British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, November 4, 2015

20151104pm-Hansard-v31n1

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 31, Number 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Personal Statements .............................................................................................................................................................. 10047 Apology for comments made in the House V .

Huntington Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 10047 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 10049 George Ferguson S. Gibson Tae kwon do B. Ralston Conservation offi cers D. Barnett Bird migration in Fraser River delta V . Huntington Port Moody branch of Royal Canadian Legion L. Reimer Elizabeth Fischer G.

Heyman Oral Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10051 Information and Privacy Commissioner report implementation and release D. Routley Hon. A. Virk C. James S. Simpson Business plan for Massey Tunnel replacement project G. Heyman Hon. T. Stone Human Rights Tribunal ruling on conduct of College of Veterinarians H. Bains Hon. N. Letnick MyEducation B.C. information system R. Fleming Hon. M. Bernier Medical fees for seniors requiring driving assessments G. Holman Hon. S.

Anton Children and Y outh Committee meeting cancellations M. Farnworth J. Th ornthwaite Orders of the Day Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ........................................................................................................................... 10056 B. Ralston Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10056 Bill 39 — Provincial Immigration Programs Act (continued) M. Elmore Hon. S. Bond

Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 10062 Bill 39 — Provincial Immigration Programs Act Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10062 Bill 35 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015 S. Simpson Hon. S. Bond G. Heyman H. Bains

WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Personal Statements APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE V . Huntington: I would like to apologize to members of the House for my unparliamentary language of yes- terday. Madame Speaker: Th ank you, Member. Introductions by Members Hon. N. Letnick: Indeed, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the Consular Corps of British Columbia to our House. Th e Consular Corps, based mainly in Vancouver, consists of consular officers resident in the province, representing 82 countries.

Today we are pleased to have representations from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Switzerland, Th ailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Would you please help me make them feel very welcome. [1335] Also joining us in the House is Mr. Pavel Hrnčíř, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Canada. Would you please help the ambassador feel very welcome as well. J.

Shin: Today I’m very pleased to introduce to the House a very special delegation from British Columbia’s tae kwon do community. Tae kwon do is a full-contact martial art from Korea that is now celebrated around the world as the most-practised martial art. In our province, over 10,000 British Columbians regularly engage in this sport at over 70 registered clubs and academies. I was honoured to be warmly received at Kukkiwon, the tae kwon do headquarters, along with my colleagues the members for Surrey-Whalley and Surrey–Green Timbers, when we visited Korea last week.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Kukkiwon and the gov- ernment of South Korea for not only their kind recep- tion but also for sending us their top athletes to perform at the Korean festival here in B.C. for two years in a row. Leading the group here today is my very, very good friend, master Tony Kook, with four academies in North Vancouver, West Vancouver, E ast Vancouver and Por t Moody. Tony has made B.C. proud as 11-time provin- cial champion as well as our two-time national champion.

Master Kook is also relentlessly engaged in our commun- ity, serving as the director of the Korean Cultural Heritage Society and as the elected vice-president of both the B.C. Taekwondo Federation and Canada tae kwon do federation. Also joining us in the gallery are master Huy Phan of Tri-City Taekwondo in Coquitlam, who is qualifi ed with a fourth-degree black belt; master Milad Bahrami of Port Moody Taekwondo in Port Moody, with a fourth-degree black belt; master Y oung Suh of OMAC Taekwondo in New Westminster, with a sixth-degree black belt. So I think we’re in good hands here today.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Hon. M. de Jong: On a day when a new Prime Minister is installed, perhaps a future Prime Minister has joined our human family. Barinder Bhullar has toiled faithfully in various branches of government for many years. Today at 11:28, he and his wife, Seema’s, fi rst son, Maeva Singh Bhullar, was born. Maeva means the fruit of hard work. I’ll let his mother and father explain the signifi cance of the name, but this chamber, I know, will want to welcome Maeva and congratulate his very proud parents. S.

Fraser: It’s been an honour to be serving as the op- position Aboriginal Relations critic and spokesperson for many years. I had the honour and opportunity to work with some great people and some wonderful or- ganizations. I see Paul Lacerte is in the audience here to- day. He’s the executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Th is is an organization that does amazing work. Th ere are 25 diff erent centres spread out across the province, and they provide wonderful opportunities, especially for aboriginal youth. I credit all in the organization — three people here today.

But I credit Paul Lacerte for a lot of the success of that organization and the work they do. Would this House please join me in making Paul and his friends all very, very welcome. Hon. M. Polak: Today in the rotunda, we celebrated 110 years of British Columbia’s conservation offi cer ser- vice, and we welcomed to the rotunda many conservation offi cers who were receiving not only awards for their long service but, many of them, awards for truly exemplary service above and beyond the call of duty. Th ey are joining us here today in the gallery, many with their families.

I want to acknowledge Doug Forsdick, chief conservation offi cer; Aaron Canuel, deputy chief; David Airey, deputy chief; Chris Doyle, inspector; Gord Hitchcock, inspector; Jason Hawkes, conservation offi - cer; Andrew Anaka, conservation offi cer; Micah Kneller, 10047

British Columbia Debates10048 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 conservation offi cer; Josh Lockwood, sergeant; Kevin Van Damme, conservation offi cer and, I’m told to men- tion also, from Kamloops; Steve Jacobi, sergeant; Darrell Ashworth, conservation offi cer; Dave Webster, conserva- tion offi cer; Paul McFadden, conservation offi cer; Martin Melderis, inspector; Robert Leblanc, conservation offi cer; and Gerry Lister, conservation offi cer and COS historian; and Brittany Mueller, conservation offi cer. [1340] Th ey are joined by Cheryl Johnson, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

Would the House please make them welcome and acknowledge their dedicated service to our province. J. Rice: Today we have the elected Chief Councillor Doug Neasloss in the House. Doug is the chief council- lor of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation from Klemtu on the central coast. He’s also the resource stewardship director. He’s been the lead tour guide for the spirit bear company that’s very successful in Klemtu right now, Spirit Bear Adventures. He’s been the band’s marine use planning co- ordinator.

He’s a phenomenal photographer, and he’s one of those young, innovative and inspiring leaders — he’s my age — that has led his community to great successes, with 90 percent employment in Klemtu. I would like to make the House make him feel welcome but also just acknowledge the phenomenal job that he’s done in the Spirit Bear Adventures company. It started, from what I understand, in a leaky boat and some pretty shabby accommodations to having high-end, high-class, Red Seal chef meals and fi rst-rate accommodations. It’s a great place.

If you ever want to see spirit bears, Doug’s the guy — central coast community, Klemtu. Hon. S. Anton: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House today Keegan Small and his father, Bill Small. Keegan is a grade 9 student at Belmont Secondary School who is participating in the annual Take Our Kids to Work Day. He has the pleasure of accompanying his father, Bill, to work today. Bill is an extremely valued member of Justice and Attorney General, serving as the provincial director of community corrections and corporate planning.

He will be a recipient of the 2015 Governor General’s Exemplary Service award, to be awarded before too long. Keegan’s mother, Dianne, also works for the Ministry Of Justice and Attorney General as the director of secur- ity services in our police services branch. Keegan is an avid hockey and rugby player. He has a strong interest in politics, making this aft ernoon’s visit to the House very special for both him and his family. I ask that the House make them feel very welcome. M. Mungall: Th e minister mentioned the conserva- tion offi cers and others who are here in the House today.

I didn’t get a chance to say this directly to Jason Hawkes from Nelson. What he did in Kaslo this summer…. On June 30, he woke up and he didn’t know that he was go- ing to be saving lives that day, but he saved four from a sinking boat on Kootenay Lake. From everybody in the Kootenays, especially the family and all of us who live around Kootenay Lake, thank you so much, Jason. Without you and people like you, our lake would not be as safe as it can be. Hon. M. Bernier: As you’ve heard today, we do have quite a few students that are gracing us in these build- ings.

I was very fortunate to have one of those students, a grade 9 student from Vic High living in Langford, to spend the day with me. It’s really enjoyable any time we have students in this building. Th ank you to the hon. Speaker as well for her hospitality earlier today as we were going around the building. I’m hoping the group here will please help welcome Logan Willford to the building. We’ve had a great day spent together. Th ank you very much, and welcome to the building, Logan. J.

Shin: I just want to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming to the House the delegation of diplomats from around the world and especially the consular gen- eral from South Korea, Mr. Ki Chung Li. Hon. N. Letnick: Also from Belmont Secondary School in grade nine, Antonia Audette is here, and she is shadowing her mom as she works in these wonder- ful facilities. Could the House please make Antonia feel very wel- come. J. Martin: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a good friend, a constituent, no stranger to this House, a former colleague and arch adversary to many members here to- day.

Please welcome John Les. [1345] Hon. J. Rustad: I also want to recognize Paul Lacerte from the aboriginal friendship centre today. He’s actually here in the context of the B.C. Partners for Social Impact, and we had an opportunity to meet earlier, as well, with Ken Gauthier and Tonni Lerat. Th ey’re a great group, try- ing to do some great things in the province. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. A. Wilkinson: We have four very important people here today. Th ey happen to be 13 or 14 years old. Th ey are Alison Karim, Adam Brewster, Kellen Brown and Annika Flower.

