Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 263

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

I. Paton

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M222 — Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act

A. Wilkinson

Bill M223 — Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act

M. Polak

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Richard Wong

T. Wat

Everywoman’s Health Centre and access to abortion services

J. Routledge

S. Cadieux

Public engagement on transportation strategy for Metro Vancouver

B. Ma

Don Evans

J. Sturdy

Dress code for Legislature pages in 1977

N. Simons

Oral Questions

Communication practices of Citizens’ Services Minister

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

Communication practices of Citizens’ Services Minister and freedom-of-information requests

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

Transit system for south Vancouver Island

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Sims

Consultation on caribou protection

D. Clovechok

Hon. D. Donaldson

G. Kyllo

Petitions

M. Morris

D. Clovechok

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment Authority, annual service plan report, 2018

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee,

summary of activities,

2018-19

S. Bond

M. Dean

Petitions

L. Throness

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

I. Paton: Yesterday during the heat of debate, I made remarks that caused

distress to some parties. I withdraw these remarks

unconditionally.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, you know that 101 years ago today the first republic of

Armenia was established by survivors of the Armenian genocide. The republic

only lasted a short period — two years — as a result of invasions both by

Turkey and the Soviet Union. It was dismantled at that time, but it forms

the basis of the current independent Armenian state.

Together with members of the Armenian National Committee and St.

Gregory’s Armenian Apostolic Church, we’ll be commemorating this

anni­versary and the 31st anniversary of the Artsakh movement from 12

to one in the library rotunda today. I invite members from all sides of the

House to join us.

I’d also like to introduce guests in the gallery from both the

Armenian National Committee of Canada and St. Gregory’s Church — a church,

by the way, that sponsored more than 100 refugees from Syria in recent

years. I’d like to introduce the Very Reverend Karekin Shekherdemian, Jack

Deragopian, Karin Saghdejian, Vahe Andonian, Titar Kochkrian, Ohannes

Gulerian, Araxy Gulerian, Sosy Terzian, Krikor Kusbekian, Vrejouhi Johnson

and Sona Mapestone.

I wish that everyone in the House wish them welcome and welcome them

to the Legislature today.

S. Sullivan: Several months ago very good friends had a miraculous baby born. The

mother actually had cancer and had gone through chemotherapy. The only

reason this baby could be born was because of two people in the audience

today, Drs. Jeff Roberts and Caitlin Dunne. They are here representing a

national charity called Fertile Future.

The mission is to provide sperm, egg and embryo freezing to boys,

girls, men and women who are diagnosed with cancer. Presently it can cost up

to $15,000 for individuals to do this therapy. Fertile Future covers the

cost of fertility preservation so that young people who would otherwise be

rendered sterile after chemotherapy and radiation can have the chance to

make a family in the future.

So thank you for Xyla and 600 other British Columbians. Please make

them welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning from New Zealand is

the Hon. Dr. Megan Woods, Minister of Energy and Resources, Greater

Christchurch Regeneration, Research, Science and Innovation, Government

Digital Services and Minister Responsible for the Earth­quake

Commission. You can get a sense from that list of how busy she is and how

central she is to the government of New Zealand.

She’s here on her first official visit to British Columbia. I had the

opportunity to meet with her this morning. She will be, given the range of

her duties, meeting with other ministers as well.

I also want to say that I express the support of our government and

citizens for the very determined stand the New Zealand government and people

have taken against Islamophobia in recent months.

Would this House please make Minister Woods feel very

welcome.

A. Wilkinson: I’d like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the Armenian

delegation from the Armenian National Committee of Canada, Western Region

and from St. Gregory’s Church.

For those of you who are not so familiar with the Armenian phenomenon,

this is a people who have existed since time immemorial, have survived

multiple invasions by major empires from the east, south, west and north and

have proven themselves to be a resilient, focused, influential and

hard-working people.

We’re delighted to be able to welcome them today to the rotunda to

commemorate the Armenian Republic in 1918, which, as the minister noted,

survived a brief period of time until the Soviet invasions brought that to

an end. Now it has been reborn and has a beautiful embassy in Ottawa which I

run past every time I’m in Ottawa.

I’d like to welcome the Armenian delegation. Thank you for being

here.

Hon. L. Beare: It’s Tourism Week here in British Columbia and at the Legislature, and

it’s, obviously, one of my favourite weeks of the year. It’s a celebration

of the incredible adventures and experiences to be had in our province and,

as well, the people that make the tourism industry thrive. That’s why I’d

like to introduce some folks who are joining us in the gallery

today.

From B.C. Parks, we have Wendy Magnes, Kealey Pringle and Cole

Shoemaker. From the Adventure Tourism Coalition, we have Brad Harrison. From

the Commercial Bear Viewing Association, we have Kathy MacRae. From the

Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association, Andre Kuerbis; and Emily and

Bill Larson. And from the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association, Glenn

Mandziuk and Ellen Walker-Matthews.

As well, we have a number of staff from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts

and Culture. I want to personally thank them for all the incredible hard

work that they do to support our thriving tourism sector here in

B.C.

Would the House please make all of them feel very welcome.

D. Clovechok: It’s not always I get an opportunity to welcome constituents into the

House. Today up in the gallery, we’ve got Bev Goodwin, who’s been my friend

for 35-some-odd years.

Our kids got raised together, and we’re usually out in the back

country on our quads on the weekends, if I ever get home on the weekends. I

wanted to welcome her. Her husband is at a water course here in Victoria. So

I want to ask the House to make her feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I have a number of guests in the precinct today, staff from the

hard-working Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. They’re

doing things to make lives better for students across B.C. and helping open

doors.

I’d like to introduce Anna Saunders, Helena Arbuckle, Avery Bonner,

Nina Pruim, Lauren Stocks, Brent Cantarutti, Rae Linklater, Jen Owens and

Julia Norman. This is their first time visiting the precinct. It’s their

first question period. I would like the House to please welcome

them.

I also would like to introduce my practicum student. Hanna MacDonald

is joining me at my Vancouver–Mount Pleasant constituency office. She

currently is at UVic studying for her bachelor of social work. She works at

RainCity Housing and Vancouver Coastal Health. She’s looking forward to

getting her master’s — fingers crossed — at UBC. She’s very devoted to

outreach and helping those that are marginalized.

Finally, I’d like to thank, t’ooyaḵsiy̓

n̓iin , Kenya Rogers for her legislative

internship. She had a week at Vancouver–​Mount Pleasant. We showed her

the ropes, and it was a great visit.

Will the House please join me in welcoming my special

guests.

T. Redies: In the gallery today, we have a young constituency assistant, Mr. Jack

Wells, with us. He’s working with our office over the summer.

[10:15 a.m.]

He’s in between his third and fourth years at the University of

Western Ontario, where he’s studying business and politics. He’s a very,

very bright young man, and actually, this summer he’s studying for his LSAT.

So we’re delighted to have him. He’s also a very talented musician, which we

have begun to appreciate as well. So would the House join me in welcoming

Jack to our Legislature.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m not sure; I haven’t seen them. If they are not up in the gallery

yet, they will be joining us soon — about 50-plus members of the

Surrey-Delta Indo-Canadian Seniors association. They are hiring a bus to

come and visit us and see what we do here.

This is a group that I attend on a regular basis. I know many of my

colleagues from Surrey-Delta go there. This is a place to get advice on

local and international politics and a whole host of other things. I always

enjoy their company. They will be here today and taking a tour of the

facility, if they haven’t started yet. Once you see them, say hello. Let’s

join together to give them a very, very warm welcome to this

House.

T. Wat: It is a great pleasure to welcome my two guests, Richard Wong and his

wife, Grace Wong, to the public gallery.

Richard is a reputed community leader and has been actively serving

the community for decades. He is the national chair of the World Chinese

Business Association of Canada and is the honorary chair and adviser of many

community organizations, such as the Chinese community cultural

centre.

Since 2015, Richard has been the volunteer chair of the

all-­Canadian, world-record, nationwide simultaneous drum­ming

celebration on Canada Day, which created a new Guinness World

Record.

Most recently Richard was also instrumental in leading Vancouver

Chinatown Lions Club to install a flagpole flying the Canadian flag in

Vancouver’s Chinatown. The flag commemorates the contribution of

Chinese-Canadian railroad workers and veterans in our province.

Richard’s wife, Grace Wong, is also a familiar face in the community.

She’s the chair and adviser for many community organizations, such as

SUCCESS. Grace is also a pioneer of UBC’s international activities and

continues to be the driver for academic initiatives in China and across

Asia.

Please join me in welcoming Richard and Grace Wong.

