish Columbians employed in this important industry are treated fairly and equitably. In closing, I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming the B.C. Seafood Alliance to the Legislature today and thanking this organization forthe greatwork that it does here in British Columbia.

Oral Questions DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND LEGAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT S. Bond: According to the Environment Minister, in his estimatesdebate on Monday and in areferenceto the Premi- er, the ministersaid: “He was very clearthatas partof trans- ition, he had been given the legal advice that stopping the project was beyond the jurisdiction of B.C.” Will the Premier today confirm that this was the legal advice he was given? Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the memberforherquestion. As she willknow — she transitioned into governmentonceher- self — you geta mountain of advice at that time.

Briefing books are prepared on a wholerange of subjectsfrom how you’re going to meet your obligations to payrolls in the health care sector, in the education sector; what your responsibilities are with respectto statutory officers, and so on. Itwas withinthatcontextthatthe ministerand I hadour discussion. The memberwillalso know thatmandate letters are pre- pared by the Premier’s officeto allministers to outline their responsibilitiesand theirobligations. I didthat,as I’m expec- ted to do. Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supple- mental. S.

Bond: Well, thank you very much, Premier, but can- didly, you didn’t answer the question. [2:05 p.m.] The EnvironmentMinisterdidn’tstop there. He wenton to say that the Premier was told that even to talk about or frame his actions as trying to stop the project wouldbe “inappropriate and unlawful.” Did the Premierreceive the specificlegaladvicethatwas clearly outlined by his Environment Minister in estimates debate? Hon. J. Horgan: I was formerly apublicservant.I worked for the province of British Columbia, and I understand the responsibilities that officials have.

I also understand the responsibility of government. It’s important in everything we do, not just in this House but in the discharge of ourresponsibilities, thatwe ensure that we don’tincurany liabilities on behalfof the peopleof Brit- ish Columbia.The memberknows that,as aformerminister, and I’m surprised she’s having this line of questioning. Mr. Speaker: The memberforPrinceGeorge–Valemount on a second supplemental. S. Bond: Well, to the Premier, the last time I checked, when legaladviceis provided, I certainly did learn a lesson that probably you’d pay attention to it.

It was a straightforward question to the Premier. Let’s assume thatlastJuly the Premierwas given legaladvicethat itwouldbe inappropriate and unlawfulto talk abouttrying to stop the project.I see the Attorney has leaned over. This was discussed in the estimates debate by his Environment Ministerand is on the record. So it’s notaboutthatwe can’t share legaladvice, because the Ministerof Environmentdid a very good job of that. On January 1 of this year, the Premier said: “We’re still Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3729

commi tted to doing everything we can to stop the project.” Can the Premier explain how, after warning his Environ- mentMinisternotto use thatlanguage, he continued to use language thathe hadbeen advised was notonly inappropri- ate but potentially unlawful? Hon. J. Horgan: A former Attorney General, although admittedly without a legal background, wouldalso under- stand thatthe responsibilities of the officeof governmentis to ensure thatwe do notincurliabilities in the discharge of our obligations.

Whatwe are doing — and the memberwillknow this full well— is we’re engaged in legalproceedingson behalfof the peopleof British Columbia to ensure that we’re defending the interestsof the province and the peoplewho live here. That’s our function as government, and I’m commi tted to doing that. T. Stone: Well, let’s try this one more time, with the Premier again. This is the specificquote from his Minister of Environment in the Environment estimates on Monday of this week.

The legaladvicewas “thatstopping the project was beyond the jurisdiction of British Columbia,and to talk aboutitor frame ouractions around doing that…wouldbe inappropriate and unlawful.” Butthis is whatthe Premierhas said: “We’re still commi tted to doing everything we can to stop the project.” Can the Premier explain why he continues to talk about stopping this project when he has received explicit legal advice that it would be inappropriate and unlawful to do so? Hon. J.

Horgan: I will just refer the members on that sideof the House to ourinterventions in the FederalCourt, led by ChiefJusticeBerger— I think someone who has the highestdegree of respectrightacross the country. He is tak- ing ourcase to the courtto determine whetheritis inappro- priate that British Columbians absorb the risk of this pro- ject.That’s whatwe’re in courtdefending: the rightsof Brit- ish Columbians, the rightto make sure thatthe government of B.C. can stand up for the people of this province. I don’t understand why the people on that side of the House don’t get it. Mr.

Speaker: Kam loops–South Thompson on a supple- mental. T. Stone:Well, thatwasn’tthe question atall. The Premier did not listen to legal advice that he was provided. This wasn’t political advice. This wasn’t advice from caucus col- leagues. This wasn’t advice from environmental activists. This was legaladvicethatwas provided to him by the pro- fessionalcivilservice.

The advicewas to no longertalk about stopping this project. [2:10 p.m.] He didn’t even listen to his own Environment Minister, who said earlierthis week: “When receiving legal advice aboutwhatwe can doand whatwe can’tdo, to acton things in any other manner…would be a demonstration of bias.” The Premier’s rash actions have landed his government and British Columbians into a big mess. Will he admit his mistake and fix it? Hon. J.

Horgan: Well, the legal advice pertained to the issuanceof permits.I’llremind members, if they don’trecall, of when the memberforLangley was the Ministerof Envir- onment.She saidshe hadthe obligation and responsibility to withholdpermitsif she, as a statutory officer, feltthatthere was some inappropriate behaviour behind those permits. That was the advice we got. If you talk to anyone from KinderMorgan, they will tell you that we have been dili- gently issuing permits as they’ve been requested. The principleaboutprotecting and defending ourcoastis in courtrightnow.

I invite members to go and readthe tran- scripts.Readthe presentation by JusticeBerger, aprominent jurist,notgiving politicaladvice— in fact,standing up for British Columbians and taking ourcase to the FederalCourt to defend our coast. That’s what he’s doing. That’s what we asked him to do. We’re issuing permits.We’re notharassing the company. We are demonstrating no bias when itcom es to activities with the company, and we’re in court to try and stop it. What’s the problem with that? What don’t you get about that? NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES A. Olsen: There’s a globalglutof naturalgas supply.

Des- pite what many in this House claim, oil and gas activities play a minor rolein B.C.’s economy. As my colleagueshave been raising in question period this week, the netrevenue collected from the naturalgas sectorin British Columbiahas plumm eted in recent years. In 2016, British Columbia lost$383 million from explor- ation and developmentof ourgas. Why? It’s because the tax credits earned were more than the income received from the net royalties and rights tenders combined.

Again in 2017-2018, we gave companies more through royalty pro- grams and credits than we collected in royalties, fees and leviescombined — allof this in the contextof an urgentneed to transition to a low-carbon economy. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Why is your ministry continuing this unbelievable giveaway? Hon. M. Mungall:As I was saying yesterday, in terms of ourroyalty creditprogram here in British Columbia,it’s very importantto note thatthe creditsthatare accumulated are notnecessarily disbursed. They’re notnecessarily claimed by companies.