Th ey’re very important, because in three or four years, they’ll be candidates for higher edu- cation. And their parents happen to work in my ministry, which makes it even more important.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10049 R. Lee: From Burnaby North, we have a visitor today. Allan Purmanand Bunjun is a management and trans- portation consultant. He was actually the person that got Bombardier involved in the Republic of Mauritius rapid transit project there. Would the House please join me to give him a very warm welcome. G. Hogg: I’ve been advised that the record for intro- ducing one person at one sitting in this House is two, so in an eff ort to break that record, I’ d also like to also wel- come Paul Lacerte today. Madame Speaker: Hon.

Members, I think we can all agree that 50 years is an extraordinary career. I have two guests in the gallery: Dr. Roy Karjala, who’s served Richmond as a physician for more than 50 years — extra- ordinary — and he’s joined by his wife, Penny. Th ank you both for joining us. Statements (Standing Order 25B) GEORGE FERGUSON S. Gibson: It’s a real pleasure for me, on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Abbotsford South and myself, to pay tribute to George Ferguson, who celebrat- ed his 90th birthday this year. It was my privilege to serve with him on Abbotsford council for many years.

Th e name George Ferguson is synonymous with local government in our province. He was born in Vancouver in 1925 and spent most of his life on Sumas Prairie in Abbots- ford. He was married to Betty for many, many years. She passed away, tragically, in the 1990s. Th ey had 11 kids, and one of his daughters actually served as mayor of White Rock. He later married Ria, and they still live on the family farm. He was the only mayor of Abbotsford district and also served on Sumas council. Of course, Sumas no longer exists. About 20 years ago Abbotsford and Matsqui fi nal- ly amalgamated, aft er a lot of conversation.

And aft er a shootout with two other very strong candidates, George succeeded in becoming mayor of the new city. George was very well known around the country, and he was president of the FCM, president of the UBCM. It was a real privilege for me to be able to serve with him. He’s an outstanding statesman for Abbottsford and some- body we can all take pride in saying we know. It’s a priv- ilege for me to have him as a friend. Again, I want to acknowledge him and give this tribute to him today here in the Legislature in Victoria, British Columbia. Well done, George Ferguson. TAE KWON DO B.

Ralston: Tae kwon do is a Korean martial art, mean- ing “way of the hand and foot” and is practised in over 200 countries worldwide. An offi cial Olympic sport since 1988, it is practised by people of all ages and backgrounds. Th e tenets of tae kwon do — courtesy, integrity, perse- verance, self-control and indomitable spirit — are univer- sal and comprise a global standard to guide the conduct of practitioners.

Tae kwon do academies and clubs world- wide are committed to improving people’s lives through the practice of sport by instilling valuable life skills and building a strong trinity of the mind, body and spirit. Kukkiwon is the global headquarters of tae kwon do, established in Seoul, Korea, in 1972. Th is organization is the authority that promotes tae kwon do and the de- velopment of its leaders. It is the only authority in the tae kwon do world empowered to issue black belt certifi - cates. Th e B.C. Korean Cultural Heritage Society and B.C.

Taekwondo Federation are proud to initiate and support the recent proclamations of Taekwondo Kukkiwon Day in the city of Burnaby and in the city of North Vancouver. [1350] I’ d like to thank and recognize president Song Chul Kim and vice-president Tony Kook at the B.C.

Taekwondo Federation; executive director Mike Suk at the Korean Cultural Heritage Society; president Ma Soon Jeong, vice-president Hyun Deuk Oh and master Chul Woong Park at Kukkiwon in Seoul; city of Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan and councillor Paul McDonell for their proclamation; and the city of North Vancouver mayor Darrell Mussatto and councillor Craig Keating for their proclamation. Respect is an integral part of tae kwo do practice, and the word is repeated frequently during training: respect. CONSERV ATION OFFICERS D.

Barnett: Today I rise in the House on this November 4, 2015, to recognize that from today onwards, November 4 will be known as Conservation Offi cer Day in British Columbia. As the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, I have seen fi rsthand the contributions of our offi cers. Driven by a sense of duty and commitment to the job, they rou- tinely go above the call of duty to defend our natural en- vironment and protect individual and collective safety.

On any day, our offi cers are preventing poaching of our iconic species, investigating environmental violations that could put our health at risk and our ecosystems in danger, working with communities to prevent human- wildlife confl icts and ensuring that hunters and outdoor recreationists are obeying the law and operating safely. The results of this work matter and have impacts throughout the province. Our iconic species continue to contribute to our rich biodiversity. Violations are pursued, showing that we will not tolerate pollution in our air, waterways and lands.

Close encounters with our beautiful predator species are prevented, which also pro- tects them from us. Finally, when we are experiencing our

British Columbia Debates10050 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 great outdoors, we know there are conservation offi cers helping to ensure that we do so safely and in a manner that respects our environment. Today I have an opportunity to thank our conserva- tion offi cers for everything they do. I believe we are in- debted to the service of these men and women and that it is timely that we as British Columbians stand up and formally recognize their enormous contributions.

Th is November 4, let’s start a tradition of recognizing con- servation offi cers and raising awareness about their work and what we can do to support them in reducing wildlife confl icts and protecting the environment. Please join me in recognizing November 4 as Conservation Offi cer Day. BIRD MIGRATION IN FRASER RIVER DELTA V . Huntington: Th e winter migration is upon us, and if you come to south Delta right now, you will see what this migration really means to the world.

Whether you go to Boundary Bay, the Reifel Bird Sanctuary, the Alaksen national wildlife refuge or to Brunswick Point, the con- gregation of millions of birds has descended on the Fraser River delta. The weekly report from the president of the Delta Naturalists reads almost like poetry: “We spent another beautiful Delta morning walking the dike trail at Brunswick Point…. As always…we started our walk at the mouth of the south arm of the Fraser River.

Not much in the river, but in the bushes along the trail, we saw lots of stuff , including four sparrow species — song, fox, golden- and white-crowned — separ- ate fl ocks of pine siskins and cedar waxwings, house fi nches and American goldfi nches, some brilliant golden-crowned kinglets, marsh wrens, Eurasian collared doves and, of course, towhees, robins, red-winged blackbirds, chickadees and everyone’s favourite, the great blue heron. “Other sightings included northern fl ickers, fl ocks of double- crested cormorants, northern harriers and a neat peregrine falcon hoping to get lucky with a shorebird meal. “Th ere were literally thousands and thousands of snow geese… on Roberts Bank and overhead, many of them juveniles — ob- viously a good breeding year on Wrangel Island in Russia.

Among them were thousands of shorebirds — mostly dunlin, black-bellied plovers and western sandpipers — and, of course, thousands of waterfowl — mostly green-winged teal with northern pintail, northern shoveller and American wigeon among them. “Do you get my point? Th ere were a heck of a lot of birds there. ” Fall has arrived on the delta, and the migration is underway. Come and see its magnifi cence and its beauty, and begin to understand how our decisions will deter- mine its very survival. [1355] PORT MOODY BRANCH OF ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION L.

Reimer: As we lead up to Remembrance Day on November 11, it is important to remember the contribu- tion that local branches of the Royal Canadian Legion have made to the development of communities right across our country. In my constituency, the Port Moody Branch 119 is no exception. In 1931, 11 veterans of the First World War de- cided to form a branch of the Legion. Th ey had no money, no property and no building. But they had a great deal of determination and received a charter that same year.

Th e fi rst meetings were held in the basement of the Port Arms Hotel, which is now more commonly known as the Burrard Public House. At the height of the Great Depression, the original founders worked hard to raise money through dinners and dances, while the Ladies Auxiliary made quilts and baked goods for sale. It was not until 1951 that enough money had been raised to purchase a property at 2513 Clark Street. Veterans worked their day jobs and then worked on construction of the Legion at night. Many of them con- tributed $5 a paycheque to cover the building costs.

Finally, on New Y ear’s Day in 1951, the building was of- fi cially opened. It had a roof but no fl oor installed yet. Th roughout its history, branch 119 continues to sup- port cadets, scouts, hospitals, hospices, youth and senior sports, the arts, fi re and police community projects and, of course, the poppy campaign. But aft er 65 years and with a failing roof, the time has come to rebuild and redevelop. Th e old building will be replaced with a brand-new structure that will reopen in mid-2017.

Legion branch 119 Port Moody will once again be open to serve veterans and remain committed to its mis- sion statement: “Honouring yesterday, living for today and visions of tomorrow. ” ELIZABETH FISCHER G. Heyman: Faced with a terminal diagnosis and the prospect of agonizing pain, Elizabeth Fischer chose to end her life in mid-October as she had lived it, with dignity. Elizabeth had a long, infl uential career as a Vancouver artist, poet, writer and musician. She sang with the bands Animal Slaves and DarkBlueWorld, fusing her poetry with rock and improvisational jazz.

To hear her interpret the songs of Brecht and Weill was to experience all their beauty, humour, dark irony and nuance. Th ose charac- teristics might describe Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth created paintings and drawings exhibited internationally, known for meticulous attention to line, colour and composition but appearing spontaneous and eff ortless. She also produced numerous gig posters that she distributed freely outside the commercial art market. She recently published Orphans and Dogs , a book of writing, photos and drawings to accompany her summer exhibit at the UNIT/PITT Gallery.