S. Malcolmson: Shadowing me today in the Legislature are two grade 11 students from

Nanaimo, Charlotte Taylor and Anneke Schuurman. They have come just last

week from being in Ottawa to witness Parliament. So be prepared. There may

be some comparisons made. They’ve been part of the National Student

Commonwealth Forum.

Last summer they participated in STEM exercises for women — a camp

around science, trade, engineering and math for women. These are clearly

future leaders and already leaders in their community. Equal Voice central

Vancouver Island facilitated them being here today. I’m very grateful to

this fantastic organization, working hard to help young women follow the

mantra: “You have to see it in order to be it.”

I’m very glad they’re here today. Will the Legislature please make

them welcome.

S. Furstenau: I also have a shadow today, Melina Suelzle is a grade 12 student at

Cowichan High, and she’s graduating very soon. I met Melina a couple weeks

ago at the opening of the Cowichan youth mental health centre, celebrating

their opening. Melina is a volunteer there.

She’s also a staff at the community farm store in Duncan. She hopes to

travel in the fall to Germany and New Zealand. She intends to go on to

post-secondary studies. She’s not sure yet. History is her favourite

subject, and I encourage her to follow her passion.

A. Olsen: Today I stand not to do an introduction so much as to wish someone

very special to me a happy birthday. She’s not able to join us today because

she’s in grade 1 at school, or at least I hope she’s at school. I left

before she was supposed to be gone.

[10:20 a.m.]

My daughter Ella is seven years old today. She’s in grade 1 at

ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ school. She’s been

eagerly anticipating this day for about two months. As it approached, she

realized that the anticipation was building, and the other night she had a

breakdown. So I hope today is as special a day as she’s been

anticipating.

At the same time, I would also like to let the people of this House

know that we also have another birthday. The Acting Sergeant-at-Arms shares

a birthday with my daughter Ella. So maybe we can all gather and wish them

both a very happy birthday today.

D. Ashton: I’d like to thank the Minister of Tourism for introducing a couple of

people from the South Okanagan, Glenn Mandziuk and Ellen Walker-Matthews

from TOTA. I would also like to extend congratulations to Ellen

Walker-Matthews for another incredible Giants Head Grind. Thank you very

much for your contributions and your hard work on that.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — CONTROL OF

FOREIGN FUNDING AND

ELECTORAL INFLUENCE ACT

A. Wilkinson presented a bill intituled Control of Foreign Funding

and Electoral Influence Act.

A. Wilkinson: I move that a bill intituled Control of Foreign Funding and

Electoral Influence Act, of which notice has been given in my name on

the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time

now.

The serious issue of foreign money and influence in elections has

been making international headlines recently and, unfortunately, all of

us have seen foreign money funding political operatives and campaigns

here in British Columbia. That is why it is time for us to take

definitive action to ban foreign influence in British Columbia

politics.

This bill lays out clear steps that will prohibit foreign

intrusion into our political life here in British Columbia. It will ban

accepting contributions from any foreign person, government or political

organization for any purpose related to an election in British Columbia.

Additionally, individuals or organizations will be prohibited from

accepting funds from foreign entities intending to influence an election

in British Columbia. Finally, foreign-funded individuals and

organizations will be prohibited from making false or misleading

communications for any purpose related to an election in B.C. It should

be noted that this legislation is focused solely on elections, so bona

fide charities like the Nature Conservancy will not be affected

whatsoever.

I’m hopeful that given recent electoral changes in our funding

mechanisms due to the reform of political contributions, all parties in

this Legislature will be able to support this bill. We want to make sure

that British Columbians and only British Columbians remain in charge of

the democratic processes.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Wilkinson: I move that the bill be placed on the order paper of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M222, Control of Foreign Funding and Electoral Influence Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M223 — PROMPT PAYMENT

(BUILDERS LIEN)

ACT

M. Polak presented a bill intituled Prompt Payment (Builders Lien)

Act.

M. Polak: I move that a bill intituled Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read a first time now.

This bill will ensure that those who build our province,

contractors, subcontractors and workers, are paid in a timely fashion.

By setting payment deadlines, we can protect hard-working British

Columbians from unexpected and unnecessary financial hardship and

minimize payment disputes. If passed, this legislation will require

owners to pay contractors within 28 days of receiving an invoice and

contractors to pay subcontractors seven days thereafter.

Ontario passed similar legislation in 2017, while Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are

currently examining this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

M. Polak: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M223, Prompt Payment (Builders Lien) Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Popham: I seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I looked up, and I was pleasantly surprised to see an amazing class

from Claremont Secondary School visiting us with their teacher Mr. Graeme

Mitchell. Welcome to the chamber. I hope you can stay for question period.

I’m sure it’ll be wonderful.

[10:25 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RICHARD WONG

T. Wat: Earlier this month an event took place in the heart of Vancouver’s

Chinatown that celebrated not only the community contributions of

Richard Wong but also the importance of working to build connected

communities that celebrate cultural diversity.

Richard Wong is one of those people that has a resumé that is

almost too impressive to believe. Originally from Hong Kong, a UBC

graduate and a banker by trade, Richard has chaired dozens of boards,

including the World Chinese Business Association of Canada; taught at

local colleges; actively led numerous charitable campaigns; and has

worked to contribute millions to the fabric of our province.

Richard also holds a long list of accolades. He received the Queen

Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and holds a Senate of Canada 150

Medal in recognition of his invaluable service to Canada.

Richard also holds a spot in the Guinness Book of World

Records for helping facilitate the longest unbroken multi-venue

drum roll in the world, which was achieved on July 1 last year. An

attempt to break that record again is in the works for this coming

Canada Day.

Earlier this month Richard was presented with the Lions Clubs

International’s highest award to a non-Lion, the Medal of Merit, for his

philanthropy and spirited service.

A flag pole was also installed in the heart of Chinatown with the

aid of Richard. The flag pole, which proudly flies the Canadian flag,

commemorates the significant contributions and sacrifice of

Chinese-Canadian labour workers as well as First and Second World War

veterans.

As we near the end of this year’s Asian Heritage Month, it is my

pleasure to share the story of Richard Wong and his lasting mark as a

visionary leader in the Chinese-Canadian community.

EVERYWOMAN’S HEALTH CENTRE

AND ACCESS TO ABORTION

SERVICES

J. Routledge: Everywoman’s Health Centre was the first freestanding abortion

clinic in British Columbia. It was established by activists from the

women’s movement, and I’m proud to say I was one of them.

We opened Everywoman’s on November 4, 1988. I remember that day.

Anti-choice protesters were swarming the door, trying to prevent our

first patients from entering. I remember being part of a human shield to

protect them from being pushed, spit on and verbally abused.

Supporters serving as human shields became a daily activity, and

it was common for staff to arrive for work to find someone chained to

the front door. Security dominated the agenda at our board meetings. We

learned how to check the washroom for bombs, and we were urged to look

under our cars for bombs before we drove home.

I remember discussing what kind of Kevlar vests we should buy for

the doctors and how to get them to wear one, even after one of our

doctors, Gary Romalis, was shot by a sniper through his kitchen

window.

Things are very different today. Everywoman’s is in a new location

on a second floor, where it’s a lot harder for protesters to disrupt its

work and shame its patients, and the clinic is welcomed by and fully

integrated into the community. Today Everywoman’s offers a wide range of

sexual health services, like birth control, miscarriage management, pap

smears and sexually transmitted infection tests, in a setting designed

to make women feel comfortable and valued.

As the abortion debate threatens to be reignited even in this

country, I remember when desperate women performed abortions on

themselves with coat hangers or went to back street abortionists who

might pump Lysol into their uterus. I remember that making abortions

illegal doesn’t stop women from ending unwanted pregnancies. It just

stops them from ending them safely.

[10:30 a.m.]

FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

S. Cadieux: National AccessAbility Week takes place every year, starting on

promoted across communities and workplaces and a time to celebrate the

contributions of people with disabilities.

Certainly, 2019 is an exciting time, as Canadians anticipate the

passage into law of Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. As we know,

the B.C. government is embarking on the creation of a similar provincial

act.

Today more than six million Canadians aged 15 or over, or 22

percent of the population, identify as having a disability. Yet only 59

percent of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed,

compared to 80 percent of Canadians without disabilities.

Back many years ago during this week, I had coordinated a day in a

wheelchair for MLAs and mayors. Physical access barriers still exist,

and there’s much more to do. There is a need for us to rethink how we

design and build housing. There are too many playgrounds that children

with disabilities cannot access. We have yet to accept that people who

are deaf need captioning and ASL. We forget that people who are blind

need Braille signage to be able to get around, and so much

more.

In B.C., the presidents group and its members like ICBC, Vancity,

YVR and others have been leading by example in the employer community to

confront barriers to employment for people with disabilities, debunking

the myths that contribute to the underrepresentation of workers with

disabilities.

