British Columbia Hansard — 28 May 2019, a.m., Issue 263 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190528am-Hansard-n263

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Morning Sitting Issue No. 263 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth 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................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

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 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 (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC 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 (BC 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)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola 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 Y ap, 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 Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick 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 ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson 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 Y ap 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 Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Personal Statements ................................................................................................................................................................ 9655 Withdrawal of comments made in the House I.

Paton Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 9655 Introduction and First Reading of Bills................................................................................................................................ 9657 Bill M222 — Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act A. Wilkinson Bill M223 — Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act M.

Polak Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 9658 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 9658 Richard Wong T. Wat Everywoman’s Health Centre and access to abortion services J. Routledge Accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities S. Cadieux Public engagement on transportation strategy for Metro Vancouver B. Ma Don Evans J.

Sturdy Dress code for Legislature pages in 1977 N. Simons Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 9660 Communication practices of Citizens’ Services Minister M. Polak Hon. J. Sims Communication practices of Citizens’ Services Minister and freedom-of-information requests S. Bond Hon. J. Sims Transit system for south Vancouver Island A. Olsen Hon. C. Trevena Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister M. de Jong Hon. J.

Sims Consultation on caribou protection D. Clovechok Hon. D. Donaldson G. Kyllo Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9665 M. Morris D. Clovechok Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................. 9665 B.C.

Assessment Authority, annual service plan report, 2018 Reports from Committees...................................................................................................................................................... 9665 Public Accounts Committee,

summary of activities, 2018-19 S. Bond M. Dean Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9666 L. Throness

Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9666 Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Martin Hon. H. Bains A. Weaver Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9670 Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Rustad Hon. D.

Donaldson Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9671 Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General(continued) T. Redies Hon. D. Eby S. Bond

TUESDAY , MAY 28, 2019 The House met at 10:05 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Personal Statements WITHDRAW AL OF COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE I. Paton: Y esterday during the heat of debate, I made remarks that caused distress to some parties. I withdraw these remarks unconditionally. Introductions by Members Hon. A. Dix:Hon. Speaker, you know that 101 years ago today the first republic of Armenia was established by sur- vivors of the Armenian genocide. The republic only las- ted a short period — two years — as a result of invasions both by Turkey and the Soviet Union.

It was dismantled at that time, but it forms the basis of the current independent Armenian state. Together with members of the Armenian National Com- mittee and St. Gregory’s Armenian Apostolic Church, we’ll be commemorating this anniversary and the 31st anniversary of the Artsakh movement from 12 to one in the library rotunda today. I invite members from all sides of the House to join us. I’ d also like to introduce guests in the gallery from both the Armenian National Committee of Canada and St. Gregory’s Church — a church, by the way, that sponsored more than 100 refugees from Syria in recent years.

I’ d like to introduce the Very Reverend Karekin Shekherdemian, Jack Deragopian, Karin Saghdejian, Vahe Andonian, Tit- ar Kochkrian, Ohannes Gulerian, Araxy Gulerian, Sosy Terzian, Krikor Kusbekian, Vrejouhi Johnson and Sona Mapestone. I wish that everyone in the House wish them welcome and welcome them to the Legislature today. S. Sullivan:Several months ago very good friends had a miraculous baby born. The mother actually had cancer and had gone through chemotherapy. The only reason this baby could be born was because of two people in the audience today, Drs. Jeff Roberts and Caitlin Dunne.

They are here representing a national charity called Fertile Future. The mission is to provide sperm, egg and embryo freezing to boys, girls, men and women who are diagnosed with can- cer. Presently it can cost up to $15,000 for individuals to do this therapy. Fertile Future covers the cost of fertility preservation so that young people who would otherwise be rendered sterile after chemotherapy and radiation can have the chance to make a family in the future. So thank you for Xyla and 600 other British Columbians. Please make them welcome. [10:10 a.m.] Hon. B.

Ralston:Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning from New Zealand is the Hon. Dr. Megan Woods, Minister of Energy and Resources, Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Research, Science and Innovation, Govern- ment Digital Services and Minister Responsible for the Earthquake Commission. Y ou can get a sense from that list of how busy she is and how central she is to the government of New Zealand. She’s here on her first official visit to British Columbia. I had the opportunity to meet with her this morning. She will be, given the range of her duties, meeting with other minis- ters as well.

I also want to say that I express the support of our gov- ernment and citizens for the very determined stand the New Zealand government and people have taken against Islamo- phobia in recent months. Would this House please make Minister Woods feel very welcome. A. Wilkinson:I’ d like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the Armenian delegation from the Armenian National Committee of Canada, Western Region and from St. Gregory’s Church.

For those of you who are not so familiar with the Armeni- an phenomenon, this is a people who have existed since time immemorial, have survived multiple invasions by major empires from the east, south, west and north and have proven themselves to be a resilient, focused, influential and hard-working people. We’re delighted to be able to welcome them today to the rotunda to commemorate the Armenian Republic in 1918, which, as the minister noted, survived a brief period of time until the Soviet invasions brought that to an end.

Now it has been reborn and has a beautiful embassy in Ottawa which I run past every time I’m in Ottawa. I’ d like to welcome the Armenian delegation. Thank you for being here. Hon. L. Beare: It’s Tourism Week here in British Col- umbia and at the Legislature, and it’s, obviously, one of my favourite weeks of the year. It’s a celebration of the incredible adventures and experiences to be had in our province and, as well, the people that make the tourism industry thrive. That’s why I’ d like to introduce some folks who are joining us in the gallery today. From B.C.

Parks, we have Wendy Magnes, Kealey Pringle and Cole Shoemaker. From the Adventure Tourism Coali- tion, we have Brad Harrison. From the Commercial Bear Viewing Association, we have Kathy MacRae. From the 9655

Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association, Andre Kuer- bis; and Emily and Bill Larson. And from the Thompson- Okanagan Tourism Association, Glenn Mandziuk and Ellen Walker-Matthews. As well, we have a number of staff from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. I want to personally thank them for all the incredible hard work that they do to support our thriving tourism sector here in B.C. Would the House please make all of them feel very wel- come. D. Clovechok:It’s not always I get an opportunity to wel- come constituents into the House.

Today up in the gallery, we’ve got Bev Goodwin, who’s been my friend for 35-some- odd years. Our kids got raised together, and we’re usually out in the back country on our quads on the weekends, if I ever get home on the weekends. I wanted to welcome her. Her hus- band is at a water course here in Victoria. So I want to ask the House to make her feel very welcome. Hon. M. Mark:I have a number of guests in the precinct today, staff from the hard-working Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. They’re doing things to make lives better for students across B.C. and helping open doors.

I’ d like to introduce Anna Saunders, Helena Arbuckle, Avery Bonner, Nina Pruim, Lauren Stocks, Brent Cantarutti, Rae Linklater, Jen Owens and Julia Norman. This is their first time visiting the precinct. It’s their first question period. I would like the House to please welcome them. I also would like to introduce my practicum student. Hanna MacDonald is joining me at my Vancouver–Mount Pleasant constituency office. She currently is at UVic study- ing for her bachelor of social work. She works at RainCity Housing and Vancouver Coastal Health.

She’s looking for- ward to getting her master’s — fingers crossed — at UBC. She’s very devoted to outreach and helping those that are marginalized. Finally, I’ d like to thank,t’ooyaḵsiy̓ n̓ iin, Kenya Rogers for her legislative internship. She had a week at Vancou- ver–Mount Pleasant. We showed her the ropes, and it was a great visit. Will the House please join me in welcoming my special guests. T. Redies:In the gallery today, we have a young constitu- ency assistant, Mr. Jack Wells, with us.

He’s working with our office over the summer. [10:15 a.m.] He’s in between his third and fourth years at the Uni- versity of Western Ontario, where he’s studying business and politics. He’s a very, very bright young man, and actually, this summer he’s studying for his LSAT. So we’re delighted to have him. He’s also a very talented musician, which we have begun to appreciate as well. So would the House join me in welcoming Jack to our Legislature. Hon. H. Bains:I’m not sure; I haven’t seen them.

If they are not up in the gallery yet, they will be joining us soon — about 50-plus members of the Surrey-Delta Indo-Canadian Seniors association. They are hiring a bus to come and visit us and see what we do here. This is a group that I attend on a regular basis. I know many of my colleagues from Surrey-Delta go there. This is a place to get advice on local and international politics and a whole host of other things. I always enjoy their company. They will be here today and taking a tour of the facility, if they haven’t started yet. Once you see them, say hello.