Th e book is described as personal and honest observations about poverty and alienation. Elizabeth was the only child of Hungarian Holocaust

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10051 survivors. Perhaps that’s why her art and her life perspec- tive combined skeptical realism, oft en delivered with wry humour and a smile. Th ere were two recent ironies in Elizabeth Fischer’s life. In her own words, “Here I was having the best year with a retrospective exhibition, my fi rst book out and the band playing great, ” when a pain in her ribs was revealed as terminal lung cancer. Th e second irony, she pointed out, was her need to leave B.C. for Switzerland, the only country where as- sisted suicide is legal for non-residents.

Before ending her life, she spoke very publicly about the importance of making her own choice about her quality of life in the fi nal months. She said shortly before her death: “I’ve lived freely all my life. I want to leave the same way, under my own agency, as easily as possible. ” And her fi nal advice to me was: “Sharpen them claws a little, George. ” Oral Questions INFORMATION AND PRIV ACY COMMISSIONER REPORT IMPLEMENTATION AND RELEASE D. Routley: We heard two things again and again from the Minister of Citizens’ Services yesterday.

First, that staff are not deleting records, and second, that over the next six weeks, former Information Commissioner David Loukidelis will solve the freedom-of-information problems that this government took 14 years to create. In 2003, Mr. Loukidelis commented on the practice of deleting records.

He said at the time that there was no indication that people were deliberately deleting e-mail records which should be included in a response to free- dom-of-information requests, but he said: “I would take something like that very seriously. ” [1400] Th e opposition has demonstrated pretty clearly the lengths people are going to delete records. Is the minister going to ask former Commissioner Loukidelis to review these troubling new cases, or should we be asking cur- rent Information and Privacy Commissioner Denham to review them? Hon. A.

Virk: I’ve made it quite clear that the report from Commissioner Denham made some fi ndings. I’ve made it quite clear that I and government have accepted the number of recommendations. I’ve also made it quite clear that we have made a commitment to act on those recommendations. I’ve also made it quite clear that we’re going to engage the services of an expert, a former Privacy Commissioner, to give advice on enacting those recommendations. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental. D. Routley: There’s an old expression that a man with two watches never really knows what time it is.

Government now has two freedom-of-information com- missioners. We’re curious who the minister is going to take advice from, if anyone. Over the past four years, this government has rejected most of the recommendations from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have a simple question for the minister. If Mr. Loukidelis makes a recommendation that contradicts or confl icts with the recommendations of Commissioner Denham, who, if anyone, is he going to listen to? Hon. A. Virk: I’ve presented that Mr.

Loukidelis has, indeed, been engaged to provide advice, to provide coun- sel on the manner of how to act on the recommendations, how to provide ongoing advice on how to strengthen FOIs as we move forward, to engage Mr. Loukidelis on how to provide continuous learning and continuous training. I’m not going to speculate or be hypothetical on what his report is going to say. When it comes to government on December 15, I have committed that his report will become public. C.

James: Another troubling aspect of the latest report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner is the length to which this government went to keep it under wraps during this legislative session. Last week the Premier said: “No one in government has done anything but express acceptance in welcoming this report from the Privacy Commissioner — absolute- ly. ” What the Premier didn’t say is that the B.C. Liberals sent lawyers from the Ministry of Justice aft er the com- missioner and told her not to release the report. So much for welcoming. My question is to the Minister of Justice.

Why did she ask lawyers in her ministry to stall off the commission- er’s report? Hon. A. Virk: Th e report by Commissioner Denham was received by government. Th e report was accepted by government. Th e recommendations are accepted by gov- ernment, with a commitment to work on taking action on each of those recommendations. We are committed to doing that. Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supple- mental. C. James: Well, it’s a strange way of showing your com- mitment to this report by trying to prevent it from being released during this legislative session.

Sending lawyers aft er the commissioner is truly a new low. It’s remark- able to think that we have come to this point, where in- dependent offi cers of the Legislature, people whose sole job it is to protect the public interest, are seen by this gov- ernment as political enemies.

British Columbia Debates10052 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 My question is to the Minister of Justice. How does it serve the public to have her ministry trying to obstruct the work of the Privacy Commissioner? [1405] Hon. A. Virk: We do have a report in front of us. I’ve said that a number of times. And the number of times a question is asked…. Th e answer is not going to change. We have a report that we accepted. We have ac- cepted to take action on the recommendations.

We have brought forth an individual who is a former Deputy Attorney General, a member of the bar, a former Privacy Commissioner, an individual who is providing counsel on privacy all across the country. We’re engaging an ex- pert to take action on those recommendations. S. Simpson: My question is a simple one to the Minister of Justice. Lawyers from her ministry attempted to obstruct the release of the commissioner’s report. Will the minister get to her feet and explain why lawyers went and attempted to block the release of the report? Hon. A.

Virk: Th e member opposite certainly chooses to use words within the confi nes of the Legislative Assembly. I challenge that member to take those same suggestions and repeat those outside of the Legislative Assembly. Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Hastings on a supplemental. S. Simpson: We will try again, as soon as the bellowing ends over there. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Member. Member. Vancouver- Hastings, we’ll wait until everyone’s quiet. Please proceed. S. Simpson: We’ll try again. Will the Minister of Justice get up and explain why lawyers from her ministry engaged with Ms.

Denham to stop the release of the re- port at the time she wanted to release it? Hon. A. Virk: Th e choice of words once again…. Th e member opposite certainly chooses to change them. Th e suggestion that government lawyers, who are operating under the highest of ethics, are engaged in obstruction is beyond me. I encourage that member either to redact or to go outside this chamber and to repeat that same asser- tion that lawyers are attempting to provide obstruction. BUSINESS PLAN FOR MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT G. Heyman: The Auditor General has the George Massey bridge on her 2015-16 audit plan.

Her audit will “evaluate the quality of evidence to support the decision to replace the Massey Tunnel. ” But yesterday we heard in this House about an FOI request to which the Premier’s offi ce replied that there were no records of evidence sup- porting the Premier’s decision. My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the Auditor General fi nd that the Premier made a major decision to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars without any analysis or business case, or did he and the Premier just delete it all? Hon. T. Stone: Well, fi rst, let me say this.

Our govern- ment is extremely proud of the fact that we’re moving forward with the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. We are going to continue to ensure that this pro- ject, as with every major infrastructure project in British Columbia, is done in a manner that encourages as much transparency and openness as possible. [1410] For the member’s information, there have been two ex- tensive rounds of public engagement. Th ere has also been a tremendous amount of stakeholder engagement relat- ed to this project.

If he was to go to the George Massey Tunnel replacement website — the website — he would see that there are hundreds of pages of information re- fl ecting all of that input, refl ecting reports done on po- tential designs, on potential alignment and all kinds of other issues related to this project. We have been transparent. We will continue to be transparent as we build a bridge which is going to address the largest bottleneck in the province of British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supple- mental. G.

Heyman: It’s beyond us on this side of the House how the minister can continue what’s never begun. It’s clear that due diligence, to this minister, means saying yes to whatever idea the Premier scribbles on the back of a napkin and sticking taxpayers with the bill. Th ree years ago…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Members. We’ll just wait. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Ministers. G. Heyman: Th ee years ago the Premier was warned against making fl ashy spending announcements without a business plan.

A memo from then Minister of Finance Kevin Falcon read: “Ministries cannot announce details about the proposed timing, scope or budget of priority

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10053 capital projects until government formally approves a business case. ” Th e George Massey Tunnel replacement project didn’t have a business plan before the Premier announced the scope and timing of it two years ago. In fact, it still doesn’t. To the minister: why did the Premier completely dis- regard Treasury Board directives? Or did she just delete the evidence? Hon. T. Stone: Well, we are proud of the fact that we have a leader who has vision.

We know that they might be sensitive on the other side, because they’re so bereft of vision that they wouldn’t know what it looked like. British Columbians also know that sound planning and decision-making fi rst starts with a vision. It starts with a statement of political intent. Y ou then follow that up with engagement, with reaching out to the public, with a consultation process. Th en you follow that up with…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Order. Please continue. Hon. T.

Stone: Y ou then follow up that consultation — we’ve had two rounds on the George Massey Tunnel — with a business case, with a project defi nition report. Th en what do you do? Th en you go and you build the projects. Th is is what we did with the SFPR, which they said no to. Th is is what we did with the Port Mann project, which they said no to. Th is is what we did with Sea to Sky, which they said no to. It is no surprise to us that they’re once again saying no to the George Massey Tunnel project. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RULING ON CONDUCT OF COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS H.

Bains: Time and again we have asked this govern- ment to ensure that the College of Veterinarians ends institutional discrimination against their own members of South Asian descent, as ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal.

Last week I asked the minister if he would tell the college to call off their attacks on the victims of racial discrimination, because despite the ruling, the college is still on a witch-hunt, continuing to harass the victims of racism, employing similar tactics that were found to be discriminatory by the tribunal. [1415] An inspector hired by the college has been threatening the same victims that they will be reported to the CRA, to employment standards, among other things. Here’s a quote from that inspector: “Th ey have made a mistake. Th ey need to do something. In this case, they took the li- cence away.