This week is not just about confronting the obvious barriers in

the built environment, like the lack of ramps or poorly designed

buildings that exclude people. It’s about ensuring people with

disabilities have jobs and economic inclusion, and it’s about increased

understanding and social inclusion. Those things are equally as

important.

Last week I had the privilege of attending Romance,

Relationships and Rights . It was a play developed by

self-advo­cates supported by Community Living and the UBC Centre

for Inclusion and Citizenship to educate the broader community about the

misconceptions about adults with intellectual disabilities, challenging

us to think differently about how we value, respect and support

self-advocates’ rights to romance and intimate relationships.

Recognizing the valuable contributions of persons with

disabilities is up to all of us. It starts with acknowledging our own

unconscious biases, leading with kindness. In this AccessAbility Week, I

encourage all of us to find ways to acknowledge and support the efforts

to build awareness, access and inclusion in every community in British

Columbia.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION

STRATEGY FOR METRO

VANCOUVER

B. Ma: What is the future of transportation for Metro Vancouver? When the

current ten-year Mayors Council transit plan is fully implemented,

what’s next for the region? Do you still own a car? Can you take a train

to UBC? Is there a rapid transit line to the North Shore? Automated air

pods that connect Surrey to Coquitlam? Growing populations, technology

changes and shifting global economies that take climate change into

account all mean that the future could look very different from today.

We need creative and bold ideas to keep the region on track.

TransLink is leading the development of Transport 2050, a new

shared regional transportation strategy that will help navigate the next

30 years of transportation. They want to hear from you through what

TransLink is calling the largest public engagement in its history.

What’s more is that for first time ever, the provincial government will

also be sitting at the table, working with local governments to build

that collective vision together.

When you think about how Metro Vancouver will grow and change over

the coming decades, what are your greatest concerns? When you think

about how people will move around the region in the future, what sort of

transportation system do you think we should use? Answer these questions

and more at transport2050.ca.

And 2050 might sound far away. While a 30-year outlook helps us to

build our communities far into the future, it also helps produce

shorter-term plans that are implemented right away to address needs so

that we can keep people moving right across the region.

This shared regional strategy will help the governments at all

levels navigate, prioritize and develop solutions for a better, more

livable community as we welcome an additional one million people into

our region by 2040. This once-in-a-generation opportunity all hinges on

a key element, and that is you. We need to hear from you — from

families, students, seniors and people of all walks of life and

abilities to tell us what your ideas are for the future of

transportation.

[10:35 a.m.]

DON EVANS

J. Sturdy: Today I rise to pay tribute to Don Evans, who passed away

unexpectedly just recently while on a trip to Peru. Don is best known as

a Canadian railway preservationist. He led the West Coast Railway

Association and spearheaded the creation of the West Coast Railway

Heritage Park in Squamish, as well as assisting in the development of

countless railway museums across the continent.

Don served as a Rotarian for more than 30 years. He was passionate

about making a difference across his own and other communities, was

Rotarian of the Year in 2014 and district 5040 provincial governor in

Tributes from Squamish and the railway community have called Don a

locomotive of a man. I don’t think there is a more apt tribute. I don’t

think there is a more passionate advocate for railway history,

education, restoration and celebration.

Most recently Don led the successful West Coast Railway

Association initiative to secure the federal cultural spaces fund,

which, combined with private donations, will enable the association to

acquire and upgrade the old B.C. Rail Squamish north yards rail shop.

Securing the locomotive and railcar maintenance building for its

purpose-built use, located opposite the Squamish railway heritage

museum, is critical. We know if it was repurposed, it would never be

replaced, and our opportunity to retain our railway heritage would be

dealt a devastating blow.

Don Evans was a graduate of Harvard Business School and went on to

work in the telecommunications industry for over 30 years, including a

term as chair of the board of E-Comm 911. Don was awarded the Queen

Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Medal for his community service and a Caring

Canadian Award, which was presented in 2016 by the Governor General of

Canada.

Don’s leadership and passion will be missed. While I obviously

can’t speak for Don, I am confident that he would be pushing me, in his

quiet way, to take this opportunity to encourage you all to visit the

Railway Heritage Park in Squamish, explore the magnificent Royal

Hudson and dozens of other engines and cars, celebrate our

collective heritage, and to know that Don made a difference.

DRESS CODE FOR

LEGISLATURE PAGES IN

N. Simons: It was unusually hot in Victoria in August of 1977, and it was

unusual that the Legislature was sitting. But it was. Bennett was the

Premier, and Barrett was the Leader of the Opposition. Fifteen-year-old

George Cessford was the sergeant of the pages.

In those days, pages would get the water for members, pass around

notes and, every few minutes or so, run Hansard tapes from the third

floor to somewhere in the basement. In those days, they wore

1929-vintage heavy blue serge jackets with 12 buttons cinched right up

to under the chin.

One day George asked the Speaker if the pages could dispense with

their heavy jackets, arguing that the Speaker had even allowed MLAs to

take their jackets and ties off. The Speaker said if he and the Clerks

had to wear their uniforms, so did the pages. Later George muttered to

the reporters that they had a story right under their noses. The pages’

uniforms were archaic and cruel.

The NDP House Leader took up the cause, asking the Speaker if the

pages could remove their jackets. Unanimous consent of the House was

required for that motion. The Minister of Finance said nay. Barrett

shouted: “Punish the kids, eh?” The House Leader commented: “What a

miserable place.”

George the page held a press availability. “It’s us that’s doing

the sweating. They’re okay just sitting there,” he said. Lisa Stevens,

another page sergeant, said: “We’re just suggesting that maybe we could

do our jobs and look smart without these tunic tops. After all, we’re

doing all their work.”

When asked what he was going to do about it, Cessford said, “What

can I do? We have no rights,” saying that the pages’ ranks were “scum

first class” and “scum second class.” When his interest in politics was

noted, they asked what party he would join. He said: “Any one but the

Social Credit.”

Two weeks later members heard that the pages had all been fired.

It came up in question period. The Premier, saying he knew nothing about

the firing, asked the Speaker. As he was being ruled out of order for

asking the Speaker a question, the Premier heard someone call him a

liar. A hubbub ensued, and insults flew back and forth. The Speaker

assured members he would look into the matter, and when things died

down, he asked the Clerks how much time had been lost. Six minutes was

the answer.

[10:40 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent to extend

question period for the equal amount of time. Nay, from the government

benches and another round of insults back and forth.

In the end, the pages were given a reprieve and were allowed to

continue to serve until the end of the session. In March of the next

year, they got new uniforms.

Mr. Speaker: That two-minute statement was rather fitting because, as members

will know, today we’ve released our proposed new guidelines and policy

with respect to the dress code.

Oral Questions

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

M. Polak: Two weeks ago the Minister of Citizens’ Services said: “Government

communications are to be done through my government email.” But we now

know she actively uses iMessage and WhatsApp to communicate with her

government staff, Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell.

How does the minister explain breaking the rules once

again?

Hon. J. Sims: I do not use WhatsApp for government business. I have already said

that I do have it on my Legislature phone and use it for local

constituency matters and personal things like connecting with my family

and other communication.

These unfounded claims are so torqued and taken out of context

that they don’t match reality. I would remind the members opposite that

non-government constituency business is not subject to FOI.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: This has nothing to do with constituency business. In fact, the

WhatsApp group was established, created by Mindy Bansal. Mindy Bansal is

the minister’s government staffer.

Recognizing what the Privacy Commissioner said: “I can’t emphasize

strongly enough, yet again, that it is extremely poor practice to use

personal communication tools for public business.” Clearly,

communications with her government staffers, Mindy Bansal and Shannon

Russell, are public business.

Did the minister direct her assistant to create that WhatsApp

group?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said previously, I do not use WhatsApp for government

business. I do use WhatsApp for other communications, and when requested

in an FOI, anything related with government business is

submitted.

For the last two weeks, I have listened to lots of unfounded

claims from the other side. They have been torqueing information and

taking it out of context. But let me assure them that I do government

business on my government communication devices and others on my

legislative.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a second

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, I’m not sure if the minister is purposely choosing certain

words to get around the answer to the question. She keeps mentioning

“government devices” versus “personal devices.” We’re talking here about

applications, applications that are not tracked through the government

email system yet communications that were created — opportunities, group

chats — by her government staff.

Now, it’s patently ridiculous for the minister to suggest that her

government staffers are creating chat groups that involve her and

involve them, yet what they’re discussing has nothing to do with

government. It makes no sense.

She got caught a year ago. She promised to do better. Why is she

still breaking the rules and making excuses for it?