Let’s join together to give them a very, very warm welcome to this House. T. Wat:It is a great pleasure to welcome my two guests, Richard Wong and his wife, Grace Wong, to the public gal- lery. Richard is a reputed community leader and has been actively serving the community for decades. He is the national chair of the World Chinese Business Association of Canada and is the honorary chair and adviser of many community organizations, such as the Chinese community cultural centre.

Since 2015, Richard has been the volunteer chair of the all-Canadian, world-record, nationwide simultaneous drumming celebration on Canada Day, which created a new Guinness World Record. Most recently Richard was also instrumental in leading Vancouver Chinatown Lions Club to install a flagpole flying the Canadian flag in Vancouver’s Chinatown. The flag com- memorates the contribution of Chinese-Canadian railroad workers and veterans in our province. Richard’s wife, Grace Wong, is also a familiar face in the community. She’s the chair and adviser for many community organizations, such as SUCCESS.

Grace is also a pioneer of UBC’s international activities and continues to be the driver for academic initiatives in China and across Asia. Please join me in welcoming Richard and Grace Wong. S. Malcolmson:Shadowing me today in the Legislature are two grade 11 students from Nanaimo, Charlotte Taylor and Anneke Schuurman. They have come just last week from being in Ottawa to witness Parliament. So be prepared. There may be some comparisons made. They’ve been part of the National Student Commonwealth Forum.

Last summer they participated in STEM exercises for women — a camp around science, trade, engineering and math for women. These are clearly future leaders and already leaders in their community. Equal Voice central Vancouver Island facilitated them being here today. I’m very grateful to this fantastic organization, working hard to help young women follow the mantra: “Y ou have to see it in order to be it. ” 9656 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

I’m very glad they’re here today. Will the Legislature please make them welcome. S. Furstenau:I also have a shadow today, Melina Suelzle is a grade 12 student at Cowichan High, and she’s graduating very soon. I met Melina a couple weeks ago at the opening of the Cowichan youth mental health centre, celebrating their opening. Melina is a volunteer there. She’s also a staff at the community farm store in Duncan. She hopes to travel in the fall to Germany and New Zealand. She intends to go on to post-secondary studies. She’s not sure yet. History is her favourite subject, and I encourage her to follow her passion.

A. Olsen: Today I stand not to do an introduction so much as to wish someone very special to me a happy birth- day. She’s not able to join us today because she’s in grade 1 at school, or at least I hope she’s at school. I left before she was supposed to be gone. [10:20 a.m.] My daughter Ella is seven years old today. She’s in grade 1 atȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ school. She’s been eagerly anticipating this day for about two months. As it approached, she realized that the anticipation was building, and the other night she had a breakdown. So I hope today is as special a day as she’s been anticipating.

At the same time, I would also like to let the people of this House know that we also have another birthday. The Acting Sergeant-at-Arms shares a birthday with my daughter Ella. So maybe we can all gather and wish them both a very happy birthday today. D. Ashton:I’ d like to thank the Minister of Tourism for introducing a couple of people from the South Okanagan, Glenn Mandziuk and Ellen Walker-Matthews from TOTA. I would also like to extend congratulations to Ellen Walk- er-Matthews for another incredible Giants Head Grind. Thank you very much for your contributions and your hard work on that.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M222 — CONTROL OF FOREIGN FUNDING AND ELECTORAL INFLUENCE ACT A. Wilkinson presented a bill intituled Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act. A. Wilkinson:I move that a bill intituled Control of For- eign Funding and Electoral Influence Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be intro- duced and read for the first time now.

The serious issue of foreign money and influence in elec- tions has been making international headlines recently and, unfortunately, all of us have seen foreign money funding political operatives and campaigns here in British Columbia. That is why it is time for us to take definitive action to ban foreign influence in British Columbia politics. This bill lays out clear steps that will prohibit foreign intrusion into our political life here in British Columbia.

It will ban accepting contributions from any foreign person, government or political organization for any purpose related to an election in British Columbia. Additionally, individuals or organizations will be prohibited from accepting funds from foreign entities intending to influence an election in British Columbia. Finally, foreign-funded individuals and organizations will be prohibited from making false or mis- leading communications for any purpose related to an elec- tion in B.C.

It should be noted that this legislation is focused solely on elections, so bona fide charities like the Nature Conservancy will not be affected whatsoever. I’m hopeful that given recent electoral changes in our funding mechanisms due to the reform of political contri- butions, all parties in this Legislature will be able to support this bill. We want to make sure that British Columbians and only British Columbians remain in charge of the democratic processes. Mr. Speaker:The question is first reading of the bill. Motion approved. A.

Wilkinson:I move that the bill be placed on the order paper of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M222, Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. BILL M223 — PROMPT PAYMENT (BUILDERS LIEN) ACT M. Polak presented a bill intituled Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act. M.

Polak:I move that a bill intituled Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now. This bill will ensure that those who build our province, contractors, subcontractors and workers, are paid in a timely fashion. By setting payment deadlines, we can protect hard- working British Columbians from unexpected and unneces- sary financial hardship and minimize payment disputes.

If passed, this legislation will require owners to pay contractors within 28 days of receiving an invoice and contractors to pay subcontractors seven days thereafter. Ontario passed similar legislation in 2017, while Alberta, Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9657

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are currently examining this issue. Mr. Speaker:The question is first reading of the bill. Motion approved. M. Polak: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M223, Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act, 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. Hon. L. Popham:I seek leave to make a quick introduc- tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. L.

Popham:I looked up, and I was pleasantly sur- prised to see an amazing class from Claremont Secondary School visiting us with their teacher Mr. Graeme Mitchell. Welcome to the chamber. I hope you can stay for question period. I’m sure it’ll be wonderful. [10:25 a.m.] Statements (Standing Order 25B) RICHARD WONG T. Wat:Earlier this month an event took place in the heart of Vancouver’s Chinatown that celebrated not only the com- munity contributions of Richard Wong but also the import- ance of working to build connected communities that celeb- rate cultural diversity.

Richard Wong is one of those people that has a resumé that is almost too impressive to believe. Originally from Hong Kong, a UBC graduate and a banker by trade, Richard has chaired dozens of boards, including the World Chinese Business Association of Canada; taught at local colleges; act- ively led numerous charitable campaigns; and has worked to contribute millions to the fabric of our province. Richard also holds a long list of accolades. He received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and holds a Sen- ate of Canada 150 Medal in recognition of his invaluable ser- vice to Canada.

Richard also holds a spot in theGuinness Book of World Records for helping facilitate the longest unbroken multi- venue drum roll in the world, which was achieved on July 1 last year. An attempt to break that record again is in the works for this coming Canada Day. Earlier this month Richard was presented with the Lions Clubs International’s highest award to a non-Lion, the Medal of Merit, for his philanthropy and spirited service. A flag pole was also installed in the heart of Chinatown with the aid of Richard.

The flag pole, which proudly flies the Canadian flag, commemorates the significant contributions and sacrifice of Chinese-Canadian labour workers as well as First and Second World War veterans. As we near the end of this year’s Asian Heritage Month, it is my pleasure to share the story of Richard Wong and his lasting mark as a visionary leader in the Chinese-Canadian community. EVERYWOMAN’S HEALTH CENTRE AND ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES J. Routledge:Everywoman’s Health Centre was the first freestanding abortion clinic in British Columbia.

It was established by activists from the women’s movement, and I’m proud to say I was one of them. We opened Everywoman’s on November 4, 1988. I remember that day. Anti-choice protesters were swarming the door, trying to prevent our first patients from entering. I remember being part of a human shield to protect them from being pushed, spit on and verbally abused. Supporters serving as human shields became a daily activ- ity, and it was common for staff to arrive for work to find someone chained to the front door. Security dominated the agenda at our board meetings.

We learned how to check the washroom for bombs, and we were urged to look under our cars for bombs before we drove home. I remember discussing what kind of Kevlar vests we should buy for the doctors and how to get them to wear one, even after one of our doctors, Gary Romalis, was shot by a sniper through his kitchen window. Things are very different today. Everywoman’s is in a new location on a second floor, where it’s a lot harder for pro- testers to disrupt its work and shame its patients, and the clinic is welcomed by and fully integrated into the com- munity.

Today Everywoman’s offers a wide range of sexual health services, like birth control, miscarriage management, pap smears and sexually transmitted infection tests, in a set- ting designed to make women feel comfortable and valued. As the abortion debate threatens to be reignited even in this country, I remember when desperate women performed abortions on themselves with coat hangers or went to back street abortionists who might pump Lysol into their uterus. I remember that making abortions illegal doesn’t stop women from ending unwanted pregnancies.