Th ey don’t want to give it back to him. ” Th ese actions clearly put the college in contempt of the human rights decision. Last week the minister said he would not tolerate this sort of behaviour. So my question to the minister is: why is this still going on? Hon. N. Letnick: Th ank you to the member opposite for the question. As I said last week…. Actually, it’s enunciated even more today, when we have visitors from our First Nations, visitors from around the world and everyone in this House representing all kinds of diff erent nationalities.

It’s unacceptable that we have any organization in British Columbia that would operate in a prejudicial manner. I have advised the public members of the college of the expression of interest in this by the government. I’ve also advised them on what the likely outcome would be, what I hope will be, of their meeting tomorrow. I’ll wait for that outcome before I make any further comment on any decision by government. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental. H.

Bains: Th e dithering and fl ip-fl opping by this min- ister are the reasons why the college continues to engage in the same tactics that were found to be discriminatory. Th e college isn’t the only guilty party in this. Th is gov- ernment has a hand in it as well. Th ey went to backstop the college with taxpayer dollars, not to go and stand with the victims but to stand with the perpetrator. Th at’s their record. Even when this ruling came down, the government stayed silent. Th en they said, well, they need to respect the independence of the college.

With the record of that kind of fl ip-fl op, you can understand why victims of dis- crimination do not have much faith in this minister that he will do the right thing. My question to the minister is this. Th ey have ignored the ruling of the tribunal. Th ey have been ignoring the minister’s direction. Tomorrow, if they try to ignore to do the right thing, to implement the tribunal’s ruling…. What is the minister going to do to make sure that the laws of the land are enforced immediately? Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. N.

Letnick: Th e only thing this side of the House is guilty of is supporting the independence of a college to make sure it comes to the right decision tomorrow — that respects the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal. Tomorrow that independence will be seen. Th e Human Rights Tribunal decision will be refl ected, I hope, by the members of the college.

British Columbia Debates10054 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 I want to talk about other things this member has brought up — the whole idea of a fl ip-fl op. Look what happens here. Th e Leader of the Opposition on October 22 said: “Meanwhile, the veterinary college has indi- cated it intends to appeal the ruling. ” Then, in the Indo-Canadian Voice on October 29, the Leader of the Opposition says the college is now considering an ap- peal of the ruling. Continually, the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know what’s happening with the college. Th e member opposite is also jumping to conclusions. Last week….

Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. N. Letnick: Last week the member opposite said that the government was helping the college with the indemnity program, but at no time has the province contributed to the defence costs or awards settled in this matter. At no time has the province agreed to contribute any award resulting in this matter. [1420] Indeed, if the member did his research properly, he would have found out that the complainant to the issue was getting support by the government through their lawyers that are appointed by government. So I ask the member to wait until tomorrow.

Th en, as all members of the House will see, we will do something if the college does not meet the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal. MYEDUCATION B.C. INFORMATION SYSTEM R. Fleming: Since the school year began, school dis- tricts across our province have struggled with system- wide malfunctions from this government’s new $100 million MyEducation B.C. computer system.

Th e chair of the Central Okanagan school district re- cently wrote to the minister and described the perform- ance of the new system as unacceptable and outlined how teachers and staff are “putting in countless hours of ex- tra time to ensure that schools and classrooms are able to function. ” Th e system is described as “monumentally time-consuming, just for basic tasks like taking attend- ance or changing a student’s course registration, ” and the mounting extra costs and frustrations continue.

Th is week the entire MyEd B.C. system will be off line right in the middle of when mid-term reports are due in the school system. To the Minister of Education, how much has his gov- ernment’s failure on the implementation of MyEd B.C. cost school district budgets in British Columbia? Hon. M. Bernier: What’s really important to stress here is that a couple of weeks ago, when this issue came up in the House, one of the things I did talk about was the fact that we recognized there was a slowdown. Th at’s why ministry staff was working around the clock. Th at’s why ministry staff engaged with the vendor.

Th e vendor stepped forward and recognized that there were some issues with the performance of this. We communicated with the school districts. In fact, we set up a committee working right around the prov- ince, working with school districts, to ensure that as we worked forward with MyEd B.C., it met the expectations that the vendor promised and one that we, as a govern- ment, are willing to commit to. Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supple- mental. R. Fleming: Let’s remember that it was this govern- ment that negotiated this IT deal and then forced it on to all school districts.

It is school districts who have their staff working around the clock and on weekends and are incurring the costs that his government won’t pay for, and they’re bearing all the risks when this system fails. Th e minister is right. Th ere’s been an acknowledge- ment from the vendor. The vice-president of Fujitsu America wrote a letter to all school districts and admit- ted that his company has failed them and that school dis- tricts aren’t the ones at fault. Let me just quote from this letter, because I think it’s interesting.

He writes all chairs to “directly acknowledge the con- cerns with the new MyEducation B.C. system. Our role in supporting the education of children in British Columbia is truly a sacred responsibility. Recently the incremental load on the system has caused performance issues. We deeply regret this and sincerely apologize. We acknow- ledge that more eff ort on our

part is required to meet the standards of our contractual commitments” — contrac- tual commitments. Y et it is districts that are incurring the costs for un- budgeted staff overtime, hiring extra IT personnel and dealing with the failings of the new system. None of it is covered by the province. None of it is covered by Fujitsu. To the minister again, if his government’s handpicked IT provider provided a system that failed on day one, why is it that school districts are paying the costs and, ultim- ately, our kids paying the price? Hon. M. Bernier: First, I want to clarify something the member opposite said.

Th is was not handpicked specifi cally by the Ministry of Education or by this government. In fact, there were three years of hard work done, working with teachers around the province, working with superintendents from around the province, who collectively came forward and said: “Th is is what we need as a system to ensure we have the best outcomes for the students in British Columbia. ” [1425] One more thing I want to clarify. I appreciate the letter

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10055 from Fujitsu. I’m glad that the member opposite read out some of the quotes from Fujitsu. Th e vendor has stepped forward and recognized that they have not met their commitment. Th ere were penalties applied to this com- pany, and the company has said that they will be stand- ing up. Th ey have made changes. Th e hon. member opposite should know, also, from the letter that he received, that the person that was com- plaining about the slowdown was referring to last month.

Since we’ve changed — the vendor has put in further applications to this system — we have continued to see steady improvements in the system. MEDICAL FEES FOR SENIORS REQUIRING DRIVING ASSESSMENTS G. Holman: When seniors reach the age of 80, the province requires them to take a medical exam, and every two years thereaft er, to determine their fi tness to drive. Th e cost of these mandatory exams is not covered by MSP , and the fees for the exams are established at the discretion of physicians. Seniors from my constituency are being asked to pay anywhere from $100 to $400 for each exam.

Th is is just not right, particularly for low-income seniors. What is the minister going to do about these arbitrary and un- fair fees for a medical exam imposed by the province onto seniors? Hon. S. Anton: We are very ambitious in road safety in British Columbia. In fact, we have a goal in British Columbia of having the safest roads in North America by 2020. Th ere is a well-established system in place that when you do reach the age of 80, you do need to be tested. Th at is part of our system. It is risk-managed. It’s tested.

It’s thought about, it’s considered, and all the evidence is that it is wise to request that older drivers be tested in order to continue to have a licence. As I have said, this is all part of our larger goal of having safe roads and having safety on all of our roads in British Columbia — the safest roads in North America by 2020. Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental. G. Holman: Th e question wasn’t about the need for the exam. Th e question was about the arbitrary nature of the fees being charged. Doctors are, in fact, mandated to reduce fees to refl ect economic hardship.

Th e defi n- ition of hardship or even whether it is refl ected in the fees charged is completely discretionary. Th is is the issue: the arbitrary nature of fees. Will the minister commit today to ending the arbi- trary and unfair nature of the fees for these mandatory medical exams? Hon. S. Anton: As I said, this is part of a well-estab- lished system — that older drivers do need to be tested. It is the case that they go to their doctor for that test- ing. Doctors do set their own fees, and the amount can vary widely. I acknowledge that.

But Doctors of British Columbia has suggested that doctors reduce or waive the fee for patients who are experiencing economic hardship, and if you have a known medical condition and you need a test, your fee may, as well, be waived. Th is is part of a larger picture — which, as I said a mo- ment ago, is that we have safety on our roads and our highways in British Columbia. CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE MEETING CANCELLATIONS Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam. I, in fact, did recognize you before the bell, so please proceed. [1430] M. Farnworth: Th ank you, hon. Speaker.

I recognize that today is November 4 and that today was to be sched- uled meetings of the Standing Committee on Children and Y outh with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children’s representative. Unfortunately, those meetings were can- celled. Th e last time I asked the question, we didn’t get an an- swer. So I’ d like to take this opportunity, because I see that the Chair of the committee is here — the appropri- ate person to answer the question — and the members of the committee are here with happy, shiny faces.

Could she answer the question, which is: what meetings were so important, what obligations were so important that the Chair of the committee had to cancel scheduled meetings with the very individual, the children’s commissioner, that her committee was set up to hear from? Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, as members know, it is a long-established principle that the decision as to who may respond to a question rests with government. As Speaker, I will recognize whomever stands to answer the question, and I cannot intervene to direct or com- pel a specifi c minister or private member to answer a question. J.