Hon. J. Sims: I have stated clearly, and I will do it again, that I do not use

government devices. I make sure that I follow the rules that exist. I

make sure that I follow the rules that exist for government records. We

keep government records, and we delete transitory records as is

required.

[10:45 a.m.]

I’m very proud of the work that we have done in this area. Let me

say that I follow the rules and will continue to do so, and I do

document government decisions appropriately. Last month B.C. became the

first province in Canada to legislate government’s obligation to create

adequate records of key decisions under the Information Management Act.

These changes, Mr. Speaker, respond….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: These changes respond directly to recommendations made by former

B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioners David Loukidelis and

Elizabeth Denham. Mr. Loukidelis has thoroughly reviewed B.C.’s new

ap­proach…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …and stated that “the directive and guide­lines are

consistent with best practices internationally and domestically…. The

directive and guidelines will result in a leading-edge framework for the

documentation of government decisions that meets or exceeds requirements

in other jurisdictions around the world.”

While the opposition is focused on gotcha politics, we’re

introducing changes that will make B.C. a world leader in documenting

government decisions, and I’ll take no lessons from a group of people

that were known for triple-deleting…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …and win at all costs.

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

AND

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

S. Bond: Well, every day another embarrassing answer from this minister.

Apparently, she doesn’t realize that it has nothing to do with the

device. It has to do with the process she uses to communicate with her

government staff — pure and simple.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner said last week: “Using

personal…messaging doesn’t oust the public’s right of access to

information. When an access request is made, I expect government

officials to produce all responsive records for the public body to

decide on their release.” For nearly two years — two years, Mr. Speaker

— the official opposition has requested all sent texts and WhatsApp

messages from the minister, Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell and has

received nothing — zero.

Can the minister stand up and at least try to answer this

question: why were there zero messages retrieved for two years, and what

specific directions did she give her staff about the retention of

critical government documents?

Hon. J. Sims: When I hire new staff in my constituency office, they’re given

very clear direction that government business is to be done on my

government devices and that non-government business that is

constituency-related is to be done through my constituency

email.

I would remind the members opposite that non-government

constituency business is not subject to freedom of information. The

Information and Privacy Commissioner has confirmed this. That was the

case when the members opposite sat on this side of the House. When a

freedom-of-information request comes in, I provide all responsive

government records. That’s how the system works. I follow the

rules.

The members opposite are infamous for deleting records after a

request came in. That is wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: The opposition continues to make unfounded claims with no evidence

to support them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the minister’s answer is simply ridiculous. It has nothing

to do with her constituency office or the type of device. This is about

the conduct of a minister of the Crown. It’s time someone on that side

of the House actually stood up and took responsibility for the behaviour

of this minister and those answers. No one believes or trusts this

minister.

[10:50 a.m.]

Let’s listen to what the Privacy Commissioner had to say. “I would

describe the situation as absurd. That a minister that is being

accused…should be the person…in charge of determining whether or not

those allegations are proper…is patently absurd.” Very strong words from

the Privacy Commissioner, the very commissioner that the AG stood up in

the House the other day and said was exactly the person who should be

examining this minister’s behaviour.

Will the minister today finally do the right thing? Will she

release all of her iMessages and her WhatsApp communications with her

government staff members Mindy Bansal and Shannon Russell?

Hon. J. Sims: For the last two weeks, I have answered a number of questions

based on innuendo and allegation. Let me be clear that we maintain the

distinction between government and non-government work. I use government

communication channels for government work.

The B.C. NDP lawyer has written to Mr. Sorochan with the following

facts. There was never….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we are hardly being fair to the minister by not

allowing her to speak. At least allow the minister to speak without

interruption, please.

Hon. J. Sims: Allegations that the lawyer has stated…. There was never any

information to suggest that any of the visa applicants were on a

security watch list. The so-called cash for access was a charity event

for the Vancouver children’s hospital. The invoice had nothing to do

with a website. There is no evidence of donations. The registrar of

lobbyists found the claims weren’t true. Even the Information and

Privacy Commissioner said that no evidence has been provided of an issue

around freedom of information.

I would note that one of the letters the members opposite quote

from includes a statement from the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner. For your information, this is a quote. “FIPPA does not

apply to MLAs or the office of a person who is an MLA, because MLA

offices are not public bodies.”

TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR

SOUTH VANCOUVER

ISLAND

A. Olsen: The Saanich Peninsula is a vibrant community. It’s a hub of

industry. It’s home to businesses of all sizes, powered by innovative

entrepreneurs and a skilled labour force. Nearly $1 billion worth of

business transactions is generated in Keating, North Saanich and Sidney

each year. It creates more than 5,000 jobs for this region and thousands

of other spinoffs. Many of these entrepreneurs are leaders in the global

marketplace.

People who work in my riding come from all across this region, but

as the years pass, it’s becoming more difficult to get around. In every

one of my visits to local businesses, the owners and managers have told

me their employees need better access to transit services. It’s not a

new problem. The message has been consistent over the years and across

multiple governments.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When will the

minister make public transportation on the Saanich Peninsula a

priority?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s question. I know that he’s passionate

about public transit, as am I. We want to make sure that we are making

investments in the transit system to get people out of their cars. At

the moment, we’re in Bike to Work Week, and we’re seeing more people

getting on bicycles to commute. We do need to make that shift to get

people out of cars and onto public transit.

We are, at the moment, investing in bus lanes along Douglas

Street, out along the Saanich Peninsula, and we are investing record

amounts of money in B.C. Transit. I hope that the member will continue

to work with me to identify the areas that really need that

investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Joshua is a roast master at Level Ground. For 12 years, he’s been

a transit rider. Unfortunately, he, like many people I’ve spoken to,

feels that service on the Saanich Peninsula is in decline. I think this

is hardly the message that we should be sending to people who we want to

get out of their cars and onto transit.

Recently local leaders have called for free transit, which is open

to discussion here in the region. Every time I visit local high schools,

students are clear with me that they need and want a robust, convenient,

reliable transit system. The central focus of the town hall last week on

the Green New Deal here in Victoria was on public mass

transportation.

The minister has opened up a south Island transportation study in

this region. Since 2011, we’ve had a very good plan for how to improve

regional transit infrastructure and services. But instead of

implementing it, this government has kicked the can down the road once

again. That said, some projects, like the $86 million improvement to

Highway 14, seem to be getting funding without any problem.

To the Minister of Transportation, can the minister explain why

the Highway 14 project was more of a priority than investing money more

broadly across greater Victoria to improve our regional mass

transportation networks?

Hon. C. Trevena: I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit about

transportation in the south Island, which was ignored for 16 years under

the previous government. Through those 16 years,

there has been a massive deterioration. That is why we did launch the

south Island transportation strategy, which is going to be looking at

how we can make sure we integrate transportation.

We’re looking at bus transportation. We’re looking at how we can

potentially integrate ferries. We’re looking at the rail lines. We’re

looking at our highways — how to make sure that is integrated to better

serve the needs of everyone in the south Island.

Safety does come first. We are looking at Highway 14. Investments

there are going to increase safety. They’re going to increase

reliability and address mobility concerns for one of the fastest-growing

regions, I think, in the whole of B.C., when you look at the West Shore

and what’s happening there.

It is not an either-or. It’s working together to make sure we’ve

got a strategy for a region that was ignored for 16 years, as well as

making immediate investments.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

M. de Jong: Three months ago the Premier received information containing

serious allegations of misconduct by a minister who has already

confessed to misconduct previously, and no one over there wants to talk

about it. The Premier doesn’t want to talk about it. The Attorney

General gets up and lectures the House and provides it with

fundamentally incorrect information about the role of the Privacy

Commissioner. He is wrong; he is dead wrong.

I’m wondering what the message to citizens is. What’s the

government trying to say to citizens? If you have a complaint about the

conduct of a minister, send it in, but it’ll be ignored.

The Premier doesn’t want to address this, doesn’t want to talk

about it. The Attorney General doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So

let’s try the Deputy Premier. Will she show some leadership and initiate

a proper investigation into the serious allegations that have been made

about the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I have spoken to these unfounded claims. There is absolutely no

evidence to support them. We maintain the distinction between government

and non-government work. The B.C. NDP caucus lawyer has written a letter

to Mr. Sorochan with the facts.

There was never any information to suggest that any of the visa

applicants were on a security watch list. The so-called cash-for-access

was a charity event for the Vancouver children’s hospital. The invoice

had nothing to do with a website. There is no evidence of donation. The

registrar of lobbyists found the claims were not true. Even the

Information and Privacy Commissioner said that no evidence has been

provided of an issue around freedom of information.