It just stops them from ending them safely. [10:30 a.m.] ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES S. Cadieux: National AccessAbility Week takes place every year, starting on the last Sunday in May. It’s a time 9658 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

when accessibility and inclusion is promoted across com- munities and workplaces and a time to celebrate the contri- butions of people with disabilities. Certainly, 2019 is an exciting time, as Canadians anticip- ate the passage into law of Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. As we know, the B.C. government is embarking on the creation of a similar provincial act. Today more than six million Canadians aged 15 or over, or 22 percent of the population, identify as having a disab- ility.

Y et only 59 percent of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80 percent of Canadians without disabilities. Back many years ago during this week, I had coordinated a day in a wheelchair for MLAs and mayors. Physical access barriers still exist, and there’s much more to do. There is a need for us to rethink how we design and build housing. There are too many playgrounds that children with disabilit- ies cannot access. We have yet to accept that people who are deaf need captioning and ASL.

We forget that people who are blind need Braille signage to be able to get around, and so much more. In B.C., the presidents group and its members like ICBC, Vancity, YVR and others have been leading by example in the employer community to confront barriers to employment for people with disabilities, debunking the myths that contribute to the underrepresentation of work- ers with disabilities. This week is not just about confronting the obvious barri- ers in the built environment, like the lack of ramps or poorly designed buildings that exclude people.

It’s about ensuring people with disabilities have jobs and economic inclusion, and it’s about increased understanding and social inclusion. Those things are equally as important. Last week I had the privilege of attendingRomance, Rela- tionships and Rights.

It was a play developed by self-advo- cates supported by Community Living and the UBC Centre for Inclusion and Citizenship to educate the broader com- munity about the misconceptions about adults with intel- lectual disabilities, challenging us to think differently about how we value, respect and support self-advocates’ rights to romance and intimate relationships. Recognizing the valuable contributions of persons with disabilities is up to all of us. It starts with acknowledging our own unconscious biases, leading with kindness.

In this AccessAbility Week, I encourage all of us to find ways to acknowledge and support the efforts to build awareness, access and inclusion in every community in British Col- umbia. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR METRO V ANCOUVER B. Ma: What is the future of transportation for Metro Vancouver? When the current ten-year Mayors Council transit plan is fully implemented, what’s next for the region? Do you still own a car? Can you take a train to UBC? Is there a rapid transit line to the North Shore? Automated air pods that connect Surrey to Coquitlam?

Growing popula- tions, technology changes and shifting global economies that take climate change into account all mean that the future could look very different from today. We need creative and bold ideas to keep the region on track. TransLink is leading the development of Transport 2050, a new shared regional transportation strategy that will help navigate the next 30 years of transportation. They want to hear from you through what TransLink is calling the largest public engagement in its history.

What’s more is that for first time ever, the provincial government will also be sitting at the table, working with local governments to build that col- lective vision together. When you think about how Metro Vancouver will grow and change over the coming decades, what are your greatest concerns? When you think about how people will move around the region in the future, what sort of transportation system do you think we should use? Answer these questions and more at transport2050.ca. And 2050 might sound far away.

While a 30-year outlook helps us to build our communities far into the future, it also helps produce shorter-term plans that are implemented right away to address needs so that we can keep people moving right across the region. This shared regional strategy will help the governments at all levels navigate, prioritize and develop solutions for a bet- ter, more livable community as we welcome an additional one million people into our region by 2040. This once-in-a- generation opportunity all hinges on a key element, and that is you.

We need to hear from you — from families, students, seniors and people of all walks of life and abilities to tell us what your ideas are for the future of transportation. [10:35 a.m.] DON EV ANS J. Sturdy:Today I rise to pay tribute to Don Evans, who passed away unexpectedly just recently while on a trip to Peru. Don is best known as a Canadian railway preservation- ist. He led the West Coast Railway Association and spear- headed the creation of the West Coast Railway Heritage Park in Squamish, as well as assisting in the development of countless railway museums across the continent.

Don served as a Rotarian for more than 30 years. He was passionate about making a difference across his own and other communities, was Rotarian of the Y ear in 2014 and district 5040 provincial governor in 2018. Tributes from Squamish and the railway community have called Don a locomotive of a man. I don’t think there is a more apt tribute. I don’t think there is a more passion- ate advocate for railway history, education, restoration and celebration.

Most recently Don led the successful West Coast Railway Association initiative to secure the federal cultural spaces fund, which, combined with private donations, will enable Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9659

the association to acquire and upgrade the old B.C. Rail Squamish north yards rail shop. Securing the locomotive and railcar maintenance building for its purpose-built use, located opposite the Squamish railway heritage museum, is critical. We know if it was repurposed, it would never be replaced, and our opportunity to retain our railway heritage would be dealt a devastating blow. Don Evans was a graduate of Harvard Business School and went on to work in the telecommunications industry for over 30 years, including a term as chair of the board of E- Comm 911.

Don was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Medal for his community service and a Caring Cana- dian Award, which was presented in 2016 by the Governor General of Canada. Don’s leadership and passion will be missed. While I obvi- ously can’t speak for Don, I am confident that he would be pushing me, in his quiet way, to take this opportunity to encourage you all to visit the Railway Heritage Park in Squamish, explore the magnificent Royal Hudson and dozens of other engines and cars, celebrate our collective heritage, and to know that Don made a difference. DRESS CODE FOR LEGISLATURE PAGES IN 1977 N.

Simons: It was unusually hot in Victoria in August of 1977, and it was unusual that the Legislature was sitting. But it was. Bennett was the Premier, and Barrett was the Leader of the Opposition. Fifteen-year-old George Cessford was the sergeant of the pages. In those days, pages would get the water for members, pass around notes and, every few minutes or so, run Hansard tapes from the third floor to somewhere in the basement. In those days, they wore 1929-vintage heavy blue serge jackets with 12 buttons cinched right up to under the chin.

One day George asked the Speaker if the pages could dis- pense with their heavy jackets, arguing that the Speaker had even allowed MLAs to take their jackets and ties off. The Speaker said if he and the Clerks had to wear their uniforms, so did the pages. Later George muttered to the reporters that they had a story right under their noses. The pages’ uniforms were archaic and cruel. The NDP House Leader took up the cause, asking the Speaker if the pages could remove their jackets. Unanim- ous consent of the House was required for that motion. The Minister of Finance said nay.

Barrett shouted: “Punish the kids, eh?” The House Leader commented: “What a miserable place. ” George the page held a press availability. “It’s us that’s doing the sweating. They’re okay just sitting there, ” he said. Lisa Stevens, another page sergeant, said: “We’re just suggest- ing that maybe we could do our jobs and look smart without these tunic tops. After all, we’re doing all their work. ” When asked what he was going to do about it, Cessford said, “What can I do?

We have no rights, ” saying that the pages’ ranks were “scum first class” and “scum second class. ” When his interest in politics was noted, they asked what party he would join. He said: “ Any one but the Social Credit. ” Two weeks later members heard that the pages had all been fired. It came up in question period. The Premier, say- ing he knew nothing about the firing, asked the Speaker. As he was being ruled out of order for asking the Speaker a question, the Premier heard someone call him a liar. A hub- bub ensued, and insults flew back and forth.

The Speaker assured members he would look into the matter, and when things died down, he asked the Clerks how much time had been lost. Six minutes was the answer. [10:40 a.m.] Mr. Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent to extend question period for the equal amount of time. Nay, from the government benches and another round of insults back and forth. In the end, the pages were given a reprieve and were allowed to continue to serve until the end of the session. In March of the next year, they got new uniforms. Mr.

Speaker:That two-minute statement was rather fit- ting because, as members will know, today we’ve released our proposed new guidelines and policy with respect to the dress code. Oral Questions COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER M. Polak:Two weeks ago the Minister of Citizens’ Ser- vices said: “Government communications are to be done through my government email. ” But we now know she act- ively uses iMessage and WhatsApp to communicate with her government staff, Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell. How does the minister explain breaking the rules once again? Hon. J.

Sims: I do not use WhatsApp for government business. I have already said that I do have it on my Legis- lature phone and use it for local constituency matters and personal things like connecting with my family and other communication. These unfounded claims are so torqued and taken out of context that they don’t match reality. I would remind the members opposite that non-government constituency busi- ness is not subject to FOI. Mr. Speaker:The House Leader for the official opposition on a supplemental. M. Polak: This has nothing to do with constituency business.

In fact, the WhatsApp group was established, created by Mindy Bansal. Mindy Bansal is the minister’s government staffer. Recognizing what the Privacy Commissioner said: “I 9660 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

can’t emphasize strongly enough, yet again, that it is extremely poor practice to use personal communication tools for public business. ” Clearly, communications with her government staffers, Mindy Bansal and Shannon Rus- sell, are public business. Did the minister direct her assistant to create that Whats- App group? Hon. J. Sims:As I said previously, I do not use WhatsApp for government business. I do use WhatsApp for other com- munications, and when requested in an FOI, anything related with government business is submitted.