Thornthwaite: I can confirm that we do have a confi rmed appointment by all members attending on November 23. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: It’s continued committee stage de- bate on Bill 39. [1435]

British Columbia Debates10056 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) B. Ralston: I rise to reserve my right to raise a ques- tion of privilege. Committee of the Whole House BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS ACT (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 39; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:36 p.m. On

section 3 (continued). M. Elmore: Very pleased to be resuming discussion on committee for Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act —

section 3, “ Applications. ” In

section 3(1) (c), “the prescribed fee” — is there a fee that’s been de- cided upon? What was the previous fee that was admin- istered in the program? Hon. S. Bond: Good aft ernoon. I’m really pleased to welcome back our staff today. I introduced them yesterday, but I’ll do it again today. We have Athana Mentzelopoulos, the deputy minister of our ministry; Rob Mingay, assistant deputy minister of workforce de- velopment; Erin Seeley, assistant executive director; and Kevin Contzen, who is our legal counsel on this fi le. In regards to fees, I think the overall context is im- portant.

British Columbia fi nds itself in the middle of the pack when you look across the country, in terms of fees. On the skills stream…. As the member knows, there are two streams. One is the skills stream; the other is the entrepreneur stream. Th e application fee on the skills side is $550. To give some context, Ontario’s is $1,000. On the entrepreneur stream, there is a $300 registration fee, the application fee is $3,500, and the key staff fee is $1,000.

Again, when we look jurisdictionally, British Columbia is pretty much in the middle of the pack, but we should also note that not every jurisdiction actually has an entre- preneur stream. M. Elmore: Th e fees will be following that general pre- scription for the new program that will continue to be undertaken, I presume. [1440] I have a question with regards to 3(2). “Th e director may, in accordance with the regulations, if any, invite ap- plications for a class of approvals specifi ed in the invita- tion. ” Could the minister explain the meaning of “for a class of approvals”? Hon. S.

Bond: We have made a signifi cant shift . As I walked through yesterday with the member opposite, much of it is based on the decision to look at how we make the best fi t for British Columbia with the intake process that we have. We’ve also looked at what other provinces, other juris- dictions and, of course, the federal government are doing. So this lines up quite nicely, and we’re going to, I think, see other provinces take on a process similar to this.

What that subsection means is that there will be the ability for people to apply — there will be a pool of ap- plicants — but it will require an invitation to then pro- ceed to the next level of the process so that we have the ability to meet the needs that British Columbia has and to make that based on labour market data — what the best fi t for the province is. It does give us the ability that if, for example, there was a need in a particular class, we would also be able to issue invitations for a specifi c class to make application. M. Elmore: Th anks to the minister. Th e minister mentioned….

In terms of informing the process of the selection of specifi c areas that may be of need for the economy to benefi t the economy in British Columbia, is there information or data available in terms of what informed or what informs or what will inform that decision around the labour market needs of British Columbia? Part of the phenomenon of temporary foreign work- ers since it has shift ed in the last number of years under the federal government, bringing in more lower-skilled workers, has been generating quite a bit of concern from the public.

One of the contributing factors, I think, has been the lack of opportunity for conversation about these issues and the lack of a public dialogue. [1445] Certainly, a challenge in terms of the claims, initially, to bring in the program — that there was a need for work- ers in certain areas and that there were labour shortages — is that premise did not necessarily hold out in terms of a continuing rate of unemployment and the concern around the opportunity for British Columbians to have access to those jobs. So can the minister explain and talk about the process around those labour market decisions? Hon. S.

Bond: Well, I can assure the member oppos- ite that one of the concerns that we, as ministers across the country, have expressed to the previous federal gov- ernment…. Obviously, today is a fairly auspicious day in the country, as we have a brand-new Prime Minister and cabinet. I’m very excited about being able to work with the new ministers who have portfolios that line up with mine. I look forward to that. One of the things, though, that we agreed on across the country was the fact that there is very little…. Let’s put it this way. Th ere is not enough, and certainly the quality

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10057 of data that’s available across the country and oft en pro- vided by the federal government is inadequate and needs improvement. I think there was general agreement across the country and by the previous federal government that that was the case. We determined, in the ministry, that one of the things we really needed to concentrate on over the last couple of years has been: how do we collect data? What kind of data is it? We work with sectors.

We’ve recently held, and we continue to hold, round tables with sectors in British Columbia to say to them: what are the needs that you have? How do we prepare a workforce for the future? Despite what is oft en mentioned, our focus has not been singularly on LNG. We meet with the apparel sec- tor, the technology sector, the construction sector. We, I think it’s fair to say, have some of the most robust and, certainly, current labour market data in the country.

Our decision to reshape the immigration programs — and, particularly, the only stream that we have actual juris- diction over — was based on making sure that when we have those very, very important nominations to make for people to come to British Columbia, it lines up with the needs that we have. I think it goes without saying, but much better with, that of course British Columbians should be fi rst in line for jobs in this province. Th at’s exactly what our focus has been. But I know the member opposite would know that in some parts of British Columbia today, we have virtual full employment.

Anything that is in the range of 4 per- cent unemployment or lower is considered full employ- ment, which means it’s really hard to fi ll the job demands in some particular sectors. We currently are in single-digit unemployment rates right across the province. I’m always reluctant to speak to that, because it fl uctuates. I know that we’ll have num- bers out in the next little while. It goes up and down, but generally speaking, we are at full employment in some parts of the province. In addition to that, I live in a part of the province where it is very hard to attract the workforce that’s necessary.

In northern British Columbia, it is a real challenge in some sectors. We’re trying to fi nd a balance here, always ensur- ing that British Columbians come fi rst. But there is the reality of the workforce demands that I hear from employ- ers on a regular basis. Th ere are challenges, and I’m sure the member opposite hears them as well. I’ve certainly heard from members opposite on case fi les, for example, saying: “Please help.

We have constituents in my riding who can’t actually get the employees that they need. ” [1450] Th e changes are meant to be based on the most current labour market data, allowing us some fl exibility, when necessary, to reach out to the applicant pool, which is always substantive in our province, and make sure that we have the best match possible for those who choose to immigrate to our province. M. Elmore: Th ank you to the minister for the response.

Some of the criticisms of the temporary foreign worker program in B.C. and the country is that it also creates a secondary labour market, where you have a labour mar- ket for residents and citizens and a secondary labour market where you have workers who have restricted labour mobility, due to the employer-specifi c work per- mit, and oft en a reluctance to come forward if concerns are issued. Certainly, the bill…. Dealing with the restructuring and the changes to the provincial nominee program is a specifi c area.

It’s the only area under provincial jurisdic- tion, in terms of having the ability to select and recom- mend individuals for permanent residency, and doesn’t have the ability to capture the overall numbers, the bigger number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. Th at remains an outstanding challenge and also an area that I think needs more attention and that can have more oversight in British Columbia.

I want to also inquire about subsection (3): “Th e direc- tor may refuse to accept an application under subsection (1)…. ” Th en particularly subsection (3)(b): “the person has retained, for the purposes of making an application under subsection (1) or for another purpose respecting this Act, a representative who does not meet the pre- scribed requirements. ” Can the minister just explain what the defi nition of a representative is and the prescribed requirements? Hon. S. Bond: Th is is an important piece. I know the member has expressed concerns about this previously, in discussions.

Th e defi nition will be described in regu- lation, but I can tell the member now that there will be two positions included in regulation. One would be a lawyer in good standing here in British Columbia, part of the Law Society. Again, these would match the federal government re- quirements. Th at’s really important to us — that we have that consistency. Th e second would be an authorized immigration con- sultant. Th at means that they would be required to be registered. Again, there is a federal process. Th ere is a particular committee that oversees that and requires that registration.

So it would be a lawyer and an authorized immigra- tion consultant. [1455] M. Elmore: Just to follow, and if the minister could further explain…. Are those the only representatives that will be entitled to submit an application on behalf of ap- plicants to the PNP? Hon. S. Bond: It is an important question. Th e diff er- entiation is whether or not the person is paid. Th e only paid people that would be captured here and permitted

British Columbia Debates10058 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 would be lawyers or regulated consultants. Th ere are, though — and we know of them, and I’m sure the mem- ber does as well — volunteers who do this work. Today there is a set of expectations for those volun- teers, unpaid support that’s provided. Th ere is currently policy around how that works. We will then take those policies and move those into regulation. Th e diff erentia- tion is whether or not it’s paid or unpaid. Th ere are roles for both. We will be prescribing in regulation the expect- ations for unpaid. M.

Elmore: Am I correct, Minister, that if an applicant hires a representative that is not a lawyer in good stand- ing and is not an authorized immigration consultant — so the applicant hires someone and pays them to put in their application — that the application will be denied on that basis? Hon. S. Bond: I think the terminology is important. Th e application wouldn’t be denied. It simply wouldn’t be processed. M. Elmore: In terms of it not being processed, that presumably would…. It wouldn’t reach the point of being denied, but it basically wouldn’t proceed further. Hon. S.

Bond: I think it’s very straightforward. We would not accept the application, so it doesn’t get into the process. Th e word “denied, ” certainly in the immigration system, is once it’s in the process and then, for some rea- son, it doesn’t meet criteria and it’s denied. In this case, if they do not use either a lawyer or a registered consultant, then we would not even accept the application. M. Elmore: Th ank you for the clarifi cation. Th at is an area of concern that I have. I know the minister and folks who are experienced in the program….

Oft en that’s where diffi culties arise, in terms of where applicants who are quite anxious to apply and be accepted in the pro- gram are very vulnerable and can be taken advantage of by folks who don’t have a high ethical standard. Th at’s certainly a concern. Th at’s an outstanding concern that I have in terms of the exposure of folks under the temporary foreign worker program exposed to illegal recruitment fees and also be- ing charged very high processing fees. [1500] Can the minister speak to…? Are there penalties in place against representatives if they are found to be in violation? Hon. S.

Bond: I think there’s also an important thing before we describe what happens in terms of disciplin- ary action. I think we just want to be clearly on the rec- ord that you don’t have to have a representative. Y ou can apply as an individual. What we are saying here is that, if you are going to have a representative — a paid one — then you need to be sure that it is a lawyer in good standing or someone who is a registered consultant. Th ere are people who apply all the time, and they do it on their own. I think that’s a really critical piece. Not every application has a representative.

Th e body that regulates on the consultant side is the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council. If someone is not behaving in a manner that one would expect, then there is a disciplinary process. But I think it is important to know that you can apply and work through your application on your own. S. Simpson: I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S. Simpson: I’m really pleased today to have a class here from Vancouver Technical School — 30 grade 11 students who are here with their teacher, Mr. Bryn Stephenson.

Th ey’re here to learn about what we do here and to visit the precinct. I had a chance to speak with them earlier today and to encourage them to get engaged in politics. Hopefully, some of them will be able to vote come the next election — and that they will take advantage of that. I would ask the House to make these Vancouver Technical students welcome. Debate Continued M. Elmore: Further to the remarks from the minister, there are no steps in place from the provincial govern- ment in terms of intervening.

Other provinces do require representatives to be registered provincially and also suf- fer repercussions if they are found guilty of violations. Just to further that, I do recognize that many individ- uals do apply on their own and oft en, as well, these are folks in the higher-skilled stream. Typically, it’s the lower- skilled stream where individuals utilize the services of a paid representative.

Can the minister explain the steps in place to en- sure…? [1505] I’ve just heard back from immigration lawyers con- cerned about the potential to punish victims of fraud who may not have known that an immigration consult- ant may or may not be appropriately registered. Can the minister talk about safeguards around that? Hon. S. Bond: I think probably some months ago, I signalled my concern about creating a duplicative sys- tem. We are very confi dent that the federal system that is in place will work adequately for British Columbia. Th is

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10059 bill actually strengthens the information-sharing process between us and the federal government, which would al- low the disciplinary process to be utilized. I think that’s an important step. I can assure the member opposite that even prior to this bill, we would always check with the federal govern- ment, with the regulatory body to ensure that consultants were duly registered. M. Elmore: Th ank you for the reply.

Can the minis- ter talk about the practices in place or regulations or the intent with respect to ensuring that victims of fraud are not unduly punished? Hon. S. Bond: Just as the bill looks at how we have better information-sharing with the federal government, the same would be true of other bodies — for example, law enforcement, employment standards. So we would have the ability to exchange information and, we think, be able to be in a better position to protect those people who may be vulnerable. M. Elmore: Th ank you, to the minister. Th at remains a concern that I have.

Certainly, I’ve heard anecdotes in terms of the preying upon vulnerable workers in a very precarious position by unscrupulous — either registered or unregistered — immigration consultants or individ- uals who promised to assist in fi lling out applications to be processed through the PNP . Th at’s an ongoing con- cern that I have with respect to ensuring that workers in British Columbia are not defrauded. [1510] I’ d like to also just inquire about the prescribed re- quirements. Th e minister mentioned that they’ll be set out through regulation. Can the minister provide any more details around that? Hon. S.

Bond: I think the key principle that we will be looking at is around transparency, consistency and fairness. Before the regulations are created, we are re- quired — and we’ll certainly be doing that — to engage in a robust consultation process around the regulations. We’re not going to be sitting in the ministry creating the regulation. We’re going to go and, as we would expect to, have a dialogue with key partners around the regulation. M. Elmore: Th ank you to the minister.

Before we move on from this section, I’ d just like to high- light and reiterate my concerns around fraud — that indi- viduals experience being taken advantage of when applying to the program. Certainly, I know the minister and staff are familiar with that. It’s also in the context of the labour migration cycle, which the bill does not explicitly address.

It’s a component of that reality that gives rise to the vulnerability of those workers, particularly in the low- skilled streams, in terms of their susceptibility to being charged, initially, illegal recruitment fees, which, anec- dotally, pretty much right across the board, temporary foreign workers in B.C. pay illegally. Th at’s compounded by the paying of fees in the thousands of dollars, as well, for individuals to assist these workers through the appli- cation process of the provincial nominee program.

Just on that issue, I’m wondering if the minister can comment, in the context of Bill 39, if there’s an intersec- tion of that or if there’s an opportunity to address that. Hon. S. Bond: I think the addition of inspection and information-sharing provisions in the bill…. We believe that will help us combat potential abuses. Th at is a con- cern for us as well. [1515] If at some point, or even now, there are concerns about fraud and they are specifi c, I would welcome and urge the member to share those with the ministry. We have been vigilant. We will continue to be vigilant.

Th ese tools al- low us, I think, to better protect against potential abuse. I would also invite the member opposite…. As we en- gage in the consultation process, we would welcome any input or suggestions that she may have to look at the regulation that’s so critical. We want this system…. Th e reason that the bill is here today is we are committed to transparency, to fairness. We understand how important this process is for many, many people who want to come to live in Canada and, particularly, in British Columbia.

If there are ever any specifi c concerns around fraud, I would urge the member to share them, and secondly, I would welcome any input as we move through the cre- ation of regulation. M. Elmore: Th ank you to the minister. Certainly, if specifi c cases come forward, I will raise them and bring them to the minister’s attention, also to the appropriate authorities. Part of the challenge is also connecting with these in- dividuals. Oft en they have a reluctance to come forward. But, certainly, we’ll endeavour to do that.

I appreciate also the opportunity to participate and be a part of the process around the formation of the regu- lations. Appreciate that. Th at’s a positive step — ensur- ing that within the confi nes of the PNP program, it’s a process that stands the rule of law. Th at’s very positive. Certainly, the challenge, as well, is to address outside of that — it’s out of the scope — the other individuals and workers under the temporary foreign worker program who also live and work here in British Columbia.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. M. Elmore:

Section 4, “ Approvals”: “On application by a person under

section 3, the director may, aft er taking

British Columbia Debates10060 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 into consideration the prescribed matters and any other matters the director considers relevant, (

a) approve the application, or (

b) decline the application…. ” Can the minister explain just generally the…? I know there have been some changes in terms of how the pro- gram will be administered, but just to give me an idea in terms of the previous process of approval in the program and just a general idea of how the applications and the approval process will run. [1520] Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons the bill is important is that currently we have much of the operation process in policy, and this will codify it. It will make sure that it is transparent. Th at is critically important.

One of the things, as I noted yesterday, was the fact that previous to the changes that were made by the federal government in the temporary foreign worker program, we had roughly the same number of applicants with the number of nominees and nominations that we’re able to make. But with the changes to that system, we have seen a spike, obviously, and people moving over to the permanent stream. I think what happened over time was that while there wasn’t policy about it being a fi rst-come, fi rst-served pro- cess, that is how practice evolved.

And when you have far more applications than you have nominations or sup- port letters, under the entrepreneur stream, you have to grapple with how we are going to be transparent and ac- countable and do a better job of matching up the needs for British Columbia. Th at really drove the changes. But it will be a much more transparent system. In par- ticular, for example, refusals will be explained in writing to people. I think that’s important. And later in the bill, you’ll see that there is now due process in terms of recon- sideration — those kinds of things. Th e major principle is: let’s match the growing….

We have to deal with the growing demand in terms of the number of applicants, and we need it to better match British Columbia’s needs. And we need to do that…. Rather than in policy, we need to codify that. M. Elmore: Th anks for the explanation from the min- ister. Just with respect to the prescribed matters and conditions referred to in the section, will those also be further laid out in regulation? Hon. S. Bond: Well, there will be the introduction of regulation. We will retain some fl exibility by keeping some of the aspects in policy, so it’ll be a combination of regulation and policy.

Th at’s really about maximizing fl exibility as we analyze what happens in the days ahead. We have the ability to have some of that fl exibility that we think we’re going to need. But again, the issue of trans- parency will be in play, no matter which. Th ings will be published and be made very transparent. Only those de- cisions and that process will follow rigorous consultation.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. M. Elmore:

Section 5, “Obligations of approved per- son. ” If an application is successful, the approved person must notify the director of “any material change in the approved person’s circumstances. ” Approved persons must also “comply with conditions imposed under sec- tion 4 (2). ” Again, following on the line, will there be a defi nition for material change, and can the minister speak to what this means under the act? [1525] Hon. S. Bond: Y es, there will be a defi nition. A couple of examples of the criteria that would be in place. Resident in British Columbia would be one. Also, the requirement for a job off er.