Once again, this employee worked for me for six weeks, was an

employee of the Legislature, was not an employee of government. There is

a sharp distinction. The letter from the B.C. NDP lawyer covers the

issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, what speaks volumes is the refusal of any member of this

executive council to actually stand up and defend this minister. I mean,

talk about a new standard in investigative excellence. Apparently, the

Premier’s version of an impartial and exhaustive investigation is to get

Geoff Meggs to go to the minister and say: “Did you do anything wrong?

No? Well, that’s it. That’s it. End of story. End of issue.”

I’m going to ask the Deputy Premier one more time. She’s heard the

nonsense being spewed, the inconsistent stories, the changing stories

from the minister, just like every member of this House. In the absence

of the Premier showing any leadership and in the context of the Attorney

General, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, will the Deputy

Premier stand up and order an impartial investigation into the conduct

of her colleague the Minister of Citizens’ Services?

Hon. J. Sims: I have spoken to these claims many times, and I have demonstrated

that there is no evidence to support them. Let me make it very clear.

This individual did not work for government. The matters raised on the

March 4 letter relate to her six-week employment as a constituency

assistant. When the letter was received, the allegations were reviewed,

and there was no evidence to support them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I’m concerned again that we’re losing an

opportunity for the opposition to ask more questions.

Hon. J. Sims: The matter was dealt with by caucus, as she was not a government

employee. That’s appropriate for a human resources matter, as the

members opposite well know. They’re choosing to play political games

with a human resources matter, and it is shameful.

CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU PROTECTION

D. Clovechok: Pretty much everybody is aware of the fact that the government has

made an absolute mess of the caribou file. There is anger and resentment

in communities across this province over the NDP’s threatened back

country closures.

[11:05 a.m.]

Today I have a petition of over 12,000 signatures, which brings

the provincial total to almost 50,000 signatures. Despite admitting

publicly to severely bungling the process, the Premier continues to pick

and choose who will help shape important decisions in this province that

affect people’s livelihoods and their families.

A question to the Minister of Forests: why have the Columbia

River–Revelstoke and Shuswap regions been shut out of any direct,

meaningful and appropriate consultation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very happy to talk about a subject matter that is of concern

to people across the entire province, and that is, protecting caribou

and protecting jobs in the province of B.C.

Now, the member asks about public participation, and he well knows

there was a public meeting in Revelstoke on the

section 11 agreement,

the bilateral agreement that creates the framework for caribou recovery

plans in B.C. As well, staff of my ministry met with members of the

local government in Revelstoke during that session.

The

section 11 agreement is just the start of caribou recovery

herd plans from around the province that will be undertaken over the

next two years.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: The meeting that the minister refers to was a public meeting. The

mayor of Revelstoke and the mayor of Sicamous were completely shut out

of any private members’ meeting. Stakeholders and community leaders

continue to be left out of the process as this government dictates its

decisions from Victoria.

To quote Mayor Gary Sulz of Revelstoke: “Typing up on-line

submissions just doesn’t cut it. Our voices need to be heard loud and

clear and face to face.”

Why does the minister continue to block local community leaders

from participating in face-to-face meetings?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Nobody is blocking meetings between local government and my

ministry when it comes to caribou. As I said already, the

section 11

draft agreement means that there will be caribou herd recovery plans put

into place over the next two years. Stakeholders will be involved. Local

government will be involved in those discussions. My ministry staff is

going to visit the areas that that applies to.

Let’s just review how we got here. We got here because of an

imminent threat order by the federal government. When the opposition was

in government, they did not take this seriously. We were at risk of

losing thousands of jobs and having that unilateral decision imposed on

us by the federal government.

G. Kyllo: To quote Mayor Terry Rysz from Sicamous: “We need to be at the

table when they have these conversations because of the social and

economic impact of these decisions. It’s incredibly important that we’re

part of the conversation.”

People in the Shuswap feel disrespected and ignored by this

government. They have significant concerns around back country closures,

but these concerns are falling on deaf ears.

Will the Minister of Forests conduct real consultation in the

Shuswap and stop imposing the Premier’s plan for significant job

losses?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, of course consultation will occur through the

section 11

draft agreements. There will be meetings between ministry staff and

local government officials and other stakeholders, back country

recreation users, to hear their concerns and to develop herd plans

together over the next two years.

That’s what our government is doing. We’re engaging with people to

come up with a plan that protects caribou and protects jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemen­tal.

G. Kyllo: Well, this government continues to ignore the knowledge and

on-the-ground experience of stakeholders and community leaders. The NDP

response continues to be too little, too late.

[11:10 a.m.]

The Premier has still not brought local officials directly to the

table to discuss the potential impact of these policies. Will the

minister at least pause until people in the Columbia-Shuswap region are

appropriately consulted?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Perhaps the member should read the draft

section 11 agreement

that’s been on line for over a month now. It talks about a two-year

process to develop herd plans in his area and the area of

Columbia-Revelstoke.

If you’re talking about kicking the can down the road…. This is a

government that ignored the federal government’s imminent threat order.

They knew for three years that this kind of disaster could be upon us.

We’ve taken that bull by the horns. We’ve made sure that B.C. is at the

table. B.C. has been at the table on the partnership agreement, been at

the table on the federal agreement. We want a made-in-B.C. solution that

protects caribou and protects jobs.

That’s what we’re working towards. We’re going to make sure this

plan is in place for the people of B.C., for the communities, for First

Nations, for the caribou and for jobs.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Morris: I’d like to present a petition signed by over a third of the

population of the district of Mackenzie on behalf of the Mackenzie Chamber

of Commerce, asking for a socioeconomic assessment prior to the finalization

of the

section 11 and partnership agreement, regarding the caribou recovery

program.

D. Clovechok: I rise here today to present a petition of 12,000 signators on behalf

of the district of Sicamous and the city of Revelstoke.

The Community Charter speaks to the consultation on matters of mutual

interest and identifies provincial legislation and policy for which

ministers responsible must consult with local governments, through the Union

of B.C. Municipalities. Back-country closures pose an immediate threat to

the sustainability and future growth of our communities. We’re asking that

you extend the consultation timeline, at a minimum, to the fall, allowing

for a comprehensive and transparent socioeconomic impact assessment and the

employment of a Columbia-Shuswap liaison in term. We ask that you provide

all stakeholders a seat at the table.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the honour to present the B.C. Assessment 2018 Annual

Service Plan Report .

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

S. Bond: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts, summarizing the committee’s activities in

2018-2019.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

S. Bond: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

S. Bond: In moving the adoption of the report, I’d like to make some brief

comments. The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts does critical

work to review the effectiveness of public administration and the use of

public funds. We do this by examining the reports of the Auditor General

on whether or not government is meeting accounting principles and

standards and whether its programs are operating effectively,

economically and efficiently.

The committee has had a very busy agenda. In 2018-2019, it

reviewed a total of 14 reports from the Auditor General on a wide range

of issues that impact British Columbians across the province. On behalf

of the committee, I want to thank the Auditor General and her team for

their detailed analytical work and advice. I also want to express our

appreciation for the work of the comptroller general and his staff and

the many dedicated senior public servants who appeared before the

committee to answer questions about the administration of public

programs and how we can make them more effective and efficient in

serving British Columbians.

We would not be able to do our work without the excellent support

provided by the Clerk of Committees, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and her staff —

Ron Wall, Lisa Hill, Mary Newell, Stephanie Raymond and Mariana

Novis.

I’m grateful for the hard work and the dedication of the members

of the committee, who do their homework and ask very probing questions.

I especially want to express my gratitude to the Deputy Chair, the

member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. It’s a pleasure to work with her. She

does an excellent job. She may also want to make some comments about the

report.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for Prince George–Valemount for

all of her words about the report and the work of the committee as well.

As the Deputy Chair, it is an honour to be able to rise today to thank

the Chair here for providing her leadership, for making sure that we

stay on track, for making sure that we get our work done and also for

moving us forward and making progress, as we’re going to be implementing

some more follow-up procedures as well.

[11:15 a.m.]

I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clerks and

everybody in the Clerk’s office. There’s a lot of organizing and a lot

of logistics in all the work in this committee. They’ve produced a very

thorough report of the work of this committee that I recommend everybody

has a look at.

I’d like to also thank all of the staff across all of the

ministries — this work covers all of government’s activities — for all

the work that they do and also their commitments to ongoing improvements

and continuously improving. Thanks as well to the Office of the Auditor

General, her whole team. They show so much commitment, and they’re

always very thorough in their work. I’d like to recognize the

comptroller general for his support for the work of this committee and,

finally, to thank all of the committee members, for everybody’s work is

so diligent and so respectful as well.