For the last two weeks, I have listened to lots of unfounded claims from the other side. They have been torqueing infor- mation and taking it out of context. But let me assure them that I do government business on my government commu- nication devices and others on my legislative. Mr. Speaker:The House Leader for the official opposition on a second supplemental. M. Polak:Well, I’m not sure if the minister is purposely choosing certain words to get around the answer to the ques- tion.

She keeps mentioning “government devices” versus “personal devices. ” We’re talking here about applications, applications that are not tracked through the government email system yet communications that were created — opportunities, group chats — by her government staff. Now, it’s patently ridiculous for the minister to suggest that her government staffers are creating chat groups that involve her and involve them, yet what they’re discussing has nothing to do with government. It makes no sense. She got caught a year ago. She promised to do better. Why is she still breaking the rules and making excuses for it?

Hon. J. Sims: I have stated clearly, and I will do it again, that I do not use government devices. I make sure that I follow the rules that exist. I make sure that I follow the rules that exist for government records. We keep govern- ment records, and we delete transitory records as is required. [10:45 a.m.] I’m very proud of the work that we have done in this area. Let me say that I follow the rules and will continue to do so, and I do document government decisions appropri- ately.

Last month B.C. became the first province in Canada to legislate government’s obligation to create adequate records of key decisions under the Information Management Act. These changes, Mr. Speaker, respond…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Hon. J. Sims: These changes respond directly to recom- mendations made by former B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioners David Loukidelis and Elizabeth Denham. Mr. Loukidelis has thoroughly reviewed B.C. ’s new ap- proach… Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Hon. J.

Sims: …and stated that “the directive and guide- lines are consistent with best practices internationally and domestically…. The directive and guidelines will result in a leading-edge framework for the documentation of govern- ment decisions that meets or exceeds requirements in other jurisdictions around the world. ” While the opposition is focused on gotcha politics, we’re introducing changes that will make B.C. a world leader in documenting government decisions, and I’ll take no les- sons from a group of people that were known for triple- deleting… Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Hon. J.

Sims:…and win at all costs. COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS S. Bond: Well, every day another embarrassing answer from this minister. Apparently, she doesn’t realize that it has nothing to do with the device. It has to do with the process she uses to communicate with her government staff — pure and simple. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said last week: “Using personal…messaging doesn’t oust the public’s right of access to information.

When an access request is made, I expect government officials to produce all respons- ive records for the public body to decide on their release. ” For nearly two years — two years, Mr. Speaker — the official opposition has requested all sent texts and WhatsApp mes- sages from the minister, Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell and has received nothing — zero. Can the minister stand up and at least try to answer this question: why were there zero messages retrieved for two years, and what specific directions did she give her staff about the retention of critical government documents? Hon. J.

Sims: When I hire new staff in my constituency office, they’re given very clear direction that government business is to be done on my government devices and that non-government business that is constituency-related is to be done through my constituency email. I would remind the members opposite that non-govern- ment constituency business is not subject to freedom of information. The Information and Privacy Commissioner Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9661

has confirmed this. That was the case when the members opposite sat on this side of the House. When a freedom- of-information request comes in, I provide all responsive government records. That’s how the system works. I follow the rules. The members opposite are infamous for deleting records after a request came in. That is wrong. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Hon. J. Sims: The opposition continues to make unfoun- ded claims with no evidence to support them. Mr. Speaker:The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental. S. Bond: Well, the minister’s answer is simply ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with her constituency office or the type of device. This is about the conduct of a minister of the Crown. It’s time someone on that side of the House actually stood up and took responsibility for the behaviour of this minister and those answers. No one believes or trusts this minister. [10:50 a.m.] Let’s listen to what the Privacy Commissioner had to say. “I would describe the situation as absurd.

That a minister that is being accused…should be the person…in charge of determining whether or not those allegations are proper…is patently absurd. ” Very strong words from the Privacy Com- missioner, the very commissioner that the AG stood up in the House the other day and said was exactly the person who should be examining this minister’s behaviour. Will the minister today finally do the right thing? Will she release all of her iMessages and her WhatsApp communica- tions with her government staff members Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell? Hon. J.

Sims: For the last two weeks, I have answered a number of questions based on innuendo and allegation. Let me be clear that we maintain the distinction between gov- ernment and non-government work. I use government com- munication channels for government work. The B.C. NDP lawyer has written to Mr. Sorochan with the following facts. There was never…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Members, we are hardly being fair to the minister by not allowing her to speak. At least allow the minister to speak without interruption, please. Hon. J. Sims: Allegations that the lawyer has stated….

There was never any information to suggest that any of the visa applicants were on a security watch list. The so-called cash for access was a charity event for the Vancouver chil- dren’s hospital. The invoice had nothing to do with a website. There is no evidence of donations. The registrar of lobbyists found the claims weren’t true. Even the Information and Pri- vacy Commissioner said that no evidence has been provided of an issue around freedom of information. I would note that one of the letters the members opposite quote from includes a statement from the Office of the Infor- mation and Privacy Commissioner.

For your information, this is a quote. “FIPPA does not apply to MLAs or the office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA offices are not public bodies. ” TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR SOUTH V ANCOUVER ISLAND A. Olsen:The Saanich Peninsula is a vibrant community. It’s a hub of industry. It’s home to businesses of all sizes, powered by innovative entrepreneurs and a skilled labour force. Nearly $1 billion worth of business transactions is gen- erated in Keating, North Saanich and Sidney each year. It creates more than 5,000 jobs for this region and thousands of other spinoffs.

Many of these entrepreneurs are leaders in the global marketplace. People who work in my riding come from all across this region, but as the years pass, it’s becoming more difficult to get around. In every one of my visits to local businesses, the owners and managers have told me their employees need better access to transit services. It’s not a new problem. The message has been consistent over the years and across mul- tiple governments. My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When will the minister make public transportation on the Saanich Peninsula a priority? Hon. C.

Trevena:I appreciate the member’s question. I know that he’s passionate about public transit, as am I. We want to make sure that we are making investments in the transit system to get people out of their cars. At the moment, we’re in Bike to Work Week, and we’re seeing more people getting on bicycles to commute. We do need to make that shift to get people out of cars and onto public transit. We are, at the moment, investing in bus lanes along Douglas Street, out along the Saanich Peninsula, and we are investing record amounts of money in B.C. Transit.

I hope that the member will continue to work with me to identify the areas that really need that investment. Mr. Speaker:The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental. [10:55 a.m.] A. Olsen:Joshua is a roast master at Level Ground. For 12 years, he’s been a transit rider. Unfortunately, he, like many people I’ve spoken to, feels that service on the Saanich Pen- insula is in decline. I think this is hardly the message that we 9662 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

should be sending to people who we want to get out of their cars and onto transit. Recently local leaders have called for free transit, which is open to discussion here in the region. Every time I visit local high schools, students are clear with me that they need and want a robust, convenient, reliable transit system. The cent- ral focus of the town hall last week on the Green New Deal here in Victoria was on public mass transportation. The minister has opened up a south Island transportation study in this region.

Since 2011, we’ve had a very good plan for how to improve regional transit infrastructure and ser- vices. But instead of implementing it, this government has kicked the can down the road once again. That said, some projects, like the $86 million improvement to Highway 14, seem to be getting funding without any problem. To the Minister of Transportation, can the minister explain why the Highway 14 project was more of a priority than investing money more broadly across greater Victoria to improve our regional mass transportation networks? Hon. C.

Trevena:I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit about transportation in the south Island, which was ignored for 16 years under the previous government. Through those 16 years, there has been a massive deteriora- tion. That is why we did launch the south Island transport- ation strategy, which is going to be looking at how we can make sure we integrate transportation. We’re looking at bus transportation. We’re looking at how we can potentially integrate ferries. We’re looking at the rail lines.

We’re looking at our highways — how to make sure that is integrated to better serve the needs of everyone in the south Island. Safety does come first. We are looking at Highway 14. Investments there are going to increase safety. They’re going to increase reliability and address mobility concerns for one of the fastest-growing regions, I think, in the whole of B.C., when you look at the West Shore and what’s hap- pening there. It is not an either-or. It’s working together to make sure we’ve got a strategy for a region that was ignored for 16 years, as well as making immediate investments.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER M. de Jong:Three months ago the Premier received infor- mation containing serious allegations of misconduct by a minister who has already confessed to misconduct previ- ously, and no one over there wants to talk about it. The Pre- mier doesn’t want to talk about it. The Attorney General gets up and lectures the House and provides it with funda- mentally incorrect information about the role of the Privacy Commissioner. He is wrong; he is dead wrong. I’m wondering what the message to citizens is.