In some streams, that is also a requirement. So yes, they will be defi ned, and it will, again, be part of that consultation process. Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved. On

section 8. M. Elmore:

Section 8, “Personal information. ” “

(2) Subject to

section 10, the director may…(

a) collect personal information, including from sources other than the individual the information is about, and (

b) disclose and use that personal information. ” My question is that there have been concerns raised from immigration groups about the protection of pri- vacy. Can the minister explain why it’s necessary for the director to have the ability to collect and disclose such a wide range of personal information? Hon. S. Bond: I assume that what the member is con- cerned about isn’t the collection of data; it’s how we man- age it. Obviously, in order to allow or nominate someone to become a Canadian citizen, there are some things we need to know about that person.

Th e collection of certain data is required through the Canada-B.C. agreement that we signed. It’s a federal re- quirement that we actually collect particular types of information. It has to be disclosed to the federal gov- ernment. Th e member opposite would also note that previous to this, we discussed how we were going to try to better manage and protect against abuse. Th ere will be informa- tion-sharing agreements put in place with other organ- izations as well, including, potentially, law enforcement.

It is critical in the process in order to ensure that we have the due diligence that I think everyone would expect if a person is going to become a Canadian citizen. We are re-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10061 quired to collect and disclose data, and it would be done, obviously, according to the protocols that are in place. Sections 8 and 9 approved. On

section 10. M. Elmore: Th is is the

section on confi dentiality. Th e

section reads: “

(1) If requested in writing by a person who has, for any purpose under this Act, provided information to the director, the director must not disclose any identifying information about the person unless (

a) the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of a proceed- ing under this Act, or (

b) the director considers the disclosure is in the public interest. “(2) Subsection (1) applies despite any provision of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act other than

section 44 (1) (b), (2), (2.1) and (3) of that Act. ” [1530] I’m just going to read an excerpt from a letter from the B.C. Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, which the minister also has a copy of, just to raise concerns that she has with this section. She says that

Section 10 of the proposed act “provides for the confi dentiality of the identity of individuals who provide information to the director for any purpose under the act. ” “Section 10(2) takes the further step of overriding FIPPA with respect to that identifying information. “It is my belief that this override is unnecessary, as the protection of the identity of the informant is already provided for in

section 22 of FIPPA, which requires that the head of a public body must re- fuse to disclose personal information where that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy…. “I remain concerned about the proliferation of express FIPPA overrides in legislation and amendments to legislation that have been enacted in recent years, as each override weakens FIPPA as a whole.

FIPPA is a carefully balanced statutory instrument which seeks to meet the important public policy goals of public bodies and of government, while protecting the rights of British Columbians to their privacy as well as to their access to informa- tion. “Th e use of an express FIPPA override removes these rights, which is a step that must not be undertaken lightly or without due regard to the need for such an override. It is particularly problematic where, as here, the objective…is already provided for by FIPPA. ” Th is

section gives the director far-reaching powers with regard to inspection of immigration applications. My question to the minister. Th ere are concerns that these far-reaching inspection powers will impact pri- vacy rights of applicants. Can the minister speak to why it’s necessary for the director to have such wide-ranging powers? Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to say that certainly, in the course of my career as a cabinet minister, I have very much appreciated advice from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and I take all of the recommen- dations seriously. But the member has expressed, and I completely agree with her…. When we were discussing, in

section 3, the concern about vulnerable individuals, the member her- self noted that oft en there are cases where people are afraid to come forward. Th is provision is designed exactly to protect them. Th e point of this

section is to make sure that there is protection for the information provided by an informant. I’ll give the member an example. If someone is em- ployed and an employer is charging a recruitment fee, for example, which I know has been a concern expressed by the member opposite, they are going to be very reluc- tant to come forward if that information can somehow be made public or they are not protected. [1535] In essence, I very carefully weighed it. I am not eager to move quickly or aggressively in the face of informa- tion that’s provided by the Privacy Commissioner.

I take that very seriously, but I should also point out that this is not unique. Th is mirrors legislation that is in place when there is highly sensitive and potentially harmful infor- mation in place, and that includes in the Employment Standards Act and in the Child, Family and Community Services Act. I do appreciate the question. It was not unexpected, and I have given it a great deal of thought as we prepared the legislation. But what matters to me is that if some- one is facing a circumstance in British Columbia, I do not want them to be worried about coming forward.

In fact, they become an informant, in the case of fraud and in many other circumstances. I am very respectful of the letter. We did adjust other issues according to the advice provided by the Privacy Commissioner, but in this case, I believe that it is critical that we protect those people who come forward. Th ey must be absolutely certain that their information will be protected. Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved. On

section 16. M. Elmore: We’re just nearing the end of the sections for Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. I’ d just like to thank the minister for the opportunity to ex- plain the sections in the act. I appreciate the staff on hand and also the new director. I appreciate the invitation, also, to participate in the process around being advised of the regulations as they come into force.

I also note that it’s positive with respect to improving the operation of the provincial nominee program, but certainly, it’s a narrow focus, and also, other areas, chal- lenges, are still upon us in British Columbia in terms of ensuring that issues around the mistreatment of tempor- ary foreign workers, violations, the charging of illegal recruitment fees, which we’ve touched upon briefl y…. Th ose are still realities and still need to be addressed.

British Columbia Debates10062 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the member opposite for her thoughtful questions. I do know that this is a very personal and passionate issue for her, and I do appreciate that. I would welcome input in terms of regulations. We want to make sure that the system is as transparent, as accountable and as focused on British Columbia’s needs as we can possibly be, while recognizing that when you want to become a Canadian citizen, it’s a pretty passion- ate thing for people. I, too, want to thank the staff . Th ey’ve done a great job.

I know that it’s been a lot of work in a very short period of time as we looked at how we redesigned the system. We are still working through the list of people that had applied previously. We’ve made good progress. We are going to see a diff erent system in British Columbia. We will have the fl exibility, from time to time, to invite people to apply. Th ere will be times when we have reached the maximum number. I do appreciate the input, and I appreciate the mem- ber’s comments. Sections 16 and 17 approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Th e committee rose at 3:39 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. [1540] Report and Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS ACT Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, re- ported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. C. Oakes: I now call committee on Bill 35. Committee of the Whole House BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015 Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 3:43 p.m. On

section 1. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to be able to get commit- tee stage underway for the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015. Th is legislation is a response, as we all know, to the two tragic incidents at Babine and Lakeland mills, where four gentlemen lost their lives and about 40 others, a little over 40 others, were seriously injured, many of them fa- cing traumatic circumstances that will be with them for their whole lives.

Th is bill looks to deal primarily with issues that relate to recommendations from the coroner’s inquest about the roles, responsibilities, participation of joint occupa- tional health and safety committees, their functioning, how they should function and the roles and authority they have to do what they do. [1545] However, at the beginning of the bill, there are a couple of sections that deal with other matters that I think are more than housekeeping. We’ll work our way through those and then get to the discussion of the more sub- stantive pieces of the bill a little later on this aft ernoon.

Section 1 of the bill says: “Th e Board must, on or before April 30 in each year, make to the minister a report of its transactions during the last preceding calendar year, and the report must contain the particulars the min- ister specifi es.

(2) Th e minister must promptly, with respect to the report referred to in subsection (1), (

a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if the…Assembly is in session, or (

b) fi le the report with the Clerk…if the Legislative Assembly is not in session. ” Could the minister tell us what the intent for this change was and why she felt it was necessary to make the change? Hon. S. Bond: Y es. Previously WorkSafe had been asked to change, as others were, to the international fi - nancial reporting standards. What happened was…. Th ey have a very large and complicated portfolio, and from my perspective, not meeting a deadline consistently is a problem.

When I looked at what the challenge was, it’s very diffi cult for this organization to actually meet the existing deadline that is in March. Th at happened in 2011, when we made the shift to IFRS. What this allows them to do is to have a reasonable and acceptable time frame that they can actually manage to meet. So the decision was to move the due date from March 25 to April 30. S. Simpson: Th e

section says that it will administer “a report of its transactions during the last preceding cal- endar year, and the report must contain the particulars the minister specifi es. ” Could she clarify what that means and how that will be a diff erent circumstance from what occurs today? Hon. S. Bond: It’s a fairly straightforward answer. Th e content won’t change. What does change is that fact that the report will now be given to the minister. It’ll be pre-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10063 sented to the minister. So the whole issue of specifying by the minister is consequential to the fact that the report is coming to the minister now. S. Simpson: So, then, is it the expectation…? As it says that “the report must contain the particulars the minis- ter specifi es, ” maybe the minister could be clear about: is there a list of specifi cs that the minister provides to the agency saying, “I expect your annual report to include A through X” or whatever, and what is that? [1550] Hon. S. Bond: No, there isn’t a checklist.

Th e report has to be consistent with IFRS. It does, however, allow that if the minister should want to include a particular focus or an area, that could take place with this amend- ment. Having said that, I don’t anticipate that. Th e reports are well done. Th e issue at stake here is the issue of timeliness. If it is impossible for the organization to meet the time- line, I think we needed to address that, and that is why the change. Th at is the substantive change here. I should take a moment to introduce this group of staff . We’ve just fi nished one bill with a fantastic group, and we have another one today.

Once again, I’m supported by my deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos. Trevor Hughes is the assistant deputy minister, Michael Tanner is the director of policy and legislation, and Jake Ayers is the senior policy adviser who worked on this fi le. Th ey’ve done a really great job. S. Simpson: I think this, actually, will probably pertain more to

section 2, which we’ll get to in a minute. Th ere is a sense here that the specifi cs, particularly in the service plan but also in the annual report…. Is the minister increasing her role with WorkSafe B.C.? It’s an agency that is probably in many ways one of the more independent agencies in government, obviously with a whole array of responsibilities and an array of authority that most other agencies of government don’t have.

Is this the beginning of a move for the minister to increase her accountability for the agency by taking a more direct approach, a more hands-on approach, than maybe has been the past practice for a minister? Hon. S. Bond: The direct answer to the member’s question is no. Th is is not a new role where the minister would be directly engaged with the oversight of WorkSafe. It does allow for the minister to request, should it be necessary…. It’s not my intention at this point in time, but it does allow for the minister to request a particular focus in a reporting-out way. Th e reporting out will con- tinue.

It is not about a direct role for the minister in that. [1555] I should say to the member opposite, though, that…. I believe that’s appropriate. Th is is an independent organ- ization. Certainly, since I’ve become minister, I meet with them regularly and don’t hesitate to lay out my concerns and also my expectations. S. Simpson: Just so I understand the process. Th is is stepping back one question, again, to the thing about par- ticulars that the minister specifi es in the report. I’m trying to understand how the process of the prep- aration of the annual report works.

Is it a process where WorkSafe prepares a draft of the annual report, pro- vides it to the ministry and through there to the minis- ter, whatever? Th e minister gets to not write the report but to make sure that the areas — the content — refl ects what she wants in terms of areas of content.

If there are holes in that, she sends it back and says: “Y ou should be discussing this issue” or “I’m concerned that this issue is not dealt with in your report, and take another look at it. ” When it says that the report must contain the particu- lars the minister specifi es, and the minister says, “I don’t have a list that I give to WorkSafe before they start, ” then does she review a draft and satisfy herself that all of the areas that she believes need to be covered are addressed and, if not, sends the draft back saying there are holes and you should address them? Hon. S. Bond: I don’t review a draft .

I certainly haven’t at this point in practice, and I don’t intend to change that. I think that one of the critical things, for me, is the three-year service plan. It gives us a sense of what the thinking is over a three-year period. I think if there were going to be discussion, it would be based on that three- year strategic plan looking at where the priorities lie.

I think it’s safe to say that through our regular meet- ings and through the work done by senior staff with WorkSafe on a very regular basis that by the time we get to writing the report, we have a pretty good sense of what the year ahead is going to look like, and so the re- port really refl ects that. No, I don’t review draft s. I do have ongoing dialogue, and I would certainly review with interest — and dia- logue with WorkSafe — the three-year service plan. S. Simpson: It says in subsection (2): “Th e minister must promptly, with respect to the report referred to in subsection (1), (

a) lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is in session, or (

b) fi le the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not in session. ” [1600] So if we’re not sitting at the time that the report ar- rives — and being as it’s end of April, I expect in most instances we probably will be, but if we’re not — is the result of fi ling the report with the Clerk that the report is released publicly? Or does the report sit until it fi nally hits the table of the Legislature?

British Columbia Debates10064 Wednesday, November 4, 2015 [R. Lee in the chair.] Hon. S. Bond: Good aft ernoon, hon. Chair. WorkSafe is responsible for making it public. Th e trig- ger for making it public is when it’s tabled here in the Legislature. What we don’t want is WorkSafe not making it public. Y ou have to bring it to the Legislature currently. It would not be released by WorkSafe until that happened. In the event we were not sitting, we would be able to lay the report with the Clerk of the Legislature. Th en WorkSafe would make it public. So, yes, it becomes pub- lic.

We just don’t want it sitting and waiting until the Legislature is sitting. S. Simpson: With that, we know that at the point the minister tables it in the Legislature, it is a public docu- ment that day, once the minister chooses to table it. What I think I hear the minister saying is that should we not be sitting — should it be fi led with the Clerk — then that does not make it a public document. It then allows WorkSafe to release it if they choose to, up until the time that the House would sit again, and it would be put be- fore the House. Is that accurate? Hon. S.

Bond: We would expect that process to be simultaneous. Once it’s in front of the Clerk, WorkSafe would press the button and release it.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. S. Simpson:

Section 2 deals with similar questions but relates to the service plan rather than the annual report. Maybe I’ll just go back, and I’ll ask that question and confi rm with the minister that the thinking is the same as relates to the service plans. Should there be some reason, not expected, that we are not sitting and the service plan is provided to the minister and the minister fi les the service plan with the Clerk, would it then be her expectation that at the point that she informed WorkSafe that the Clerk was in pos- session of it, WorkSafe would release the service plan?

Or are service plans dealt with in a diff erent fashion than annual reports? Hon. S. Bond: Th ey are two documents that we release together. In fact, one of the reasons that both dates have been changed is because the community actually likes to see both of them side by side. Th e same practice would be in place that we saw in the previous section. S. Simpson: We know that in most of the areas related to service plans, the ministry deals with the production of service plans and the preparation and the thinking and all of that on behalf of the minister. Service plans for WorkSafe are a slightly different item.

Is there a role for the ministry itself in the develop- ment of WorkSafe service plans? Does the ministry play a role? Do they consult around the specifi cs of a service plan with WorkSafe prior to the fi nalization of the plan? [1605] Hon. S. Bond: We as a ministry, and certainly as the minister, don’t have a direct hand in creating the service plan. I would think it would be most accurate to say that there is certainly discussion with WorkSafe, the chair and senior executive team, about what the priorities are. Th ey’re not oft en hard to fi gure out.

We’re pretty public about what the expectations are, but we do not have a direct hand in the service plan. In fact, the WorkSafe organization creates their service plan and presents it to us. S. Simpson: So in that development of the service plans, it’s independent. WorkSafe functions independ- ently around that. I’m interested, around that, in whether it’s decisions of WorkSafe or where the decisions come. I’ll take one ex- ample. We know, for example, in the 2011-2013 and the 2012-2014 service plans, the notion of wood dust doesn’t get mentioned.

Th en, of course, in the 2013-2015 plan, it does, and it becomes a topic. With incidents like we know, like the tragic situations that we saw — decisions around that…. Is that the kind of place where the ministry has a conversation with WorkSafe about the expectation — maybe it’s the minis- ter’s expectations — that WorkSafe will, in fact, address those specifi c questions — not tell them how to address them, not prescribe how they should be addressed but say, “I have expectations, the ministry has expectations, that those questions will be addressed in the service plan”?

Does that kind of conversation go on? [1610] Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, perhaps I can use an example to best describe how their planning and thinking evolve and how their service plans evolve. Th e number one priority of WorkSafe, despite all of the chal- lenges that we have seen and that we continue to hear about and the work that we’ve done to improve circum- stances, is worker safety.

When you think about, for example, the evolving sci- ence around asbestos, I’m sure that if you went back in time, there would not have been strategic plans de- veloped around how to deal with the latent issues that emerged as a result of asbestos. When that science evolves and when WorkSafe, who are the experts in the area, realize and analyze what the risks and emerging risks are for workers, I would, of course, expect to see those refl ected in their service plans. Do I direct them to do that? No, but what I would certain-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 4, 2015 10065 ly do is, when an issue emerges, I would emphasize the need for rigour and continuity — those kinds of things. In the case of wood dust, I would have been shocked if it wasn’t included in their service plan. It was an emer- ging issue. Certainly, I have heard lots of commentary and debate from members on the opposite side of the House. I am not an expert on wood dust, but I do know this. As the science emerged, WorkSafe’s job was to make that a focus of their work. Th ey did that. It was refl ected in their service plans.

As new science emerges on other issues that present risks to workers, even potential risks, I would expect to see those refl ected in their service plans. S. Simpson: Just around this, it is no surprise that wood dust is incorporated in the service plans. A ques- tion I have that relates to the service plans…. We’ll move on aft er this. But it is a curiosity for me and an import- ant…. Particularly as we look to some of the future sec- tions here — sections that, as with much legislation, require a regulatory regime to operationalize them….

We know that WorkSafe — not quite as engaged when they do policy but pretty engaged when they do regulation. I’m sure the minister understands how the process is evolved by WorkSafe, but can the minister tell me: in the development of the service plans, is there a level of engagement, maybe like the engagement around regu- lation? Is there a level of engagement with legitimate stake- holders, the public, whoever, in the development of those plans so that they’re taking that in?

Th ey get, ob- viously, whatever advice they get from the minister and the ministry through the ongoing discussions over the period of a year and, certainly, the minister’s comments when she’s speaking about issues that relate to WorkSafe. I’m sure they pay close attention to that. Do they engage the public or the stakeholders in the development of the service plan? [1615] Hon. S.

Bond: I think, to the member opposite’s ques- tion, there is not a formal consultation process around the service plan, but because it’s a board-approved docu- ment, there are board members that are representative of important stakeholders. For example, there’s a worker representative. Th ere are people with occupational health and safety exper

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20151104pm-Hansard-v31n1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20151104pm Hansard v31n1
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6bd3ca74dd2d237c5978d2d4a54685c623c597f3

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