I’m very proud to be part of an effective committee of the

Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

L. Throness: I’d like to present a petition on behalf of the member for

Abbotsford-Mission and myself on behalf of 492 of our constituents. Due to

the many power outages experienced by the residents of the Morice Valley,

Hemlock Valley, Lake Errock and Deroche, they’re petitioning this House to

require B.C. Hydro to provide a source of reliable power for

them.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: With the time remaining this morning, I call in this chamber committee

stage on Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room,

Committee A, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 22, Forest

Amendment Act. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:19 a.m.

The Chair:

Section 6 was stood down. So the committee will get back to

the debate on

section 6, as the amendment was moved by the member

for Shuswap.

On the amendment to

section 6 (continued) .

[11:20 a.m.]

J. Martin: I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 30, intituled Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, a subamendment to the amendment to

section 6, standing on the order paper in the name of the member for

Shuswap, as follows:

[That the amendment be amended in paragraph 6 (c), by striking

out “ subsections ” and substituting “ subsection ”, by

striking out “ (3) ” and substituting “ (2.1) ”, and by

deleting subsection (4).]

On the subamendment.

Hon. H. Bains: I think we had a discussion on this before. There has been a lot

of discussion on this issue. Let me say this. I oppose this amendment,

or subamendment to the amendment, because no amendment is needed. I

think that the way the bill was presented served the purpose of what

we’re trying to protect here.

I think we need to understand what we are talking about here.

We’re talking about a uniqueness of an industry, which is the

construction industry. It’s not like a factory, where employees go to

work every day and they’re there for six months, a year or

thereafter.

Construction projects are of a limited, limited time frame. Some

of them are two years. Some of them are three years. Some of them are

longer. Those members that we are talking about here…. It’s not about

the unions. It’s about members, who may be a member of one union and

wish to change the membership to a different union.

What we are saying, in our bill, is that because of the

uniqueness, because of the short period of projects, those members

should be allowed to change union certification every year, because of

the uniqueness of the industry,

whereas everything else, like a factory

and a care home, involves people that are there regularly, year after

year. There it makes sense to have some stability and certainty, as the

panel recommended. Their rate should only be allowed a third year if the

collective agreement is three years or more.

In construction, we’re saying that we keep it the way it is today.

Today membership can change unions every year. The amendment that you

are proposing, the subamendment you are proposing to the amendment, goes

to the heart of that issue. I’m going to say that I will not stand for

the subamendment.

A. Weaver: I will rise shortly to speak to the amendment as amended through

the subamendment.

In my view, the subamendment is really technical in nature. It

arises from legislative drafters reflecting upon the amendment that was

brought forward by the member for Shuswap. As such, I find this a very

minor subamendment to the original amendment.

I will support the subamendment and look forward to discussing the

amendment as subamended shortly.

[11:25 a.m.]

Subamendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 40

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

On the amendment as amended.

[11:30 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place to speak to the amendment that was brought

forward by the member for Shuswap.

As we know, Bill 30 is a unique piece of labour legislation. It’s

one of the first pieces of labour law that has received the broad

support of members in this House. Over the last 30 years, we’ve watched

as labour policy in this province swings back and forth like a pendulum

as government changes and as ideological fights play out. Putting an end

to these pendulum swings, which create instability and division, was

essential for our caucus. We further believe, as a caucus, in supporting

evidence-based policy that ensures the protection of workers.

In this regard, the work of the expert review panel was essential.

They made balanced and thoughtful recommendations as to how we could and

should update our labour code in the province of British Columbia. The

amendment before us today, brought forward by the member for Shuswap,

addresses one of the very few areas where what the government brought

forward in the legislation before us differs from what the panel

recommended.

Over the last few months, my colleagues, staff and I engaged with

numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the

various forces at play in this issue of labour policy. What we learned

through extensive consultation engagement is that construction labour

law in the province of British Columbia is particularly unique. Yet my

colleagues and I know that we are not the experts. What rose from our

engagement is the realization as to how essential it is to not simply

pass the legislation as it is amended and move on from these issues, but

rather to take the time to look deeper into construction labour

law.

There are a number of challenges facing the construction industry

that we firmly believe need to be explored further, including, of

course, the question raised in the amendment before us concerning when

and how raids can and should be allowed for. The panel itself

acknowledged there are construction-specific issues that relate to the

changing labour code.

The B.C. Green caucus understands the profoundly unique nature of

the construction industry. There are a number of examples that can be

given. We know, for example, that in public sector unions or public

sector sites, often people are in the same place for their job — on the

construction site. We know that safety is often front and centre in

deliberations on the site. We know that workers move from site to site

to site. We know that that is a very different type of working

environment than, say, a stationary environment where you work in the

same place.

We understand the special challenges that exist. We

under­stand that there are unions like CMAW, like IUOE and others

which actually are end-to-end project unions. We know, also, that

present rules within the B.C. Federation of Labour do not allow unions

to raid other unions in the Federation. So in the spirit of fairness and

openness and transparency, this, to us, must be collectively

addressed.

We understand that the construction sector needs a review. We

understand that changes need to be there. But we also understand that

the terms of reference of the panel precluded them from singling out

this sector to actually provide a separate report and suite of

recommendations for the construction sector.

In our view, we accept the numerous voices that told us that what

they were seeing — whether you’re a representative from a union like

CLAC or a union like IUOE or a union that wasn’t in the building trade,

represented by the B.C. Fed — is that they’re looking for a fair and

level playing field. That is exactly what we’re looking for: one that’s

grounded in evidence, not in ideology.

[11:35 a.m.]

I come to this again, and I say this. IUOE, an end-to-end

organizing union…. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that they go to a

construction site and recognize that on that construction site, the

workers there are being represented by an additional union, and that

environment is not safe. Or, perhaps, there’s a multitude of unions. The

IUOE, right now, is prohibited from raiding into those areas if said

unions there already are members of the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

Now I come to the nurses union, when there was concern within the

licensed practition nurses with respect to them being represented by the

health employers union. The concern was such that the licensed

practition nurses felt that they would be better represented by the

nurses’ union. A raid happened. The response, of course, was that the

nurses’ union was kicked out of the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

Is that fair? Is that actually what we’re aspiring to here in the

province of British Columbia? No. I think we’re aspiring to fair and

transparent workplaces — that is, fair for all, not just for the chosen

few and not just for those who have stood forward and actually have

stronger influence, perhaps, with government than others.

That is why we are calling on the government to undertake a

comprehensive, independent review of the construction sector, in

addition to supporting the amendment before us now. There does not

appear, in British Columbia, to have been a comprehensive review of this

industry since 1998. I’m not counting the kind of — what I would argue

is a very one-sided — so-called review that occurred in the early 2000s,

when the Liberals took over back then, because the building trades

weren’t invited to the table. And I’m not counting a kind of

self-reflective review that’s also happened.

A proper fundamental review of how labour policy should be applied

in the construction sector, I think, is long overdue in this province.

We know that in other provinces in the country, like Ontario, there is a

hybridization of labour laws: one that treats stationary workplaces and

one that treats transient workplaces, places where you’re not on the

same site every day. We cannot expect the same labour policy to apply to

stationary and transitory workplaces. The fact that we’re trying to

squeeze a square peg into a round hole, to take bits and pieces of what

the independent expert committee has recommended, is troubling to the

caucus, because we appeal to experts for our advice.

We know, and we understand, and we heard from the construction

sector that many of the sweeping changes that had been brought

historically hurt that sector. We appreciate that. We understand that.

We heard that. That is why we urge the government to commission a

further sectoral review of labour laws in the construction sector. We

support an independent review. We support a timely independent review,

one with short time frames, one that looks at the unique realities of

this sector of the economy and expands on the recommendations of the

current Labour Relations Code Review Panel.

In my view and in my caucus’s view, by doing this, we can ensure

that we bring forward policy to this table that does create a fair,

balanced, level playing field grounded in evidence, not ideological or

historical positions. I think, ultimately, that’s what most workers

want. They want the opportunity for a fair and open

workplace.

Until such time as this separate review can take place, we felt it

was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel

and, therefore, support the amendment to ensure its language is

reflected in this legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges

with this, I hope that all members of this House would be open and

prepared to support additional changes. Our caucus is. We’ve heard loud

and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered, and

we want to ensure that a process is established that gets politicians

objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, we believe, as a caucus, that we must end this

ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to take place in our

province for far too long. It is not about union versus employer. It is

not about worker versus employer. It is about doing what’s right to

create a fair and balanced work environment for all workers in British

Columbia. I think that that only will happen if we actually target this

industry with a separate, independent, thoughtful review of the

construction sector.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I’m standing to oppose this amendment for a very good reason. The

reason is, as is being alluded to, that the construction industry is

different. If we really understand what the construction industry is,

then we will not put this amendment in. In the construction industry,

most projects last two years, three years, and some longer. That’s why

there’s a distinction made in the raiding period.