What’s the government trying to say to citizens? If you have a complaint about the conduct of a minister, send it in, but it’ll be ignored. The Premier doesn’t want to address this, doesn’t want to talk about it. The Attorney General doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So let’s try the Deputy Premier. Will she show some leadership and initiate a proper investigation into the serious allegations that have been made about the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services? [11:00 a.m.] Hon. J. Sims: I have spoken to these unfounded claims. There is absolutely no evidence to support them.

We main- tain the distinction between government and non-govern- ment work. The B.C. NDP caucus lawyer has written a letter to Mr. Sorochan with the facts. There was never any information to suggest that any of the visa applicants were on a security watch list. The so-called cash-for-access was a charity event for the Vancouver chil- dren’s hospital. The invoice had nothing to do with a web- site. There is no evidence of donation. The registrar of lob- byists found the claims were not true.

Even the Information and Privacy Commissioner said that no evidence has been provided of an issue around freedom of information. Once again, this employee worked for me for six weeks, was an employee of the Legislature, was not an employee of government. There is a sharp distinction. The letter from the B.C. NDP lawyer covers the issue. Mr. Speaker:The member for Abbotsford West on a sup- plemental. M. de Jong: Well, what speaks volumes is the refusal of any member of this executive council to actually stand up and defend this minister. I mean, talk about a new stand- ard in investigative excellence.

Apparently, the Premier’s version of an impartial and exhaustive investigation is to get Geoff Meggs to go to the minister and say: “Did you do anything wrong? No? Well, that’s it. That’s it. End of story. End of issue. ” I’m going to ask the Deputy Premier one more time. She’s heard the nonsense being spewed, the inconsistent stories, the changing stories from the minister, just like every mem- ber of this House.

In the absence of the Premier showing any leadership and in the context of the Attorney General, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, will the Deputy Pre- mier stand up and order an impartial investigation into the conduct of her colleague the Minister of Citizens’ Services? Hon. J. Sims: I have spoken to these claims many times, and I have demonstrated that there is no evidence to support them. Let me make it very clear. This individual did not work for government. The matters raised on the March 4 letter relate to her six-week employment as a constituency assistant.

When the letter was received, the allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support them. Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9663

Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Members, I’m concerned again that we’re losing an opportunity for the opposition to ask more questions. Hon. J. Sims: The matter was dealt with by caucus, as she was not a government employee. That’s appropriate for a human resources matter, as the members opposite well know. They’re choosing to play political games with a human resources matter, and it is shameful. CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU PROTECTION D. Clovechok:Pretty much everybody is aware of the fact that the government has made an absolute mess of the caribou file.

There is anger and resentment in communities across this province over the NDP’s threatened back country closures. [11:05 a.m.] Today I have a petition of over 12,000 signatures, which brings the provincial total to almost 50,000 signatures. Des- pite admitting publicly to severely bungling the process, the Premier continues to pick and choose who will help shape important decisions in this province that affect people’s live- lihoods and their families.

A question to the Minister of Forests: why have the Col- umbia River–Revelstoke and Shuswap regions been shut out of any direct, meaningful and appropriate consultation? Hon. D. Donaldson:I’m very happy to talk about a sub- ject matter that is of concern to people across the entire province, and that is, protecting caribou and protecting jobs in the province of B.C. Now, the member asks about public participation, and he well knows there was a public meeting in Revelstoke on the

section 11 agreement, the bilateral agreement that creates the framework for caribou recovery plans in B.C. As well, staff of my ministry met with members of the local govern- ment in Revelstoke during that session. The

section 11 agreement is just the start of caribou recov- ery herd plans from around the province that will be under- taken over the next two years. Mr. Speaker:Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supple- mental. D. Clovechok:The meeting that the minister refers to was a public meeting. The mayor of Revelstoke and the mayor of Sicamous were completely shut out of any private mem- bers’ meeting. Stakeholders and community leaders contin- ue to be left out of the process as this government dictates its decisions from Victoria. To quote Mayor Gary Sulz of Revelstoke: “Typing up on- line submissions just doesn’t cut it.

Our voices need to be heard loud and clear and face to face. ” Why does the minister continue to block local community leaders from participating in face-to-face meetings? Hon. D. Donaldson: Nobody is blocking meetings between local government and my ministry when it comes to caribou. As I said already, the

section 11 draft agreement means that there will be caribou herd recovery plans put into place over the next two years. Stakeholders will be involved. Local government will be involved in those discussions. My ministry staff is going to visit the areas that that applies to. Let’s just review how we got here. We got here because of an imminent threat order by the federal government. When the opposition was in government, they did not take this seriously. We were at risk of losing thousands of jobs and having that unilateral decision imposed on us by the federal government. G.

Kyllo:To quote Mayor Terry Rysz from Sicamous: “We need to be at the table when they have these conversations because of the social and economic impact of these decisions. It’s incredibly important that we’re part of the con- versation. ” People in the Shuswap feel disrespected and ignored by this government. They have significant concerns around back country closures, but these concerns are falling on deaf ears. Will the Minister of Forests conduct real consultation in the Shuswap and stop imposing the Premier’s plan for signi- ficant job losses? Hon. D.

Donaldson:Well, of course consultation will occur through the

section 11 draft agreements. There will be meetings between ministry staff and local government offi- cials and other stakeholders, back country recreation users, to hear their concerns and to develop herd plans together over the next two years. That’s what our government is doing. We’re engaging with people to come up with a plan that protects caribou and pro- tects jobs. Mr. Speaker:The member for Shuswap on a supplemen- tal. G. Kyllo:Well, this government continues to ignore the knowledge and on-the-ground experience of stakeholders and community leaders.

The NDP response continues to be too little, too late. [11:10 a.m.] The Premier has still not brought local officials directly to the table to discuss the potential impact of these policies. Will the minister at least pause until people in the Columbia- Shuswap region are appropriately consulted? Hon. D. Donaldson:Perhaps the member should read the draft

section 11 agreement that’s been on line for over a 9664 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

month now. It talks about a two-year process to develop herd plans in his area and the area of Columbia-Revelstoke. If you’re talking about kicking the can down the road…. This is a government that ignored the federal government’s imminent threat order. They knew for three years that this kind of disaster could be upon us. We’ve taken that bull by the horns. We’ve made sure that B.C. is at the table. B.C. has been at the table on the partnership agreement, been at the table on the federal agreement. We want a made-in-B.C. solution that protects caribou and protects jobs. That’s what we’re working towards.

We’re going to make sure this plan is in place for the people of B.C., for the com- munities, for First Nations, for the caribou and for jobs. [End of question period.] Petitions M. Morris:I’ d like to present a petition signed by over a third of the population of the district of Mackenzie on behalf of the Mackenzie Chamber of Commerce, asking for a socio- economic assessment prior to the finalization of the

section 11 and partnership agreement, regarding the caribou recov- ery program. D. Clovechok:I rise here today to present a petition of 12,000 signators on behalf of the district of Sicamous and the city of Revelstoke. The Community Charter speaks to the consultation on matters of mutual interest and identifies provincial legisla- tion and policy for which ministers responsible must consult with local governments, through the Union of B.C. Muni- cipalities. Back-country closures pose an immediate threat to the sustainability and future growth of our communities.

We’re asking that you extend the consultation timeline, at a minimum, to the fall, allowing for a comprehensive and transparent socioeconomic impact assessment and the employment of a Columbia-Shuswap liaison in term. We ask that you provide all stakeholders a seat at the table. Tabling Documents Hon. S. Robinson:I have the honour to present theB.C. Assessment 2018 Annual Service Plan Report. Reports from Committees PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE S. Bond: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, summariz- ing the committee’s activities in 2018-2019.

I move that the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. S. Bond: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. S. Bond: In moving the adoption of the report, I’ d like to make some brief comments. The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts does critical work to review the effect- iveness of public administration and the use of public funds. We do this by examining the reports of the Auditor General on whether or not government is meeting accounting prin- ciples and standards and whether its programs are operating effectively, economically and efficiently.

The committee has had a very busy agenda. In 2018-2019, it reviewed a total of 14 reports from the Auditor General on a wide range of issues that impact British Columbians across the province. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the Auditor General and her team for their detailed analyt- ical work and advice.

I also want to express our appreciation for the work of the comptroller general and his staff and the many dedicated senior public servants who appeared before the committee to answer questions about the administration of public programs and how we can make them more effect- ive and efficient in serving British Columbians. We would not be able to do our work without the excellent support provided by the Clerk of Committees, Kate Ryan- Lloyd, and her staff — Ron Wall, Lisa Hill, Mary Newell, Stephanie Raymond and Mariana Novis.