Importantly, I willrepeatagain thatthe minimum royalty paymentsensure that a company always contributes to the province, no matter how many credits they may have. In terms of this program, how it is working is ensuring that 3730 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

British Columbians are getting a fairrate of return on their resources. Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental. LNG DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSITION TO LOW-CARBON ECONOMY A. Olsen: Do we, the presentgeneration, notowe future generations a sustainableeconomy, a healthy environment and a safe, stablesociety? How much is thatworth? We are currently selling out the well-being of our kids for nextto nothing. The currentcourse of the Energy Ministry is to expand the corporate welfare program started by the so-called free enterprisers on the otherside. It’s astounding.

Oiland gas plays a minor role in British Columbia’s economy but is responsible for a m ajor portion of greenhouse gas emis- sions. Yet here we are offering handouts to LNG like it’s the future ourkids shouldinherit.Ourfocus shouldbe on becoming a leaderin climate solutions. That is the future of our economy. My question is to the Ministerof Energy. We know that the health and well-being of ourchildren is atstake. So why is yourministry doublingdown on the economy of yesterday insteadof embracing transformation and rapidly transition- ing to a low-carbon economy? [2:15 p.m.] Hon. M.

Mungall:Thank you to the memberforthe ques- tion. There are a few points that he makes that I have to differwith him on — for example, naturalgas. Naturalgas heatsmore than 50 percentof British Columbian homes. It plays an importantrolein ourcomm unities, in ourbroader province, in oureconomy, and in the wintertime — I know, for my home and, I know, for most members’ homes — it plays a very important role.

I’d also addthatin terms of makingsure thatwe’re moving to meetingourclimate targetsand havingan economy based on ensuring that we’re reducing our greenhouse gas emis- sions, unlike the previous government, this government is doing that. When we put together…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Member. Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve put together a climate council thatis lookingto buildourclimate action plan, and when we getthatplan, we’re actually going to do something thatthe previous government didn’t do. We’re going to implement it. DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND LEGAL ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT P.

Milobar: Letme see if I’ve got this right. So far, the nonexistent answers have been a little confusing. The Premieris toldatthe very beginning, by government lawyers, thathe can’tactually stop the Trans Mountain pro- ject. It’s federal jurisdiction. But clearly, the Premier still wantsto stop the project,so he startsa tradewar, angers the federal government and destroys our business climate. Can the Premierexplain exactly whatlegaladvicehe was given and why he acted without regard for it? Hon. J.

Horgan: Whatwe were advised was thatwe could not withholdpermitswithout reasonableexpectations that that was being done in the interests of British Columbia. We continue to issue permitsas they’ve been requested. What we are doing and what I’ve said from the beginning is thatwe’ve entered into acourtproceeding, already under- way before we were sworn in as government, to make the case thatthe risks to British Columbia were notadequately addressed by the NationalEnergy Board. We’ve also putin placea legalteam to bring forward a reference with respect to jurisdiction.

I will remind the m embers of the words of som eone very close to them, currently. That British Columbia is “now prepared to go to the courts…whether or not they have the jurisdiction is good news. Itm eans they’re play- ing by the rule of law.” That was the Premier of Alberta, justsix weeks ago. I don’tunderstand why she understands the appropriateness of using the courtsto resolve disputes, but those people don’t. Mr. Speaker: The memberfor Kam loops–North Thomp- son on a supplemental. P. Milobar: The contextof the questions on Monday was not around that issue.

The context of the questions was around the discrepancy of page 62 of the NDP platform, the clause in the CASA agreement,the wording in the mandate letter for the minister and why there was a change. Last spring the Premier commi tted to “use every tool in our toolbox to stop the project from going ahead.” On Monday, in this chamber, the Premiersaid: “We have to be commi tted to the campaign statementsthat we made.” But his Environment Minister, an hour later, has been unequi- vocalthatthe Premier has received legaladvicethatthis is inappropriate and unlawful.

Willthe Premierconfirm the legaladvicehe has received is that he does not have the authority to stop the project? Hon. J. Horgan: Government can’t demonstrate a bias when a proponent comes to receive a permit. That’s what we’re doing. We’re ensuring that we’re not obstructing the company when they come and ask forthe permitsthatthey Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3731

believe they need to carry on their work. We can, as a government,go to the courtsand m ake the argumentthatdefending ourcoastis param ountto us, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. I don’t understand what the problem is with the m ember on the other side. If the government of Alberta says it’s appropriate for parties to resolve disputes in the courts,why don’tthe B.C. Liberals support that? [2:20 p.m.] J. Johal:A brief recap. This is what we know so far. The Premier doesn’thave the authority to stop this project.His ministersays this was clear legaladvice.

Everything else he has done sincethattime is simply distraction and delay, and a legal delay that will cost a comm unity like Valemount a work camp and nearly 700 jobs. The EnvironmentMinistersays the Premierdoesnothave the authority to stop the project. Is he correct? Hon. J. Horgan: I’m going to give a littlehistory lesson to those on the other side. Far be it from m e to demon- strate that they’ve kind of overstepped themselves here. But the m ember for Langley East will remember this incident quite well.

The governmentof British Columbia cannotdemonstrate a bias or obstruct a permit that is being sought by a pro- ponent if they have the legal right to do so. I want to use the name Boss Power to remind those peopleon that side of the House thatwhen those members used theirpolitical authority to obstructa permit,itcostthe taxpayers 40 mil- lion bucks. That was a decision they made. I’m notprepared to bring liability onto the peopleof Brit- ish Columbia. Instead, I’m going to court,making the argu- ment, with Justice Berger, that the risk is too great. That’s what we’re doing. Mr.

Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supple- mental. J. Johal: I appreciate the Premier’s response, but he’s brushing the question off. Let’s look at the evidence once again. The Premier has been accused of delay, and now we know it’s true. He has known since the beginning that he didn’thave the jurisdiction, buthe hadto placate his activist minister and, of course, his activist friends. To the Premier, was his ministercorrectthathe neverhad the authority to stop the project? Hon. J. Horgan: Asked and answered.

The question was, at the time: can the province of British Columbia obstruct the issuance of permits?We cannot.Now, the members on the othersideshouldhave known that.They costtaxpayers $40 million because they didn’t live by the rule of law. The Premierof Albertasays: “This means they are playing by the ruleof law.” It’s okay for her. Why isn’t it okay for them? M. de Jong: Well, I suppose we have atleastlearned one thing today, and that is why the Premier has muzzled his Environment Minister in this chamber in this forum. He doesn’t like the fact that the publicis beginning to learn aboutthe realagendaatplay.

How long is the Premiergoing to persist in this charade? His Transportation Minister has said clearly there isn’t anythingthe governmentof BritishColumbiacan doto limit the volume of bitumen being carried on federally regulated trains. His EnvironmentMinisterhas described as unlawful and inappropriate any statements or any attempt to “use every toolin the toolbox” to killthe KinderMorgan project.

Despite that,the Premierpersistsin those statements.Spe- cifically, on January 1, he said: “We’re still commi tted to doing everything we can to stop the project.” Will the Premier stand up and confirm that he has not been forthright with British Columbians about the options availableto British Columbians? Worse, willhe confirm that by his reckless conductand words, he is attracting the very liability that he says he’s hoping to avoid? Hon. J. Horgan: I certainly welcome the enthusiasm from the memberon the otherside. Butit’s fairly clearwhere we’ve been from the start on this question.

We have entered the courts to resolve disputes. We’ve entered the courtsto express our view that the risk of this pipeline, the risk of the transmission of diluted bitumen across British Columbia for exportto otherjurisdictions — notto create wealth in British Columbia, notto create more opportunities for jobs in British Columbia but to send to some otherjurisdiction forremanufacturing — is notin the bestinterestof British Columbia.And we’re doingthatin the courts, in an open and transparent way. Again, as a QC, a former Attorney General, I find it passing strange that the member doesn’t understand that. Mr.

Speaker: Abbotsford West on a supplemental. [2:25 p.m.] M. de Jong: Particularly strange are the comm entsof an EnvironmentMinisterwho goes to greatlengths to distance himself and his government from the platform commi t- mentsthat,as recently as yesterday, the Premierpersistsin trying to revive. Thatwas then; this is now. Those were com- ments made before we were sworn in as government. The Green Party will be interested to know that the agreementthatwas signed thatactually gave birth to this governmentin no way binds the EnvironmentMinisteror the Premier.

How long is the Premiergoing to persistin this charade?I ask itagain. Willhe confirm to British Columbians a couple of things? One…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Member, proceed. 3732 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

M. de Jong: Will he confirm that he has acted in direct violation of the advice he received from legalcounsel, pre- sumably from the Attorney General, because the Attorney Generalmadepubliccomm entary in this respect— advice he actually forwarded to the EnvironmentMinister— that he has acted in direct contravention of that advice, that he has putthe interestsof British Columbians atrisk and, even worse, thathe is attractingaliability to BritishColumbiathat he claims to wantto avoidbut,by his recklessness, he is mak- ing very, very apparent and available to British Columbians? Hon. J.

Horgan: As exciting as it would be to play charadeswith the memberon the otherside…. Three words. First word: sounds like…. Never mind. Look, we said quite clearly thatwe were going to abide by the rule of law, and that’s why we’re in federal court. That’s why we’re in provincial court, and that’s why we’re developing a reference to a highercourtto establish juris- diction to protectourcoast,to defend the interestsof Brit- ish Columbians. We’ve asked the federal government to join with us. We asked the governmentof Albertato join withus.

We’re trying to resolve this issue in a way thatmakes sense to the people of British Columbia. The peopleon the other side of the House are trying to whip up hysteriaratherthan find concrete solutions to make life better for British Columbians. Again, I remind them of Boss Power — $40 million of taxpayers’ money because they demonstrated bias and wouldhave got just absolutely creamed in court.So instead, on the courthouse steps, before the member could testify for the malfeasance, gave Boss Power 40 million bucks, and there we are. DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND REFERRAL OF ISSUES TO COURT A.

Wilkinson: We’ve heard at length from the Premier abouthow this matteris before the courts.Well, let’s remem- ber the two court proceeding he’s talking about. The firstone is the federalcourtproceeding he said that this government entered after the election.

On August 29, here’s what the judge had to say about this government’s intervention in thatproceeding. “British Columbia does not appearto understand the basicground rulesof the complex proceeding it is seeking to enter.” Further: “‘Constitutional limitations on British Columbia’s ability to regulate the pro- ject’ are notin issue, nor is the ‘regulatory regime thatgov- erns interprovincial pipelines.’” “‘Profound questions about cooperative federalism in Canada’ have notbeen raised. These issuesare off the table.” Wrong courthouse. Wrong venue. Wrong judge. And it’s not Chief Justice Berger.

He’s not a judge at all. We have a Premierhere who is doing his bestto hidethe facts.He says there’s anotherproceeding aboutto getgoing. Well, here’s the answer in the newspaper headlines: “Still Waiting on the Big Question.” “Pipeline courtquestion still not ready.” When is this charadegoing to end? When is the Premier going to actually stand up and tell this House and the provinceof British Columbiathathis EnvironmentMinister was sentoutto run interference? They have no intention of stoppingthis pipeline, because they know they don’thave the constitutional authority.

This is a giantcharadedesigned to embellish the political reputation of this Premieratthe expense of British Colum- bians. When’s it going to stop? [2:30 p.m.] Hon. J. Horgan: Well, it’s interesting thatthe fellow that was the Attorney Generalforaweek orso whenthe province couldhave intervened in an appropriate mannerchose not to do so. He left it up to others to make…. Interjections. Hon. J.

Horgan: While the Green-NDP m embers on that side of the House were waiting to table a throne speech, or a clone speech, and delaying the inevitable, we hadto bide ourtime and waitto getto the court,and that’s why we’re delayed. Whatthe Leaderof the Opposition leftoutof his ques- tion was…. The answer was: we were granted standing. We are in court.Thom as Berger…. Well, you can callhim whateveryou like. I callhim agreatBritish Columbian and a great Canadian. He’s defending the interests of British Columbians. Mr. Speaker: The Leaderof the OfficialOpposition on a supplemental. A.

Wilkinson: The Premier’s own signature is on the man- date letterto his Environment Minister, and it says that he is to take the steps he needs in the faceof the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Apparently, it’s inevitable. Apparently, this is allacharade. Apparently, this Premierhas decided to promote his political interestsby accepting that Ottawais eventually goingto tellhim how to behave and that his constitutional challenge is actually a moot point. Ithas actually nevergone anywhere, and this is alljusta giantsham.

His job is to promote his own politicalcareerat the expense of British Columbian jobs and atthe expense of antagonizing Ottawa and causing a tradewar with Alberta. Is this Premierprepared to agree thathis mandate lettersays it all? There’s no intention to stop the pipeline and every intention to promote his own political career. Hon. J. Horgan: I do like to unpack the questions that come from the Leaderof the Opposition, butI’m notquite clearwhatthe question was in thatcharadethere. ButI know he’s gotacolleaguethatwillplay 20 questions with him later in the caucus room.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3733

Listen. We’ve been pretty clear on this. We went to the federal court. We arrived late because of the delay tactics of those wanting to stay over here rather than move over there. If everyou wantto talk aboutpromotingyourpolitical career, it’s taking the platforms of two otherpoliticalparties, calling it your own and saying: “Please let us stay.” Whatwe have been doing from the beginning is respect- ing the ruleof law, ensuring thatwe do notharass the com- pany, as the former government did to Boss Power, at the expense of $40 million.

We’re doing our best to discharge our responsibilities, and simultaneously — two things at once;imagine that— we’re in courtdefending ourcoastand making sure thatthe restof ourcoastis protected by a gov- ernmentthatcaresaboutBritish Columbia,unlike the previ- ous one. [End of question period.] Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) R. Coleman: I reserve my rightto raise a matterof priv- ilege. Petitions P. Milobar: I rise today to presenta petition to the House from a high school class in my comm unity, Westsyde Sec- ondary School, Mr. Reid’s class, in regards to lowering the voting age to 16.

Tabling Documents Hon. D. Eby: I have the honourto presentthe 2017 Annu- al Report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board. Personal Statements APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE Hon. J. Horgan: I justhada referencefrom my colleague the experienced memberforLangley EastthatI madea dir- ectreferenceto him beingbefore the court.I apologizeunre- servedly forthatcomm entbefore he bringsforward his com- plaint.My intentwas to say thatthe governmentof the day ended up costing $40 million to the taxpayers. He’s more than welcome to bring forward his complaint, but I apolo- gize unreservedly. Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, Premier. [2:35 p.m.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued second reading on Bill5. In Commi ttee A, I callcontinued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. Second Reading of Bills BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) [R. Chouhan in the chair.] T. Shypitka:Thank you forthe opportunity to come back and regain the debate from yesterday on the Comm unity Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018.

When I lastleftoff, I was three-quarters through my little speech I’ve gothere, and there were a few heads scratching on the other side. I don’t know if it was in regards to this bill, although we support the bill in itsfundamental form. It’s agood bill. Bringing transparency and reporting to com- munity care and assisted living is something thatI think we can all wrap our arms around. I did make the comm ent that perhaps this bill needs a littletweaking. We’lllook forward to thatin commi ttee stage — on doing just that.

The comm ent was that this bill may be slightly aggressive for those ground-level care facilities, the ma-and-pa shops, where perhaps this billmay name or shame peopleinto getting a licence. Those that don’t want to go through some of the rigorous reform of being licensed may justdrop off the page. I think that’s arealisticargument. Forexample, my wife couldhave chosen to look afterour two childreninsteadof puttingthem into daycare. With that, she couldhave very easily taken acoupleof neighbours’ chil- dren into the home. It wouldhave been unlicensed, but it wouldhave been aloving, caring facility.

Butitmay nothave been something she wouldhave looked forward to if she had to bring those standards of thatfacility up to a comm ercial level with the rigour that comes with it. WhatI’m saying is maybe a transitionaltype of form ora tiered system for lower-levelversus higher-levelcare facilit- ies— comm ercialversus maybe ground-up facilities,as you may want to put it — may be something to look at.

That’s really all I was getting at there. [2:40 p.m.] We will support the bill because we think that transpar- ency is, in general, a good thing, but we don’t think it will help the governmentto meetthe needs of parentsfor more childcare spaces.In fact, it may just do the opposite, as I said. We’ll be watching carefully to see if that happens. The billalso targetsrecovery houses. There are severalin my region, and I think, forthe reasons thatI justmentioned, transparency and reporting is something we need in these facilities.

Forexample, the crime reduction strategy forSur- rey, justmadepublicin late 2016, recomm ended thatadata- base be created foralllicensed treatmentand recovery facil- ities. This will fulfil that recomm endation of transparency. However, another recomm endation of the crime reduc- 3734 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

tion strategy is notbeing followed by the government,and that is to establish an accreditation board to develop pro- grammin g requirements, housing and care standards and otherrequirementsfor recovery houses in the city. Without such aboard, it’llbe harderto push some of those badactors out of the system. Also in the act…. It touches on assisted living. Seniors care and assisted living is a bigissue in my area. We’re going through some problems rightnow with ensuring thatpeople are getting the propercare hours thatare required. It’s acon- cerning one.

What I’ve been doing through my regional health authority is to bring up to code thatthe hours of care are being addressed. For example, there m ay be a decline in care hours, and then, because the reporting is biannual, those care hours couldbe som ewhat smoothed out every six m onths. Forexample, you m ay have, during the Christ- m as holidays, staff not showing up and care hours go down. And then in January, they m ay bump those hours to overservice, so thatwhen the reporting com es through, those hours look like they’re som ewhatleveland they fol- low suit with the recomm endations.

Through our health authority, we’re now doing some monthly reporting on care hours. I think that maybe something like that….I’m nottoo sure where thatfitsinto this bill. I’m sure we can maybe plug it in somewhere. I noticethe Ministerof Health is maybe making note of that. I think itwouldbe something to look at— to do more con- sistentreporting, maybe monthly. With today’s technology, I don’tknow why we couldn’tdo itin realtime, almost,with hours that are being plugged in. With that,I supportthe bill. We look forward to going to commi ttee stage. J.

Isaacs:Thank you forthe opportunity today to speak to Bill5, the amendmentof the Comm unity Care and Assisted Living Act.This billprimarily focuses on universalcare and providesinformation to parentsand others who seek infor- mation on a child care operator or facility. A singlewebsite willprovide parentswith basicinforma- tion, such as whetheror nota daycare facility is a licensed or unlicensed facility. Unless otherwise exempted, it will provide a location of the daycare, the name of the operator and the name of the facility.

The website will also provide information to parentsand others regarding the outcomes of routine investigations orinspection infractions, non-com- plianceissuesrelated to safety and care standards, as wellas genuine complaints regarding the operator or facility. This website and reportingdisclosure willbe an important resourceforparentsas they begin theirsearch to secure day- care fortheirchild.

The information willprovideameans for parentsto gauge the nature of the infraction, to see if there are multiple infractions and to determine whether or not those infractions have been dealt with in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of ahealth officer. Itwillalso reportif the matter remains outstanding. From my own experience — and I have done itall, from grandparentcare to family care, taking my children outand having someone come in, licensed daycare, live-in nanny, live-out nanny, before- and after-school….

The first thing thatcomesto mind forparentswho are choosingadaycare is the health and safety record. Butequally and justas import- antare the passion and commi tmentthe operator and staff clearly demonstrate — providing aloving, learning and nur- turing environment for children. [2:45 p.m.] It’s seeing for yourselfhow the operator and staff interact with children and the accountability measures the owner- operator puts in place to make sure that their business, whether it’s a private business or a not-for-profit business, delivers a positive environmentand the bestquality of care to children.

Withoutthis kind of centralized reporting, parentsoften have to trusttheirinstincts,which usually come from visit- ing the facility, meeting with the daycare providerand staff members and, perhaps, speaking to other parents who attend the facility or getting a referral from another source. The amendmentwillprovideparentsand others informa- tion on the operatororfacility within30 days of thatfacility being licensed. This information providesparentswith some assurance that a health officerwill report an infraction or, where warranted, multipleinfractions thatcome as a result of an investigation or inspection.

The reporting mechanism will also include information as to the nature of the com- plaint, the action or actions taken by the facility to repair the infraction and willfurtherreportand update the website once the infraction has been properly dealt with. The use of standard language forreportingcomplaintswill ensure thateach facility is subjectto, atthe very least,amin- imum standard of care for operations and policy.

Parents who seek this information will be ableto look at the data with a levelof comfort,knowing thatthe same terminology and same standard of care appliesacross the board to all licensed and unlicensed daycares, regardless of whetherthey are privately owned or non-profit businesses. Whilethe standardization and reporting of infractions is helpful, and I supportthe transparency and fulldisclosure, the infractions remain on the website forpublicviewing and scrutiny forfive years. Many infractions may be very minor and are sometimes resolved imm ediately orwithin24 hours.

So I question whetherit’s good policy to have aminorinfrac- tion remain on a website for five years. The publicis certainly entitled to be aware of infractions, even minor ones, and infractions of a serious nature cer- tainly warrant a longer publicdisclosure period. A clearer differential, though, between a minor infraction compared to a serious infraction, would be helpful, so that parents coulduse theirown comm on sense and make the distinction of whether an infraction is a minor concern or if parents should have concerns over a more serious infraction.

A ranking system thathighlightsthe seriousness of the matter, as well as a mechanism to drop off minor infractions over Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3735

time, certainly priorto five years, wouldprovidemore recent and relevant information for parents to consider. Having a minor infraction on a publicwebsite for five years may actually cause unintended negative consequences to the reputation of the operator, the ownerand the facility. Therefore, the absenceof amechanism thatranks the infrac- tion as to the seriousness of the complaint is a concern. The reliancein determining the seriousness of the infraction becomes the responsibility of the interpreter, and thatinfor- mation is usually interpreted by the parent.

Language barriers or cultural differences shouldalso be taken into consideration. A clear ranking mechanism, once again, thatrates the risk of levelof seriousness of a violation or infraction willhelp eliminate any guesswork for parents and allow them to imm ediately move forward with the next steps — securing a daycare atthatparticular spot,thatpar- ticular facility, or eliminating the facility from their search. Unlicensed daycares are permitted foramaximum of two children. The maximum two children policy does not include children who are related to the family.

So grand- parents can continue to care for their grandchildren and may additionally care fora maximum of two otherchildren before they are required to be licensed. What is interesting in this bill, however, is the clause 15.3(3), under: “Publication of reportsrespectingunlicensed facility.” It states: “A medical health officermust promptly remove information thatwas published underthis

section if alicenceis subsequently issued in respectof the comm unity care facility.” In other words, if an unlicensed daycare operator, who has had an infraction which has been publicly reported on the website, obtains a licence, the infraction posted on the unlicensed operator or facility is dropped from the website — dropped from publicviewing and dropped from scrutiny.

The newly licensed daycare operator or facility startswith a blank slate. [2:50 p.m.] In otherwords, the blank slate is granted withoutrestric- tions when an unlicensed operatorobtains alicence, regard- less of the seriousness of the infraction. This obviously cre- ates an unfairlevelof reporting and disclosure, especially if there was a serious infraction. Licensed daycare operators often have enorm ous expenditures when establishing a building ora facility. For instance, there is apurpose-builtdaycare centre in my rid- ing thatspentover$1 million justto purchase the land and buildthatdaycare.

There is anotheroperator who has five separate facilities, and she and her business partner have invested $1 million into their operations. Other facilities undertake high renovation coststo accomm odate a range of care options. Recently an operatortoldm e they invested $20,000 to replacethe floor. This is the costthatoperators have to bear. Removing the requirement to report an infraction of an unlicensed daycare operator, as an incentive forthe operator to license that daycare, whether the infraction was minor or serious, is troubling, particularly if a serious infraction occurred.

Tightening of criminal record checks and quick processing of approvals will go a long way to protect and ensure that the safety of children is always paramount. Whilewe have policiesand regulations to protectourchil- dren by implementing the highest of standards, accidents can happen atany time. Such tragediesare notpredicated on whether a daycare was a licensed or unlicensed daycare or whetherthe operatorwas a private business ora non-profit. We have seen such incidents occur in all facilities.

Forparents,ithas to be aboutoptions and choice, options thatare bestsuited for the family and childwho is seeking daycare. As a parent, I want to have that choice of where I placemy child — whether it is in the loving arms of a grandparent,which is alifelong family bond thatno one can replicate; my neighbour, whose childmightbe bestfriends with my childand they spend allday playing together, avery healthy and creative environment;orwhetherI wantto place my childin a private ornot-for-profitstructured centre.

All of these options have positive attributes, butitis my choice to decide what is best for my child or children. We have to be abundantly cautious that privately owned family and neighbourhood daycares — whether they offer full-time, part-time, before or after school, or just provide care over the summ er holidays — are not eliminated as options and choicesfor parentsbecause of excessive rules, fees, publicreporting or simply peer pressure. Removing options for parents can end up having an adverse effect, reducing the numberof spotsratherthan the intended pur- pose of creating more spots.

OverallI see the amendmentpertaining to the reporting of care for children as a positive step to help parents find daycare facilitiesthatmay be withintheirneighbourhood or close to theirplaceof work. Itprovidesassurancethatthere are regulatory processes in placethatare followed up on and reported publicly. That greatly assists parents in choosing which operator or which facility is best for their child. The billalso includesa reporting of assisted living facilit- ies and residentialcare homes. I am very supportive of the work of the B.C. Care Providers Association, B.C.

Seniors Living Association and the officeof the seniors advocate in reporting the many challenges facing seniors who need care. As a resultof theirwork and engagementas advocates, the public can be assured that there is this additional oversight. There is one areaof the amendmentproposed in Bill5 that does raise some concerns.

The new ResidentialTenancy Act has clearlanguage regarding the landlord’s rightto enterand access a rentalunit.As the residentsin long-term care, res- identialcare homes and assisted living homes are, in effect, renting on a month-to-month lease, there shouldbe more clarity regarding the right to access, just to eliminate any misunderstandings or miscomm unications. Many care homes are addressing the issue with an indem- nity clause. However, withoutclearer, more precise language, followed by regulation or possibly legislation, the right to access couldbe challenged.

The safety and the security of 3736 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

residents would always be paramount. I willturn to the lastfocus of this bill, which is in regard to recovery houses. There are differentrecovery house mod- els, and it’s importantto recognize the distinctions between them. Forexample, there are abstinencehomes where there are no alcohol or drug substances of any kind permitted on site, and individuals who are living in the home cannot return to the home if they are underthe influence of drugs or alcohol. [2:55 p.m.] There are also harm reduction models where the recovery house is allowed to have on-site consumption of drugsand alcohol.

Two completely different models with two com- pletely differentoutcomes,and eachmodelhas adifferentset of challenges. There is a high percentage of relapse, and unfortunately, recovery houses cannotcontrolthe behaviourof those living in the house. Itoftenresultsin behaviourthatis notwelcome in neighbourhoods, particularly where familieswith chil- dren live. This is a challenge in itself — simply getting approvals that accomm odate a site for a recovery home. There is also second-stage housing to consider.

Second- stage housing continues to provide the necessary support for recovery, and it is an essential piece to m anaging an addiction and m aking sure thatpeopledonotreturn to the situation or environmentthatwas partof the abuse in the first place.

Individuals and familieswho are atwits’ end and cannot see apath forward to change the negative and harmf ulbeha- viourof theirloved one oftenpay enormous dollars fortreat- mentin recovery homes and are often disappointed with the results.Whilethere is no doubtthatultimately the individu- als must be accountablefor his or her recovery, not every recovery home has in placea structured modelof support. Too many times, this can result in individuals who really strugglemanaging theirown behaviourand, as a result,are in and outof treatment,and there has been no monitoring or reporting of outcomes.

We have seen evidence of this, particularly with unreg- ulated homes which may not offer structured programs. Withoutaminimum standard of care, which shouldinclude the aid of an addiction specialist or in-house doctor, it is difficult to determine the readiness of individuals to leave the recovery home. Everyone has theirown unique path to recovery, and assigning timelines can be counterproductive to recovery. As well, itcan be difficultto find atreatmentbed, recovery home orsecond-stage housing. This is challengingwhentry- ing to access treatmentin atimely fashion.

A database simil- arto thatof the care providerregistry wouldallow the public to find availablebeds and locations. The database wouldalso disclose if the bed availablewas publicly orprivately funded. Inspections and investigations of recovery homes are necessary to ensure a standard of care that people with addictions deserve. There is a need for publictransparency so thatboth the publicand non-profitorganizations, which often provide the social services and other supports, are informed of infractions and non-compliance matters. The only way of providing such disclosure is with appropriate public reporting.

I wouldencourage organizations and stakeholders to con- tinue to work on defining and implementing models of care to create minimum standards of care across facilities with differentmodels. The reporting willbe afirststep to determ- ining some of the cracks that currently undermine recovery. Organizations suchas CARF, whichis the Commi ssion on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, can be a firststep to ensuring minimum standards are setfor the comm unity and assisted-living facilities.

Working alongsidenon-profit organizations, CARF offers accreditation for comm unity housing, comm unity integration, host family services — which are family homes — supported living, respite services and rehabilitation facilities.Implementing astandard of care ensures individuals and familiescan rely on properaccred- itation and support,accountablepractices,transparency and reporting. I’ve laid out my concerns regarding the am endment to Bill 5. I believe the am endments are the first steps to improve reporting and disclosure.

I hope thatthe govern- m entwilltake my concerns seriously, and those concerns my colleagues have raised as well, as we m ove forward to commi ttee stage. B. Stewart:I rise today to speak in favourof Bill5, the Comm unity Care and Assisted Living Am endment Act, 2018. Whilethere are indeed issues with the bill, it is my hope thatthe governmentis open to som e friendly am end- m entsfrom ourcritic. I do supportthe principleslaid out in Bill 5. This bill targetschildcare facilities. Unlicensed daycares are legal if they care for just one or two children.

Usually, these are in the family home. [3:00 p.m.] A facility caring formore than two children must,by law, be licensed and adhere to the childcare licensing regulation. Underthis bill, the governmentwillnow publish the routine inspections and specialinvestigations into childcare facilit- ies. The objective of this bill is therefore to provide greater transparency for institutions that receive publicfunds, and I believe thatthis is a good thing. Any effortof government to increase transparency and accountability is a good thing.

Any effortto increase access to information and reportson child care facilities for parents is a good thing. As a father of three, I know how important child care decisions can be for your children. Being ableto look up reportson facilities thata parentis considering is a valu- abletool. However, in the end, this is a decision thatrests with parents. The bill will serve a comm ercial purpose in that it will make for a more level playing field. All licensed providers willbe published on the same site. Allwillhave to abide by the same regulations.

More daycares willbe publicly known Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3737

and fewer will operate unlawfully. I have yetto see any numbers thatprove publicly regulated daycare has higher safety outcomes, as suggested in this House yesterday by the Minister of Children and Family Development. There was a recent death in one of the unli- censed daycares here in British Columbia, butrecently, also, in 2017, a child died in publicdaycare in Quebec. So it doesn’tnecessarily guarantee the outcomes willbe betterin one situation versus the other.

If this governmentis using safety as the rationaleforcoer- cing daycare providers into the government framework, I wouldlike to see the numbers thatback thatup. I also cannot understand why the government is going to be actively inspecting unlicensed and unlawful daycare providers in B.C. ratherthan crackingdown on individuals who are skirt- ing the law. This government seems to be desperately attempting to inflate their numbers by peer pressuring rulebreakers into a government system to meet a quota.

This may resultin a situation where illegaldaycares have been visited by government officials, reported on and then leftoperating. The governmentis caughtin atricky situation. Unlawfulproviders don’tlicense now because of the extens- ive licensingrequirements,evenforthe family childcare cat- egory, taking care of three to seven children. I can assure you, as many of the members in this House, that Storyland daycare in Lakeview Heights, operated by Mrs. Reiter, who operated with our three children, never hadany of these problems.

I guess whatI’m saying is thata certain amountof comm on sense from peoplethatoperate these is required. Licensing requirementsthatare being proposed or are in effect require a criminal record check, a program of activ- ities, numerous written policiesand procedures, extensive recordkeeping, including alogof minorinjuriesthatdidnot require medicalattention, acomprehensive fileon each child and reports to a local health authority and so on. I guess I wonderif this makes my wife or I complicit if we bring ourthree granddaughters and pick up theirfriends and bring them home.

Although we’re notoffering daycare, there are many days when our daughter, who’s at work or with her husband, needs to have that extra care. Whilethese requirementsmay be good, they are also bur- densome. I wouldsuggest that a parent does not keep that kind of information, as I previously mentioned, abouthis or her own children, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem to the government,whileproviding additionalcare in the fam- ily home forthree ormore unrelated children suddenly trig- gers many extrarequirements.Comm on sense wouldsay we need to re-examine the licensing requirementsand stream- line the process.

That is not found in this bill. Instead, the government is hoping to force unlicensed providers into becoming licensed, and in doing so, some unlicensed providers, unable to acquire the licensing, will shutdown.

Ironically, the unintended consequences,which I know the minister, yesterday, was surprised by, is thatthis actually may leadto an overallreduction if peopledecideto reduce to the level where they can remain unlicensed. [3:05 p.m.] Some willdefinitely license, butothers willsimply drop a childortwo from theirservice, down to two children,so that they can continue to providecare legally, unlicensed, and we willlose the remainderof those spots.Lineups willgrow, and parents will be further inconvenienced. This governmentneeds to make iteasierfor providers to license.

Afterthis billpasses, the reasons thatproviders have notlicensed in the pastwillstillremain. I willbe support- ing this billas, on the principleof increasing transparency, it is worthy of my vote. However, I don’tbelieve thatthis bill willachieve anything of substancein terms of increasing the numberof childcare spacesin B.C. In fact,itcouldhave the opposite effect. S. Gibson: It’s a privilege forme to rise to speak to Bill5, the Comm unity Care and Assisted Living AmendmentAct. I justcame off three weeks of meeting with my constituents. We were allthere.

I appreciate thatopportunity athome in the Abbotsford-Mission riding, and it’s greatto be back here. I want to speak to this bill this afternoon. One of the areas this billcovers is childcare and childcare facilities, which is really important to hundreds of familiesin my comm unity. The rules governing the operations of child care facilities won’t substantially shift.Facilities that care for m ore than two children must continue to be licensed and follow the childcare licensing regulations. Unlicensed daycares will continue to be legal if they care for one or two children.

Publichealth officers can continue to invest- igate facilities if there are concerns, and offences,penalties and violations will continue. In many ways, the fundamental structure of how child care takesplacein ourprovincewilllargely remain the same. However, there are some changes I’d like to take a few momentsto address today. Underthis bill, the government willpublish on-line inspections and specialinvestigations of child care facilities. That’s new. Now, I’m supportive, as it provides greater transparency aboutinstitutions thatreceive publicfunds, and because par- entswillalso have access to this information.

That’s a good thing. This measure willprovide those using or considering to use childcare withadditionalknowledge aboutthe quality of care in facilities thathave been inspected or investigated. That is positive. Publishing information on a licensed daycare of a desig- nated location, using websites, willprovideadditionalinfor- mation and ensure that information is disseminated. With more information publicly available, fewer daycares will operate unlicensed. Now, I dohave some concerns, however, that I want to just raise briefly now.

While I’ve noted and mentioned that I agree with the government publishing inspections and investigations and supportthe access to information, increased transparency, I have some reservations abouthow the materialwillbe avail- ablewithoutrevision forfive years. If an inspection identifies 3738 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

an issueand the providertakes steps to correctit,the origin- alissuewillstillremain on the provider’s record forthis peri- od of time. I join colleaguesin echoing the concern thatthis couldresultin impacton a facility’s record when there’s no longer cause for concern. Similarly, I also have some questions aboutprivacy. With- in 30 days of licensing, a health officerwillpublish the pro- vider’s name and the name and address of their business. Now, I agree with this, butit’s importantto balancetranspar- ency with individualprivacy.

I also feelthis billcouldhave the unintended effectof reducing availablechildcare spaces. [3:10 p.m.] Parentswho use unlicensed childcare facilitieswillbe eli- giblefor subsidiesif theirdaycare becomes licensed, which means that we can reasonably expect more providers to become licensed. Often unlicensed childcare providers do not seek out a licencedueto the requirementsassociated, includingacrim- inal record check, written policiesand procedures and the duty to keep extensive records. These requirementsare sig- nificantand can be costly.

Naming childcare providers may encourage some unlicensed providers to become licensed. In othercases, these providers couldoptinsteadto reducethe number of children in their care. That’s a possibility. Forinstance, a home-based childcare providercaring for only three or four children may decide not to license but insteadtake only two children into theircare, therefore leg- ally removing that requirement for a licence. As a result, a comm unity would lose these spaces,and we could expect wait-lists to grow. That’s a possibility.

While licensed day- cares operating in family homes dohave slightly relaxed reg- ulatory requirementscompared to larger centres, they still tend to have more limited resources, which couldcreate a burdenon theiroperation. This shouldbe considered as gov- ernment moves forward. Government has stated that this bill will help enhance safety. Now, I recognize the safety of our children is of the utmostimportance. I speak of thatas a parentand a grand- parent. Parents, guardians and family members want to know thatwhen they leave theirchildin the care of a pro- vider, everything has been done to ensure theirsafety.

But safety issues can, unfortunately, occurin both licensed and unlicensed facilities. So I’d just like to raise a point of cau- tion, which there should be, regarding these outcomes. While I support the transparency this bill will bring to childcare in British Columbia,itwillbe importantto ensure that this bill meetsthe objectives set out by government, withoutadditionalnegative consequences.This billalso will not help meet the need for new child care spaces — something I think it’s importantto acknowledge today here in this House.

In addition to childcare facilities, this billalso appliesto recovery houses forindividuals dealing with addictions. The measures this billoutlines forthis type of facility are similar to the onesproposed forchildcare providers, whichincludes posting information on line about inspections and invest- igations of both licensed and unlicensed facilities. Again, I think greater publictransparency in this area is desirable, and I support this measure. Colleagueshave spoken about this type of facility in greater detail, so I will conclude my remarks here.

This is a billwith some importantelementsbutalso some areas thatwillrequire some caution and close observation. I look forward to seeing some of these areas addressed in commi ttee stage here in our Legislature. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no furtherspeakers, the minister will close the debate. Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank all the members on both sidesof the House for taking part, for theirinterest in this area.I know thatsome of the peoplewho spoke — the mem- ber for Kootenay East — are parents, currently, who have been recentusers of the daycare system in British Columbia, the childcare system.

I know thatothers are expressing the interestsof theirconstituentsand have certain interestsin the child care debate. I just wanted to say a few things — first of all, that m embers raised issuesaround the regulation of unlicensed recovery hom es. As m embers of the House willknow, that deregulation happened, I believe, in 2002. That’s a debate, though, that I think all m embers of the House are inter- ested in because I think the objective circumstances since then have changed. [3:15 p.m.] This billdoesn’tseek to dothis. Whatthis billseeks to do, solely and exclusively, is ensure a measure of transparency.

It’s to allow, in otherwords, the freedom of parentsto know allof the information thatthe health authority knows when they’re making the very importantdecision to puttheirchil- dren in care — and that seniors and others know all the information the health authority knows and the same infor- mation in Northern Health as they wouldknow in Island Health orin InteriorHealth orin FraserHealth aboutlong- term care and about assisted living. The purpose of the legislation is that very transparency. They are indeed modest but important changes.

They’re modestbecause they are notthe changesthatmake dramatic changes in the wholechildcare system. We are doing that through the budgetand through other actions of the gov- ernmentthatpeoplewillknow and we’lldebate publicly, I’m sure, in this Legislature and around British Columbia. We’re very excited. I think parentsare very excited around B.C. about the extraordinary changes being put into place by the program led by the Ministerof State for ChildCare, along with child care providers across British Columbia.

We are not, of course, debating the very significant changes to seniors care because the budgettabled by my col- league the Minister of Finance is also the most important seniors budgetin a long time. Itaddresses the issue thatthe overwhelmingmajority of care homestoday, forexample, do not meet staffing levels and staffing standards. Wednesday, April 11, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3739

Again, that’s notdebated in this legislation, although there is information aboutthatthatthe seniors advocate provides, and it’s sometimes, of course, the subjectof controversy. But the seniors advocate, aposition created by the previous gov- ernment,has created more openness and more understand- ing amongstthose who are making decisions around a care home. Generally, that’s a good thing, even though thatvery openness, the reportsbroughtforward by the seniors advoc- ate, is sometimes criticized by care home operators.

There’s anaturaltension there between the desire to show transparency and the desire, if you’re running a seniors home, not to have bad or critical or negative information about you on a website — in that case, the website of the seniors advocate. In this case, the information posted is open and not evaluative. I hear members of the opposition say thatwe shouldbe rankingthe situation — nottellingparents allof the information and having them make judgmentsbut making judgmentsfirst,before they can see it.The purpose here is to be open and not evaluative.

I think members of the House, when they reflecton that, hopefully, willagree thatthatis the rightapproach. Instead of defining in legislation what is major and what is minor as safety concerns, familieswillbe provided allthe informa- tion and allowed to make theirown judgments.In afree and open society — dare I say it? — even a free and open and Liberalsociety, thatis the kind of thing we wouldwant.We wouldwant,in fact,allof the information availablebecause it’s, afterall, the responsibility butalso the rightof parentsto make judgments on that basis. Peoplehave raised issuesaboutunintended consequences.

I want to be clear that it has never been allowed. I mean, there were inspections and inspectors working forthe health authorities under the previous government, ensuring that peopledidn’tfunction contrary to the law, unlicensed child care facilities. It is consistent with the law — this doesn’t change here, and it’s notlikely to change — to take care of two children, two orless, in ahome withoutalicence. Butitis notconsist- entwith thatto take care of more. Ithas neverbeen allowed. So when members suggestthatthis willreducethe number of childcare spaces,they are wrong. This doesn’tchange that at all.

It wasn’t allowed then, if I may refer to the previous period. It’s not allowed now. Whatwe do insistupon, when negative reportscome out — we saw a very publiccase of how thatcan affectthe lives of parents, a case that was brought forward by advocates of those parents,who suffered a terribleloss and madethe case thatthey shouldhave known thingsthe healthauthority knew and thatthey didn’tknow them — is thatthose willbe published on a website so thatparentshave the opportunity in all cases.

No comm ercial advantage for one type of child care againstanothertype of childcare — thatthere be knowledge everywhere of whatthe circumstancesare, thatthe informa- tion be open, thatallof the information be available. Thatis a fairsystem. Thatis notchoosing one system overanother.

That’s not choosing one type of child care over another. [3:20 p.m.] That’s ensuring that everybody is treated the same but, mostimportantly, thatparentsare treated fairly and, in the case of seniors care and assisted-living care, thatsometimes family members, if they’re supporting senior members in care, or the senior members themselves, most importantly, have access to that very same information. That’s what this act seeks to do.

It is, in fact, a modest proposal that does something that’s very important: makes ourcare system safer, gives more rightsto citizens, notless rights,and more information to citizens, not less informa- tion. That is the purpose of it. This is information that, in fact, is in the possession of the government — these reports.It will be presented con- sistently in each case, explaining whatwillbe madeavailable and whatwon’t,and fairly, so thatparents,seniors and others who use ourcare system have the ability to make theirown evaluation. I move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. A.

Dix: I move thatthe billbe placed on the orders of the day for commi ttee stage at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 5, Comm unity Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Commi ttee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. D. Eby: I callsecond reading of Bill11, the Interna- tional Comm ercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018. BILL 11 — INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Hon. D. Eby: I move thatthe billbe now read a second time.

The International Comm ercial Arbitration Act was a front-runnerin internationalcomm ercialarbitration legisla- tion atthe time itwas enacted in 1986. It’s now outdated and in need of modernization. The InternationalComm ercialArbitration Am endment Act will update our existing legislation to reflect current international best practices.

The am endments will m od- ernize British Columbia’s arbitration regime, enhance British Columbia’s standing as an arbitration-friendly jur- isdiction, support international arbitration in language and conceptsfamiliarto internationalbusiness parties and counsel, and provide an opportunity to position British Columbia as an arbitration destination for international comm ercial disputes. British Columbia’s existing legislation is based on the UN Commi ssion on InternationalTradeLaw, UNCITRAL, 1985 3740 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 11, 2018

model law. The UNCITRAL model law was significantly updated in 2006, and we have notamended ourlegislation to incorporate these updates. The proposed amendmentsto the InternationalComm er- cialArbitration Actincorporate the recomm endations of the Uniform Law Conferenceof Canadain response to the 2006 modellaw, as wellas otherrecentbestpracticesin interna- tional comm ercial arbitration.

The amendmentswill make the International Comm ercial Arbitration Act an efficient and comprehensive piece of arbitration legislation that will support international arbitration in language and concepts familiar to business parties and counsel. Modern international arbitration legislation will provide an opportunity for British Columbia to position itself as an arbitration destination for international com- m ercial disputes. British Columbia is well situated as a neutral venue for parties who do not wish to arbitrate in the United States or Asia.

The mostextensive update in the UNCITRAL 2006 model law is the addition of a

section that deals comprehensively with interim measures and preliminary orders. The billcon- tains the addition of this

section into British Columbia’s International Comm ercial Arbitration Act. The billalso adds a new privacy and confidentiality pro- vision which willlimitdisputes regarding the scope of com- mon-law confidentiality as it appliesto international com- mercial arbitration under the International Comm ercial Arbitration Act.This provision willclarify such obligations in advance for the parties.

The billalso adds a new imm unity provision for arbitrat- ors which protectsarbitrators for anything done or omitted to be done in connection with an arbitration, unless the act or omission is in bad faith or the arbitrator has engaged in intentional wrongdoing.

Other significant amendments contained in this bill includeclarified standards forarbitralchallenges, an expan- ded definition of “arbitration agreement” that accountsfor technologicaladvances,an increased thresholdthatmustbe metfor challenges to arbitrator independence or impartial- ity, the creation of appeals from negative jurisdictionalrul- ingsand the removalof out-of-date language and references throughout the International Comm ercial Arbitration Act.

The amendmentswillpreserve a numbering scheme sim- ilar to that used in the UNCITRAL model law in order to make the material easily referenced and understandable by international parties. This bill will modernize British Columbia’s arbitration regime with the goal of enhancing British Columbia’s standing as an internationalarbitration- friendly jurisdiction. [3:25 p.m.] M. Lee: Well, justto hear the Attorney Generaloutline this bill…. Certainly, itdoes com e to this cham beraftera bitof a hiatus, and I’m happy to see thatthe governmentis finally starting to introduce som e semblance of a legislat- ive agenda.

Thatbeing said, this billis notpartof the expected legis- lation that the government campaigned on and later redeveloped in theiragreementwith the Third Party. From whatI understand, this billis actually the resultof two years of work and consultation done by the previous government, underthe leadership of the previous AG. So itreally isn’tpart of the government’s legislative agenda. Itis merely a carry- over from b efore. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to talk about how important this particular piece of legis- lation is.

Internationalcomm erce is very much a large por- tion of our economy. A great deal of our exports are sent to other jurisdictions — south to the United States, across the Pacificor east to the rest of Canada. Our small busi- nesses, our major corporations and everything in between all depend on international trade in order to survive. That is why, perhaps, recent events are so troubling. It appears to me that this government doesn’t seem to really be thinking about international tradeas a priority. We see this governmentstanding firm againsta federally approved pipeline to ship resources.

We see them penalizing home- buyers from otherprovinces.We see them increasing taxes by incredible magnitudes on the businesses that interna- tional tradedepends on. I think and I fear this legislation may actually become pointless if this trend continues, for we won’thave the types of comm ercialintereststo arbitrate remaining in or coming into contact with our province. Moving on, in recentyears, we have seen anumberof cit- iesthathave become known as venuesforarbitration. These cities include such globalpowerhouses as New York, Paris, London, Geneva,Hong Kong, Singapore and Sydney.

They benefitfrom this industry, as they bring highly trained and skilled arbitrators and theirsupporting professional

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20180411pm-Hansard-n111
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20180411pm Hansard n111
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	608c4960e8ef06857a48eaa7f75e0383f809972d

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