The member talked about fairness. It is about fairness, what is

being proposed in the bill originally, and this amendment creates

unfairness. How is it fair, what our bill is proposing? There are one or

two unions that are opposing our proposal. All other construction unions

are supporting that.

What does that say to you, when we talk about workers? It is all

about workers. Why do we want to restrict those in construction, who are

there only for two-year, three-year or four-year projects? They’re

moving from site to site. They need an opportunity to change membership

if they wish to do that.

I understand all the other workplaces, where there’s continuous

work year after year after year. To bring certainty, the panel

recommended that if their collective agreement is three years or longer,

then you can raid on the third year and every year

thereafter.

In this particular case, that’s why they said July and August are

the open season, rather than as in the other sectors, where it is in on

the seventh and eighth month of their collective agreement. They

understood that there’s a uniqueness. There’s a difference in the

construction industry from the rest of the workplaces. That’s why they

said the July and August raiding period rather than the seventh and

eighth months, because in July and August most people are working. That

will reflect the true wishes of the majority.

Talk about fairness. The unions that are supporting this

amendment, that are lobbying for this amendment, will have the same

opportunity. Their members will have the same opportunity to change

membership, if they wish to do that, every year, under our proposal.

This is restricting them. This will restrict them to the third year,

when their project will be almost over. They will not have that

opportunity to move. How is that democratic? We talk about fairness. We

talk about democracy here. We talk about membership.

I think we’re completely missing the point here. The point is: why

are you denying those members the opportunity to change membership every

year, when their projects may last only two or three years? It’s the

same opportunity applied to the IUOE, the Operating Engineers, the

Ironworkers, whoever. They have the opportunity to change unions if they

wish to. The fact that they have a pact that they don’t raid each other

is their business.

The membership is what we are talking about here. Why are the

members of CLAC not allowed to change union membership, if they wish to

do that, every year? Does anybody have any answer to that? I haven’t

heard any. That’s why this amendment makes no sense. You’re denying

those members a right to choose, a right to association. That is their

democratic right. That is their constitutional right. We’re denying them

that.

The amendment makes no sense, and it is technically flawed as

well. I want the leader of the Green Party also, I hope, to understand

this. Let me talk about how it is flawed. The language of the amendment

creates a question about whether open raid periods would be permitted in

the continuation years of an agreement that has, initially, three years

or less — for example, in the fourth, fifth, sixth stressor years on a

three-year agreement.

[11:45 a.m.]

The intention of the government and the review panel was that the

raid would be permitted in those years. However, the draft amendment

creates some real confusion on whether this would occur, because the

proposed subsections 19(1)(

a) and 19(2)(

a) reference the collective

agreement but do not then include the words “or any continuation” as

Bill 30 does in both section (1)(

b) and section (1.1)(b). So this would

really be, in my view, an error on the part of the drafters.

I would encourage that this should be really looked at, because

otherwise, you would be denying those members the right to choose or

right to raid every year after the third year. I don’t believe that is

the intent of the amendment here. If that’s the case, you’re denying

members of those unions who wish to change, even after the third year,

in a collective agreement that is three years or longer. How is that

fair? I don’t think the members who are supporting the amendment really

looked through this — what the impact is on the members that you are

trying to bring this amendment for.

I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here. This is

denying the members their democratic rights that are enshrined in the

Canadian constitution — a right to membership, a right to association.

That’s why I say that this amendment makes no sense. It’s technically

flawed, and it should be defeated.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to rise and address a couple of the comments there.

I do appreciate the minister, and I think we’re very well served in

British Columbia by the minister, who is very fair and open with his

deliberations, and so forth. I would say that, in listening to the

minister’s speech there, he said a few things that were flags to

me.

He talked about the fact that this was stopping workers from

having a right to…. It does no such thing. What we’re saying is that the

expert panel recommendations were there as a suite. They were not there

to pick and choose. We recognize and we’ve supported all of the

recommendations. The important successorship changes — we supported

that. In this particular case, what we’re saying is that we don’t think

the expert panel did the work that needs to be done to carve out the

construction sector and to look at that independently.

Now, the minister has suggested that he has the solution. That’s

his view, and that’s fine. It’s his prerogative to have that. Our

position is that we don’t have that information. We don’t have that

information on which to make a decision in this area, because I suspect

that the construction industry would have a lot more that might have to

change if we actually went to a review.

I honestly don’t think the construction industry in the province

of British Columbia has been served well. I don’t think they’ve been

served well for many, many years. I come back to the issue that if there

are many sites, those will be represented by a multitude of other

unions. But if you are a trade union, a building trade, you cannot raid

into those unions. The minister says that that’s their right. It is

their right, but it’s also our right as British Columbians to ensure

that the playing field is level.

This is not about trying to create an us versus them — us versus

CLAC or us versus Unifor or us versus the nurses. This is about

recognizing that labour law must represent the diversity of views that

are out there and be inclusive and respectful and grounded in evidence

that will probably not get what everyone wants, but it builds forth to a

policy that we can actually grow from, as opposed to pendulum swinging

back and forth.

[11:50 a.m.]

That is one of our singular objectives. It is to ensure stability,

consistency and certainty. We’re not convinced, and certainly no

evidence was put for us, that with the change to the summer months, in

fact, that will be maintained with an annual, as opposed to the existing

recommendation within the panel.

With that, I’ll take my place.

[11:55 a.m.]

Amendment as amended approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 44

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 40

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Section 6 as amended approved on division.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 22; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:22 a.m.

section 3 (continued) .

J. Rustad: Day 2. We’ll see if we get to day 3, see how things go.

I just want to ask on the corporate relations component.

Particularly, there is the discussion in this section, I believe, if I’m

reading this

section right, where it talks about effective controlling

interest. I’m just wondering how that works with a publicly traded

company, where the largest block may only be 5, 10 or 20 percent of a

company, in terms of how that control would be asserted or measured

within the ministry.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Oh, wow. Geez, Members. We just got going. I’ll put this

committee into recess, as a vote has been called in the main

chamber.

The committee recessed from 11:24 a.m. to 11:33 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There is no change in this

section about the rules regarding how

effective control is defined. There are rules around how corporations

must report to us around effective control. It’s not a quantitative

measure. It’s more of a qualitative measure from the perspective of who

has voting rights, who controls the election or appointment of

directors. Those are the kinds of factors that are there. But the

important point is that there’s no change from the existing legislation

when it comes to this part.

J. Rustad: The reason I ask about the control issue and this piece that’s in

section 3 is because if there is a change of control, it could trigger a

potential review or potential requirements by the minister to meet

community interests, which we’ll get into later in the bill.

[11:35 a.m.]

As it goes through here, it talks about: “For the purposes of this

Part, a corporation is a subsidiary of another corporation if any of the

following applies: (

a) the corporation is controlled by the other

corporation….” Well, as the minister likely knows, whether it’s pension

funds or whether it is hedge funds or all kinds of investments side….

Even just average investors could come in and potentially change the

composition and could then have the ability to elect directors. They may

bring in, by proxy, many other votes that could ultimately lead to the

change in terms of who is the board chair and who effectively controls

the board.

What I’m trying to get some clarity from the minister on is how

that sort of structure plays into this bill in terms of the intent of

these changes that are being talked about. I get the situation that if

company A is being purchased by company B and there’s control, that’s

one situation. But if it is just a play, whether it’s markets or market

shares or a proxy fight within a particular company, does that trigger,

or is it the intent of this act to trigger, the minister’s review and

the minister’s potential decisions around the community interests and

other components that are mentioned in the bill?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The intent is not to review every time, necessarily, that there’s

a change in control, or at least to make determinations that way. If

there has just been a simple change that doesn’t increase concentration

of market power or tenure, then there won’t be the necessity to conduct

the kinds of provisions that are in the remainder of this proposed act.

However, if the increase in holdings in one conglomeration is with one

firm, then it might be reviewable under the rest of the provisions. But

the intent isn’t…. If it’s just a simple change of control that doesn’t

result in a concentration of market power or tenure, then the remainder

of the provisions won’t be triggered.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Rustad: Just following up on the question…. Sorry for belabouring this

point, but I am trying to get my head around what this means. I guess

the scenario that I was thinking about is a situation where the Ontario

pension fund, let’s say, just as an example, were to buy an interest in

company A, and then at some point they take an interest in company B.

Because of where the share structure is, maybe they start appointing or

having influence on it. There’s no relation between the two companies, A

or B. They both have tenure. But there’s a structural change at a board

level or at an ownership level that could potentially trigger in

here.