I’m grateful for the hard work and the dedication of the members of the committee, who do their homework and ask very probing questions. I especially want to express my gratitude to the Deputy Chair, the member for Esquimalt- Metchosin. It’s a pleasure to work with her. She does an excellent job. She may also want to make some comments about the report. M. Dean:Thank you so much to the member for Prince George–Valemount for all of her words about the report and the work of the committee as well.

As the Deputy Chair, it is an honour to be able to rise today to thank the Chair here for providing her leadership, for making sure that we stay on track, for making sure that we get our work done and also for moving us forward and making progress, as we’re going to be implementing some more follow-up procedures as well. [11:15 a.m.] I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clerks and everybody in the Clerk’s office. There’s a lot of organizing and a lot of logistics in all the work in this com- mittee.

They’ve produced a very thorough report of the work of this committee that I recommend everybody has a look at. I’ d like to also thank all of the staff across all of the min- istries — this work covers all of government’s activities — for all the work that they do and also their commitments to ongoing improvements and continuously improving. Thanks as well to the Office of the Auditor General, her whole team. They show so much commitment, and they’re always very Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9665

thorough in their work. I’ d like to recognize the comptroller general for his support for the work of this committee and, finally, to thank all of the committee members, for every- body’s work is so diligent and so respectful as well. I’m very proud to be part of an effective committee of the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker:The question is the adoption of the report. Motion approved. Petitions L. Throness:I’ d like to present a petition on behalf of the member for Abbotsford-Mission and myself on behalf of 492 of our constituents.

Due to the many power outages experienced by the residents of the Morice Valley, Hem- lock Valley, Lake Errock and Deroche, they’re petitioning this House to require B.C. Hydro to provide a source of reliable power for them. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:With the time remaining this morn- ing, I call in this chamber committee stage on Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Min- istry of Attorney General.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 11:19 a.m. The Chair:Section 6 was stood down. So the committee will get back to the debate on

section 6, as the amendment was moved by the member for Shuswap. On the amendment to

section 6(continued). [11:20 a.m.] J. Martin:I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 30, intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, a subamendment to the amendment to

section 6, standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Shuswap, as follows: [That the amendment be amended in paragraph 6 (c), by striking out “subsections ” and substituting “subsection” , by striking out “(3)” and substituting “(2.1)” , and by deleting subsection (4).] On the subamendment. Hon. H. Bains:I think we had a discussion on this before. There has been a lot of discussion on this issue. Let me say this. I oppose this amendment, or subamendment to the amendment, because no amendment is needed.

I think that the way the bill was presented served the purpose of what we’re trying to protect here. I think we need to understand what we are talking about here. We’re talking about a uniqueness of an industry, which is the construction industry. It’s not like a factory, where employees go to work every day and they’re there for six months, a year or thereafter. Construction projects are of a limited, limited time frame. Some of them are two years. Some of them are three years. Some of them are longer. Those members that we are talking about here…. It’s not about the unions.

It’s about members, who may be a member of one union and wish to change the membership to a different union. What we are saying, in our bill, is that because of the uniqueness, because of the short period of projects, those members should be allowed to change union certification every year, because of the uniqueness of the industry, where- as everything else, like a factory and a care home, involves people that are there regularly, year after year. There it makes sense to have some stability and certainty, as the panel recommended.

Their rate should only be allowed a third year if the collective agreement is three years or more. In construction, we’re saying that we keep it the way it is today. Today membership can change unions every year. The amendment that you are proposing, the subamend- ment you are proposing to the amendment, goes to the heart of that issue. I’m going to say that I will not stand for the subamendment. A. Weaver:I will rise shortly to speak to the amendment as amended through the subamendment. In my view, the subamendment is really technical in nature.

It arises from legislative drafters reflecting upon the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Shuswap. As such, I find this a very minor subamendment to the original amendment. I will support the subamendment and look forward to dis- cussing the amendment as subamended shortly. [11:25 a.m.] Subamendment approved on the following division: YEAS — 44 Furstenau Weaver Olsen Cadieux de Jong Bond Polak Wilkinson Lee Stone Coleman Wat 9666 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Reid Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Johal Redies Rustad Milobar Sturdy Clovechok Shypitka Hunt Throness Tegart Stewart Sultan Gibson Isaacs Thomson Larson Foster NAYS — 40 Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Malcolmson Glumac On the amendment as amended. [11:30 a.m.] A.

Weaver:I rise to take my place to speak to the amend- ment that was brought forward by the member for Shuswap. As we know, Bill 30 is a unique piece of labour legislation. It’s one of the first pieces of labour law that has received the broad support of members in this House. Over the last 30 years, we’ve watched as labour policy in this province swings back and forth like a pendulum as government changes and as ideological fights play out. Putting an end to these pendu- lum swings, which create instability and division, was essen- tial for our caucus.

We further believe, as a caucus, in sup- porting evidence-based policy that ensures the protection of workers. In this regard, the work of the expert review panel was essential. They made balanced and thoughtful recommenda- tions as to how we could and should update our labour code in the province of British Columbia. The amendment before us today, brought forward by the member for Shuswap, addresses one of the very few areas where what the gov- ernment brought forward in the legislation before us differs from what the panel recommended.

Over the last few months, my colleagues, staff and I engaged with numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the various forces at play in this issue of labour policy. What we learned through extensive con- sultation engagement is that construction labour law in the province of British Columbia is particularly unique. Y et my colleagues and I know that we are not the experts.

What rose from our engagement is the realization as to how essential it is to not simply pass the legislation as it is amended and move on from these issues, but rather to take the time to look deeper into construction labour law. There are a number of challenges facing the construc- tion industry that we firmly believe need to be explored further, including, of course, the question raised in the amendment before us concerning when and how raids can and should be allowed for. The panel itself acknow- ledged there are construction-specific issues that relate to the changing labour code. The B.C.

Green caucus understands the profoundly unique nature of the construction industry. There are a num- ber of examples that can be given. We know, for example, that in public sector unions or public sector sites, often people are in the same place for their job — on the construc- tion site. We know that safety is often front and centre in deliberations on the site. We know that workers move from site to site to site. We know that that is a very different type of working environment than, say, a stationary environment where you work in the same place. We understand the special challenges that exist.

We understand that there are unions like CMAW , like IUOE and others which actually are end-to-end project unions. We know, also, that present rules within the B.C. Federation of Labour do not allow unions to raid other unions in the Fed- eration. So in the spirit of fairness and openness and trans- parency, this, to us, must be collectively addressed. We understand that the construction sector needs a review. We understand that changes need to be there.

But we also understand that the terms of reference of the panel pre- cluded them from singling out this sector to actually provide a separate report and suite of recommendations for the con- struction sector. In our view, we accept the numerous voices that told us that what they were seeing — whether you’re a representative from a union like CLAC or a union like IUOE or a union that wasn’t in the building trade, represented by the B.C. Fed — is that they’re looking for a fair and level playing field.

That is exactly what we’re looking for: one that’s grounded in evidence, not in ideology. [11:35 a.m.] I come to this again, and I say this. IUOE, an end-to-end organizing union…. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that they go to a construction site and recognize that on that con- struction site, the workers there are being represented by an additional union, and that environment is not safe. Or, per- haps, there’s a multitude of unions. The IUOE, right now, is prohibited from raiding into those areas if said unions there already are members of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Now I come to the nurses union, when there was concern within the licensed practition nurses with respect to them being represented by the health employers union. The con- cern was such that the licensed practition nurses felt that Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9667

they would be better represented by the nurses’ union. A raid happened. The response, of course, was that the nurses’ uni- on was kicked out of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Is that fair? Is that actually what we’re aspiring to here in the province of British Columbia? No. I think we’re aspiring to fair and transparent workplaces — that is, fair for all, not just for the chosen few and not just for those who have stood forward and actually have stronger influence, perhaps, with government than others.

That is why we are calling on the government to undertake a comprehensive, independent review of the construction sector, in addition to supporting the amendment before us now. There does not appear, in British Columbia, to have been a comprehensive review of this industry since 1998. I’m not counting the kind of — what I would argue is a very one- sided — so-called review that occurred in the early 2000s, when the Liberals took over back then, because the building trades weren’t invited to the table. And I’m not counting a kind of self-reflective review that’s also happened.

A proper fundamental review of how labour policy should be applied in the construction sector, I think, is long overdue in this province. We know that in other provinces in the country, like Ontario, there is a hybridization of labour laws: one that treats stationary workplaces and one that treats transient workplaces, places where you’re not on the same site every day. We cannot expect the same labour policy to apply to stationary and transitory workplaces.

The fact that we’re trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, to take bits and pieces of what the independent expert commit- tee has recommended, is troubling to the caucus, because we appeal to experts for our advice. We know, and we understand, and we heard from the construction sector that many of the sweeping changes that had been brought historically hurt that sector. We appreciate that. We understand that. We heard that. That is why we urge the government to commission a further sectoral review of labour laws in the construction sector. We support an inde- pendent review.

We support a timely independent review, one with short time frames, one that looks at the unique realities of this sector of the economy and expands on the recommendations of the current Labour Relations Code Review Panel. In my view and in my caucus’s view, by doing this, we can ensure that we bring forward policy to this table that does create a fair, balanced, level playing field grounded in evidence, not ideological or historical positions. I think, ulti- mately, that’s what most workers want. They want the oppor- tunity for a fair and open workplace.

Until such time as this separate review can take place, we felt it was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel and, therefore, support the amend- ment to ensure its language is reflected in this legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of this House would be open and pre- pared to support additional changes. Our caucus is. We’ve heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered, and we want to ensure that a pro- cess is established that gets politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, we believe, as a caucus, that we must end this ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to take place in our province for far too long. It is not about union versus employer. It is not about worker versus employer. It is about doing what’s right to create a fair and balanced work environment for all workers in British Columbia. I think that that only will happen if we actually target this industry with a separate, independent, thoughtful review of the construc- tion sector. [11:40 a.m.] Hon. H. Bains:I’m standing to oppose this amendment for a very good reason.

The reason is, as is being alluded to, that the construction industry is different. If we really under- stand what the construction industry is, then we will not put this amendment in. In the construction industry, most pro- jects last two years, three years, and some longer. That’s why there’s a distinction made in the raiding period. The member talked about fairness. It is about fairness, what is being proposed in the bill originally, and this amend- ment creates unfairness. How is it fair, what our bill is pro- posing? There are one or two unions that are opposing our proposal.

All other construction unions are supporting that. What does that say to you, when we talk about workers? It is all about workers. Why do we want to restrict those in construction, who are there only for two-year, three- year or four-year projects? They’re moving from site to site. They need an opportunity to change membership if they wish to do that. I understand all the other workplaces, where there’s con- tinuous work year after year after year. To bring certainty, the panel recommended that if their collective agreement is three years or longer, then you can raid on the third year and every year thereafter.

In this particular case, that’s why they said July and August are the open season, rather than as in the other sectors, where it is in on the seventh and eighth month of their col- lective agreement. They understood that there’s a unique- ness. There’s a difference in the construction industry from the rest of the workplaces. That’s why they said the July and August raiding period rather than the seventh and eighth months, because in July and August most people are work- ing. That will reflect the true wishes of the majority. Talk about fairness.

The unions that are supporting this amendment, that are lobbying for this amendment, will have the same opportunity. Their members will have the same opportunity to change membership, if they wish to do that, every year, under our proposal. This is restricting them. This will restrict them to the third year, when their project will be almost over. They will not have that opportunity to move. How is that democratic? We talk about fairness. We talk about democracy here. We talk about membership. I think we’re completely missing the point here. The point 9668 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

is: why are you denying those members the opportunity to change membership every year, when their projects may last only two or three years? It’s the same opportunity applied to the IUOE, the Operating Engineers, the Ironworkers, who- ever. They have the opportunity to change unions if they wish to. The fact that they have a pact that they don’t raid each other is their business. The membership is what we are talking about here. Why are the members of CLAC not allowed to change union membership, if they wish to do that, every year? Does any- body have any answer to that? I haven’t heard any.

That’s why this amendment makes no sense. Y ou’re denying those members a right to choose, a right to association. That is their democratic right. That is their constitutional right. We’re denying them that. The amendment makes no sense, and it is technically flawed as well. I want the leader of the Green Party also, I hope, to understand this. Let me talk about how it is flawed.

The language of the amendment creates a question about whether open raid periods would be permitted in the con- tinuation years of an agreement that has, initially, three years or less — for example, in the fourth, fifth, sixth stressor years on a three-year agreement. [11:45 a.m.] The intention of the government and the review panel was that the raid would be permitted in those years. However, the draft amendment creates some real confusion on whether this would occur, because the proposed subsections 19(1)(

a) and 19(2)(

a) reference the collective agreement but do not then include the words “or any continuation” as Bill 30 does in both section (1)(

b) and section (1.1)(b). So this would really be, in my view, an error on the part of the drafters. I would encourage that this should be really looked at, because otherwise, you would be denying those members the right to choose or right to raid every year after the third year. I don’t believe that is the intent of the amendment here. If that’s the case, you’re denying members of those unions who wish to change, even after the third year, in a collect- ive agreement that is three years or longer. How is that fair?

I don’t think the members who are supporting the amend- ment really looked through this — what the impact is on the members that you are trying to bring this amendment for. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here. This is denying the members their democratic rights that are enshrined in the Canadian constitution — a right to mem- bership, a right to association. That’s why I say that this amendment makes no sense. It’s technically flawed, and it should be defeated. A. Weaver:I just wanted to rise and address a couple of the comments there.

I do appreciate the minister, and I think we’re very well served in British Columbia by the minis- ter, who is very fair and open with his deliberations, and so forth. I would say that, in listening to the minister’s speech there, he said a few things that were flags to me. He talked about the fact that this was stopping workers from having a right to…. It does no such thing. What we’re saying is that the expert panel recommendations were there as a suite. They were not there to pick and choose. We recognize and we’ve supported all of the recommendations. The important successorship changes — we supported that.

In this particular case, what we’re saying is that we don’t think the expert panel did the work that needs to be done to carve out the construction sector and to look at that independently. Now, the minister has suggested that he has the solution. That’s his view, and that’s fine. It’s his prerogative to have that. Our position is that we don’t have that information. We don’t have that information on which to make a decision in this area, because I suspect that the construction industry would have a lot more that might have to change if we actually went to a review.

I honestly don’t think the construction industry in the province of British Columbia has been served well. I don’t think they’ve been served well for many, many years. I come back to the issue that if there are many sites, those will be represented by a multitude of other unions. But if you are a trade union, a building trade, you cannot raid into those uni- ons. The minister says that that’s their right. It is their right, but it’s also our right as British Columbians to ensure that the playing field is level.

This is not about trying to create an us versus them — us versus CLAC or us versus Unifor or us versus the nurses. This is about recognizing that labour law must represent the diversity of views that are out there and be inclusive and respectful and grounded in evidence that will probably not get what everyone wants, but it builds forth to a policy that we can actually grow from, as opposed to pendulum swinging back and forth. [11:50 a.m.] That is one of our singular objectives. It is to ensure stabil- ity, consistency and certainty.

We’re not convinced, and cer- tainly no evidence was put for us, that with the change to the summer months, in fact, that will be maintained with an annual, as opposed to the existing recommendation within the panel. With that, I’ll take my place. [11:55 a.m.] Amendment as amended approved on the following division: YEAS — 44 Furstenau Weaver Olsen Cadieux de Jong Bond Polak Wilkinson Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Reid Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9669

Johal Redies Rustad Milobar Sturdy Clovechok Shypitka Hunt Throness Tegart Stewart Sultan Gibson Isaacs Thomson Larson Foster NAYS — 40 Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Malcolmson Glumac

Section 6 as amended approved on division. Hon. H. Bains:I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:58 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr.

Speaker:This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m. Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 22; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. The committee met at 11:22 a.m. On

section 3(continued). J. Rustad:Day 2. We’ll see if we get to day 3, see how things go. I just want to ask on the corporate relations component. Particularly, there is the discussion in this section, I believe, if I’m reading this

section right, where it talks about effective controlling interest. I’m just wondering how that works with a publicly traded company, where the largest block may only be 5, 10 or 20 percent of a company, in terms of how that control would be asserted or measured within the ministry. [The bells were rung.] The Chair:Oh, wow. Geez, Members. We just got going. I’ll put this committee into recess, as a vote has been called in the main chamber. The committee recessed from 11:24 a.m. to 11:33 a.m. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Hon. D. Donaldson:There is no change in this

section about the rules regarding how effective control is defined. There are rules around how corporations must report to us around effective control. It’s not a quantitative measure. It’s more of a qualitative measure from the perspective of who has voting rights, who controls the election or appointment of directors. Those are the kinds of factors that are there. But the important point is that there’s no change from the exist- ing legislation when it comes to this part. J. Rustad:The reason I ask about the control issue and this piece that’s in

section 3 is because if there is a change of con- trol, it could trigger a potential review or potential require- ments by the minister to meet community interests, which we’ll get into later in the bill. [11:35 a.m.] As it goes through here, it talks about: “For the purposes of this Part, a corporation is a subsidiary of another corpor- ation if any of the following applies: (

a) the corporation is controlled by the other corporation…. ” Well, as the minis- 9670 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

ter likely knows, whether it’s pension funds or whether it is hedge funds or all kinds of investments side…. Even just average investors could come in and potentially change the composition and could then have the ability to elect dir- ectors. They may bring in, by proxy, many other votes that could ultimately lead to the change in terms of who is the board chair and who effectively controls the board. What I’m trying to get some clarity from the minister on is how that sort of structure plays into this bill in terms of the intent of these changes that are being talked about.

I get the situation that if company A is being purchased by company B and there’s control, that’s one situation. But if it is just a play, whether it’s markets or market shares or a proxy fight within a particular company, does that trig- ger, or is it the intent of this act to trigger, the minister’s review and the minister’s potential decisions around the community interests and other components that are men- tioned in the bill? Hon. D. Donaldson:The intent is not to review every time, necessarily, that there’s a change in control, or at least to make determinations that way.

If there has just been a simple change that doesn’t increase concentration of market power or tenure, then there won’t be the necessity to conduct the kinds of provisions that are in the remainder of this pro- posed act. However, if the increase in holdings in one con- glomeration is with one firm, then it might be reviewable under the rest of the provisions. But the intent isn’t…. If it’s just a simple change of control that doesn’t result in a con- centration of market power or tenure, then the remainder of the provisions won’t be triggered. [11:40 a.m.] J. Rustad:Just following up on the question….

Sorry for belabouring this point, but I am trying to get my head around what this means. I guess the scenario that I was thinking about is a situation where the Ontario pension fund, let’s say, just as an example, were to buy an interest in company A, and then at some point they take an interest in company B. Because of where the share structure is, maybe they start appointing or having influence on it. There’s no relation between the two companies, A or B. They both have tenure. But there’s a structural change at a board level or at an ownership level that could potentially trigger in here.

I’m wondering if the intent of this bill is designed solely around companies that are operating for the purpose of milling or processing fibre in British Columbia or whether these provisions could be triggered even if it’s an overarch- ing, unrelated entity that may be investing in the forest sector but may end up, because of its structures and the way things go, with the ability to have a controller, say, on a board. Hon. D. Donaldson:I suppose a way to typify it is that it doesn’t matter what the nameplates are on the door.

We’re not interested in the actual internal structure of a corpor- ation in this section. What we’re interested in is: has the change in control impacted forest tenure concentration? What we’re especially interested in is: does the effective dir- ector end up directing both companies, are they playing an active role in managing, and is that causing anti-competitive behaviour? J. Rustad:I think, potentially, just one more question on this.

Just to be clear, then, if a company that has tenure in British Columbia is purchased by another company that has no tenure in British Columbia, that would not trigger provi- sions within this act, because it wouldn’t change the concen- tration? I guess “concentration of tenure” are the words that the minister had used. If there’s no change in that, then are there no provisions within this act? The scenario I’m just envisioning is that company A decides that they want to sell. Company B comes in and wants to purchase them. Company B doesn’t have any other forestry interests in British Columbia.

They may have forestry interests elsewhere — Europe, Alberta or the United States — but they come in and purchase company A. Company A may or may not have a level of concentration of tenure above the threshold that has been established. So if there’s no change in that threshold, then it wouldn’t matter about the corporate structure change. I just want to make sure that that’s how I understand this. Hon. D. Donaldson:The scenario that the member posed is correct. It’s about B.C. market concentration. Noting the hour, I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m. Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the chair. The committee met at 11:20 a.m. On Vote 15: ministry operations, $490,716,000 (continued). T. Redies:Thank you to the Attorney General and to the ICBC staff for giving us an opportunity to ask some ques- tions. Some of our questions were questions that we asked in Tuesday, May 28, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9671

the Finance estimates, and we’re now following up with the Attorney General. On February 7, 2019, it was announced that ICBC had lost $860 million in the first nine months of this year, and far from meeting its planned loss of $684 million in fiscal 2018-19, ICBC would record a loss of $1.18 billion instead. My question to the Attorney. When did the Attorney first become aware that ICBC was not meeting its financial fore- cast? [The bells were rung.] Hon. D. Eby:Saved by the bell, hon. Chair. The Chair:This committee will take a recess. The committee recessed from 11:24 a.m. to 11:34 a.m. [M.

Dean in the chair.] Hon. D. Eby: Just prior to the response…. I’m joined by staff from the Ministry of the Attorney General and from ICBC assisting me today. Phil Leong, the interim CFO; Nic- olas Jimenez, the CEO; Lindsay Matthews, VP , public affairs — all from ICBC. Then, from Ministry of the Attorney General: Carmen Zabarauckas, executive director, justice services branch, and David Hoadley, CFO from the ministry.

Also, Doug Scott and Richard Fyfe are here again from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the deputy and ADM of Crowns, not respectively — with respect but not respectively. [11:35 a.m.] The dates that we’ve been able to cobble together here…. I say that because it’s not something that we prepared. So if I need to refine this, I’ll let the members know. As best as we can determine on the spot, it was January 7, or early January anyway, that ICBC advised the Ministry of Attorney General that a revised forecast was being developed.

On January 24, the ICBC board approved the revised Q3 forecast, and then, on February 7, ICBC announced the revised Q3 forecast. S. Bond:A fairly significant deviation. From the Attorney General’s perspective specifically, did the Attorney General discuss the miss with the Finance Minister and the president of ICBC? What actions specifically did this minister and this ministry do? What actions did they take to actually deter- mine the extent of the challenge? What did the Attorney General do to assure himself that for ICBC, the forecasts were correct? A pretty significant miss on ICBC’s part.

What exactly did the Attorney General and the ministry do? [11:40 a.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, forecasting is an important part of what we ask ICBC to do in terms of planning budgets. The Ministry of Finance has initiated a review among all Crowns around how they do their budgets and forecasting. ICBC is included in that review. Separately from that, this ministry, at my direction, com- missioned PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, as well as, then, an independent actuary to do a review of PwC’s work because of the incredible unhappiness, I guess I can say, that I had about the state of play in terms of forecasting.

The PwC review was done of the forecast, and then there was a review of the review to make sure that the numbers were reliable. The reason for that was that going into the election, the projected loss at ICBC was $144 million, and then coming out of the election, just literally a few months later, the projected loss was $1.36 billion. So when the mem- ber talks about missing the mark in excess of $1 billion, I think that that is a fairly significant miss. Then the projection for the second year was a $25 million loss, which obviously was nowhere in the realm of reality.

This was produced by the previous administration. Obviously, projections are an issue. They obviously can be manipulated for political ends. I say that because in Septem- ber of 2016, the then critic for the opposition, Adrian Dix, tried to sound the alarm about the fact that ICBC had said that they were going to have to increase rates more than 40 percent to make up for projected losses. He was assured at the time that, of course, that wasn’t true. Of course, it was true, as we discovered, much to our dismay, on taking the reins of government.

We have had to take some very significant changes in order to get things under control at ICBC. I can assure the members that all of the reviews, three separate reviews now — PwC, an external actuary and the Ministry of Finance review — have found that ICBC is using reasonable industry-standard forecasting in their forecasts. In each quarter, they have an external actuary, a firm called Eckler, that does a review of their projections to provide the best possible information to government about the trends.

I hope that’s helpful to the members in terms of assuring them about what we’re doing to try to ensure that govern- ment receives accurate forecasts. T. Redies: Of course, I’ll have to avail myself of the Hansards, but I was just quite curious, actually, with some of the numbers that the AG was flying around there. Par- ticularly, he spoke about the forecast changing within a few months after the election results from $147 million — I think he said — to $1.3 billion. In fact, actually, in the September 2017 budget update, I think the Attorney General will find that the forecast at the time for ICBC….

The losses were $225 million. In Novem- ber, they were $364 million, and eerily similar to this year, in February, it was announced that it was going to lose $1.3 billion. [11:45 a.m.] In fact, actually, one of the challenges we have on this side of the House, in terms of the forecasts, is that it appears that ICBC, notwithstanding its process and all of the folks that it 9672 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, May 28, 2019

has looking at its numbers, seems to be unable to get even close to any of its forecasts. So I guess this is the issue that we are pursuing because, of course, the government is also indicating that ICBC is going to more or less break

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190528am-Hansard-n263
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190528am Hansard n263
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	61fcf96df80b80ec99825ac5443a785f1b156314

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