I’m wondering if the intent of this bill is designed solely around

companies that are operating for the purpose of milling or processing

fibre in British Columbia or whether these provisions could be triggered

even if it’s an overarching, unrelated entity that may be investing in

the forest sector but may end up, because of its structures and the way

things go, with the ability to have a controller, say, on a

board.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I suppose a way to typify it is that it doesn’t matter what the

nameplates are on the door. We’re not interested in the actual internal

structure of a corporation in this section. What we’re interested in is:

has the change in control impacted forest tenure concentration? What

we’re especially interested in is: does the effective director end up

directing both companies, are they playing an active role in managing,

and is that causing anti-competitive behaviour?

J. Rustad: I think, potentially, just one more question on this. Just to be

clear, then, if a company that has tenure in British Columbia is

purchased by another company that has no tenure in British Columbia,

that would not trigger provisions within this act, because it wouldn’t

change the concentration? I guess “concentration of tenure” are the

words that the minister had used. If there’s no change in that, then are

there no provisions within this act?

The scenario I’m just envisioning is that company A decides that

they want to sell. Company B comes in and wants to purchase them.

Company B doesn’t have any other forestry interests in British Columbia.

They may have forestry interests elsewhere — Europe, Alberta or the

United States — but they come in and purchase company A.

Company A may or may not have a level of concentration of tenure

above the threshold that has been established. So if there’s no change

in that threshold, then it wouldn’t matter about the corporate structure

change. I just want to make sure that that’s how I understand

this.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The scenario that the member posed is correct. It’s about B.C.

market concentration.

Noting the hour, I rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $490,716,000

(continued) .

T. Redies: Thank you to the Attorney General and to the ICBC staff for giving

us an opportunity to ask some questions. Some of our questions were

questions that we asked in the Finance estimates, and we’re now

following up with the Attorney General.

On February 7, 2019, it was announced that ICBC had lost $860

million in the first nine months of this year, and far from meeting its

planned loss of $684 million in fiscal 2018-19, ICBC would record a loss

of $1.18 billion instead.

My question to the Attorney. When did the Attorney first become

aware that ICBC was not meeting its financial forecast?

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. D. Eby: Saved by the bell, hon. Chair.

The Chair: This committee will take a recess.

The committee recessed from 11:24 a.m. to 11:34 a.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just prior to the response…. I’m joined by staff from the Ministry

of the Attorney General and from ICBC assisting me today. Phil Leong,

the interim CFO; Nicolas Jimenez, the CEO; Lindsay Matthews, VP, public

affairs — all from ICBC.

Then, from Ministry of the Attorney General: Carmen Zabarauckas,

executive director, justice services branch, and David Hoadley, CFO from

the ministry. Also, Doug Scott and Richard Fyfe are here again from the

Ministry of the Attorney General, the deputy and ADM of Crowns, not

respectively — with respect but not respectively.

[11:35 a.m.]

The dates that we’ve been able to cobble together here…. I say

that because it’s not something that we prepared. So if I need to refine

this, I’ll let the members know. As best as we can determine on the

spot, it was January 7, or early January anyway, that ICBC advised the

Ministry of Attorney General that a revised forecast was being

developed. On January 24, the ICBC board approved the revised Q3

forecast, and then, on February 7, ICBC announced the revised Q3

forecast.

S. Bond: A fairly significant deviation. From the Attorney General’s

perspective specifically, did the Attorney General discuss the miss with

the Finance Minister and the president of ICBC? What actions

specifically did this minister and this ministry do? What actions did

they take to actually determine the extent of the challenge? What did

the Attorney General do to assure himself that for ICBC, the forecasts

were correct? A pretty significant miss on ICBC’s part. What exactly did

the Attorney General and the ministry do?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, forecasting is an important part of what we ask ICBC to

do in terms of planning budgets. The Ministry of Finance has initiated a

review among all Crowns around how they do their budgets and

forecasting. ICBC is included in that review.

Separately from that, this ministry, at my direction, commissioned

PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, as well as, then, an independent actuary to

do a review of PwC’s work because of the incredible unhappiness, I guess

I can say, that I had about the state of play in terms of

forecasting.

The PwC review was done of the forecast, and then there was a

review of the review to make sure that the numbers were reliable. The

reason for that was that going into the election, the projected loss at

ICBC was $144 million, and then coming out of the election, just

literally a few months later, the projected loss was $1.36 billion. So

when the member talks about missing the mark in excess of $1 billion, I

think that that is a fairly significant miss.

Then the projection for the second year was a $25 million loss,

which obviously was nowhere in the realm of reality. This was produced

by the previous administration.

Obviously, projections are an issue. They obviously can be

manipulated for political ends. I say that because in September of 2016,

the then critic for the opposition, Adrian Dix, tried to sound the alarm

about the fact that ICBC had said that they were going to have to

increase rates more than 40 percent to make up for projected losses. He

was assured at the time that, of course, that wasn’t true. Of course, it

was true, as we discovered, much to our dismay, on taking the reins of

government.

We have had to take some very significant changes in order to get

things under control at ICBC. I can assure the members that all of the

reviews, three separate reviews now — PwC, an external actuary and the

Ministry of Finance review — have found that ICBC is using reasonable

industry-standard forecasting in their forecasts. In each quarter, they

have an external actuary, a firm called Eckler, that does a review of

their projections to provide the best possible information to government

about the trends.

I hope that’s helpful to the members in terms of assuring them

about what we’re doing to try to ensure that government receives

accurate forecasts.

T. Redies: Of course, I’ll have to avail myself of the Hansard s, but

I was just quite curious, actually, with some of the numbers that the AG

was flying around there. Particularly, he spoke about the forecast

changing within a few months after the election results from $147

million — I think he said — to $1.3 billion.

In fact, actually, in the September 2017 budget update, I think

the Attorney General will find that the forecast at the time for ICBC….

The losses were $225 million. In November, they were $364 million, and

eerily similar to this year, in February, it was announced that it was

going to lose $1.3 billion.

[11:45 a.m.]

In fact, actually, one of the challenges we have on this side of

the House, in terms of the forecasts, is that it appears that ICBC,

notwithstanding its process and all of the folks that it has looking at

its numbers, seems to be unable to get even close to any of its

forecasts. So I guess this is the issue that we are pursuing because, of

course, the government is also indicating that ICBC is going to more or

less break even in this coming year. But the forecasts and their ability

to hit forecasts have been woefully abysmal.

Pursuing this a little bit more, on November 23, 2018, ICBC

announced that it had lost $584 million in the first six months of

fiscal 2018-19. Did the Attorney General brief the Finance Minister? And

did the Finance Minister and the AG meet with ICBC and their staff? What

reasons were given for why ICBC was sustaining these substantially

higher losses from their forecasts?

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the members that Ministry of Finance staff actually get

updates almost at the exact same time as the board. Ministry of Finance

staff are very involved in receiving projections. Obviously, this is a

huge threat to the provincial budget when ICBC is losing money. Each

dollar that ICBC loses comes off of money that’s available to spend for

other government priorities. So Ministry of Finance is very involved and

up to date.

I’ve had many, many unfortunate and unhappy conversations with my

colleague the Minister of Finance about the financial state of ICBC, as

well as colleagues in government, as well as the public, about the state

of play. The obvious threats to ICBC’s projections are increased

litigation costs, increased number of accidents, increased numbers of

claims per accident and increased material damage claims as a result of

increasingly sophisticated, customized vehicles.

These are all trends that were obvious when the previous

government was in power, to the point that there were submissions to the

Utilities Commission about problems with ICBC’s financial sustainability

and the need for a 40-percent-plus rate increase. There was also a

report produced for them, which they cut pages out of before it was

released publicly, about the changes that needed to be made at ICBC to

avoid exactly the situation that we’re in.

I understand that the members on the other side have an issue with

fiscal projections. I have that issue, too, in terms of ensuring that

they’re as reliable as possible. But in terms of the broad trend — the

fact that it was obvious what was happening at ICBC, the fact that major

steps needed to be taken — the previous government had a report from a

third-party business firm. They had ICBC’s submissions to the Utilities

Commission.

They actively did things like book savings from a report they

hadn’t even received yet, about how to reform things at ICBC. They

booked the sale of ICBC.com, the URL, for $10 million to try to offset

what was obviously going to be a major election problem for them, which

was a huge loss at the insurer.

These are the decisions that were made by the previous government.

That is why it seemed like, almost overnight, ICBC went from near

break-even to losing about $1 billion a year. So I accept the member’s

critique, overall, of the fact that it would be great for us to have

projections that were close or more reliable. We’ve brought in multiple

experts to try to help us get there. But I don’t accept the critique

that this is suddenly an issue, that losses just showed up, because they

had plenty of warning that we were headed in this direction. They did

nothing, literally nothing, which is unacceptable.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada