Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 8, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 182

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Military service by Sergeant-at-Arms staff

J. Isaacs

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 47 — Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act

Hon. A. Dix

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

100th anniversary of WWI armistice and Bells of Peace initiative

S. Bond

Chinese Canadian Military Museum

A. Kang

Diabetes awareness

J. Isaacs

West Shore transition house

M. Dean

Ken Curry and raid on Dieppe

A. Olsen

Environmental conservation organizations in Fraser Valley

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Government use of email and staffing of constituency offices

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

P. Milobar

Oversight of mining operations and pollution prevention in Elk Valley watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. G. Heyman

Coverage of expenses for government ministers

M. Stilwell

Hon. M. Mark

Hon. M. Farnworth

J. Thornthwaite

Freedom-of-information requests on government emails

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act (continued)

T. Shypitka

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

M. Stilwell

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

(continued)

T. Shypitka

B. Stewart

R. Sultan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

M. Lee

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Kahlon: It’s my great pleasure to introduce someone who is very special to me.

This amazing woman immigrated to Canada in the early ’70s. She didn’t speak

washing dishes in a restaurant, and the owners, a wonderful Greek family,

happen to be the in-laws of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. This family

adopted her, gave her huge opportunities. I wasn’t going to get emotional

about it, but I’ll keep going.

After I was born, she sent my sister and me to India for four years.

When my son was born, I said: “How is it possible that you sent your child

away to another country and not see them for four years?” She said: “I knew

I was trying to give you a better life.”

This woman is so amazing that she, 30 years later, ended up buying

that restaurant that she used to wash dishes at and ran it for 12 years

quite successfully. The funny

part is that when she went away on a holiday

after we finally convinced her to go, we sold the restaurant because it was

just destroying her and she wasn’t getting some time with her

family.

I want to recognize my mom, who’s here in the Legislature today. I

wouldn’t be here without her. It’s a special day for her to be here to

witness something very important to our family. I won’t steal her thunder,

but it’s very important.

She brought with her, her bodyguard, my brother, Sunny Kahlon, and his

fiancée, Sharon Walia. Please make them welcome as well.

Tributes

MILITARY SERVICE BY

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

STAFF

J. Isaacs: I couldn’t help but to notice that many of our secessional members

are proudly wearing their uniform dress ribbons this week, and I’d like

to take a moment to recognize them. The Sergeant-at-Arms staff has 24

secessional members who were former Canadian Armed Forces members, and

nine Legislative Assembly Protective Services special provincial

constables who are former Canadian Forces military policemen.

All three branches of the Canadian Forces — the navy, the army and

the air force — are represented here by SAA staff members. While

serving, these individuals were involved in operations such as Canadian

sovereignty; emergency response and prevention; assistance to law

enforcement; fisheries patrol and surveillance; peace support;

counter-insurgency; training and assistance to partner forces in

international security and stability, including overseas tours; and

participation with the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia, Haiti, Cyprus,

Afghanistan and Somalia.

[10:10 a.m.]

Some members of the SAA staff who are with us today served in

noteworthy command positions. Jan Davis was the first female coxswain of

a Canadian Forces warship. Kim Davis was the chief petty officer for the

Canadian Forces navy. Randy Naylor and David Bliss were fleet chief

petty officers for Canadian Fleet Pacific. Paul Boynton and Peter Ford

were CFB Esquimalt base chiefs.

They, together with Randy Ennis, were appointed as members to the

Order of Military Merit, the second-highest order administered by the

Governor-General-in-Council, which was established to recognize members

of the Canadian Forces who have demonstrated dedication and devotion

beyond the call of duty, achieving conspicuous merit and exceptional

military service.

This week we remember and honour the great men and women who have

selflessly served our country. They are the unsung heroes who truly

inspire each of us to hold strong the principles of liberty, equality

and freedom.

Would the House please recognize and welcome all of our

Sergeant-at-Arms staff. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome the new mayor of Vancouver

to the chamber today. I’m not sure where he’s sitting. I know that Kennedy

Stewart is here to meet with various ministers. I’ve had the opportunity to

meet with him already. I know he’s going to be meeting with other ministers

to talk about housing, child care and a wide variety of issues. I would ask

every member of this House to make the new mayor of Vancouver very, very

welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m pleased this morning to announce a special guest in the gallery,

the 2017 Conservation Officer of the Year, Len Butler.

Len has been a conservation officer for 38 years and started his

career as a fish and wildlife officer in Alberta. He joined the B.C.

conservation officer service in 1991 and now works out of Williams Lake as

an inspector for the Thompson-Cariboo region. He’s known for a strong work

ethic and for extensive knowledge. He has worked with the special

investigations unit and is one of the three leads for the team that responds

to human-wildlife encounters and conflict.

He’s also responsible for putting together the agency’s defensive

tactics program, which teaches arrest-and-control tactics to new recruits,

as well as existing officers. The program has become one of the best

training programs in Canada.

Len is joined today by Chief Conservation Officer Doug Forsdick and

Deputy Chief Conservation Officer David Airey. I’d ask the House to please

join me in giving all three a warm welcome.

J. Martin: If anyone in the House has ever wondered who it is that makes those

awesome videos on my Facebook page, well, wonder no more. He’s in the House.

A good friend of mine, Matthew Hawkins, is joining us. With him is his

beautiful wife, Debbie, and their three kids, Keon, Annia and Kiefer. Please

welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon. C. Trevena: In the gallery today are some friends from Quadra Island. I’m very

pleased that they are here. Carole Yole and Ian Williamson are here to

witness democracy in action through question period. Then they are going to

be having a nice tour of the Legislature, including some behind the scenes

of some places that the public don’t often get to go to. Then I’m going to

have the pleasure of having lunch with some friends from Quadra. I hope the

House will make them very welcome and show them how our democracy truly

works.

S. Chandra Herbert: I noticed a former member of this chamber, an MLA. He was an MP. He

was a minister of film, tourism and other things. He has written a couple of

novels. He has just got a political memoir out there. He probably wants us

all to buy a copy. I want to recognize and welcome Ian Waddell and a number

of his guests to this chamber.

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to add my words of welcome, and I hope the House will join me

in welcoming into this House a colleague of mine. We spent four years

travelling across the country together and often spent a lot of time

together in Ottawa, as well, while we were MPs. He has recently been

elected, as we all know, as mayor of Vancouver.

I wish my colleague success in his new venture. I want him to enjoy

the roller coaster ride he’s going to have.

Please help me welcome Kennedy Stewart.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to recognize Len Butler, the conservation officer

from Williams Lake. Len was instrumental in having the last conservation log

cabin removed from way out in the Chilcotin and preserved at the 108

heritage site just outside of 100 Mile House. His dedication to our

communities and to conservation is second to none.

Congratulations, Len, and welcome.

R. Singh: They’re not here yet, but 40 students from David Brankin Elementary, a

school in my riding, are going to join us. They are accompanied by their

teacher Lisa Hutchcroft. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HEALTH SECTOR

STATUTES REPEAL

ACT

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Sector Statutes Repeal

Act.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time

now.

The Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act repeals two laws: the Health

and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, known as Bill 29 in 2002,

and the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, known as Bill 94 in

2003. It repeals both bills in their entirety.

The passage of Bills 29 and 94 led to the layoff of more than

10,000 health care workers, the largest layoff of women workers in

Canadian history. While some provisions were struck down after being

ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, both laws

remain in force today.

In repealing these two acts, Bill 47 will help improve the lives

of seniors and all patients by enhancing the quality and continuity of

care. For example, a single care home has been involved in six incidents

of Bill 29–related contract flipping, disrupting the lives of countless

people in care.

To this day, Bills 29 and 94 continue to deny health care workers

basic rights available to all workers in British Col­um­bia.

Repealing them will help ensure that all health care workers are treated

with respect as full members of the health care team at a time when

team-based care is a necessity at every level, from the hospital to the

care home to the community.

Finally, we need to support our current team of skilled health

care workers and recruit a whole new generation to do this critical work

in the future. To ensure this, we need to celebrate health care workers

— members of the Hospital Employees Union, the BCGEU and others — and we

need to recognize the fundamental value of their work to all those in

our province who need care and to all those who love them.

We are repealing these laws because they are inconsistent with the

needs of patients, of seniors, of caregivers and of health care in

I ask all members to support this bill and move first

reading.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 47, Health Sector Statutes Repeal 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.

[10:20 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

100 th ANNIVERSARY OF WWI ARMISTICE

AND BELLS OF PEACE INITIATIVE

S. Bond: At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, an armistice

was signed that ended World War I. November 11, 2018, marks the 100th

year since that memorable day.

The war took a horrific toll. The total number of military and

civilian casualties was estimated to be around 40 million people,

including more than 66,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders that were

killed and another 172,000 that were wounded. As fighting came to an end

a century ago, bells in churches spontaneously rang out all around the

world, including in Canada.

To honour the 100th anniversary of the signing of the armistice,

the Royal Canadian Legion has launched the Bells of Peace initiative. At

the setting of the sun on November 11, churches, legions and other

community locations will ring their bells 100 times. Bells will ring

across our country beginning in St. John’s and ending on Vancouver

Island.

In the words of the Legion — Dominion president: “This powerful

sound symbolizing peace from coast to coast will allow Canadians to

stop, remember and feel the joy that the end of the war brought after so

much death and destruction. It will also be a reflection of the deep

respect we hold for our many veterans who served in the First World War

and for those who continue to serve our country today.”

As I stand in this place, I am profoundly grateful for the gift of

freedom that we have been given. It came at enormous cost. Today, as we

should every day, we should honour and remember those who serve on our

behalf, especially those who paid the ultimate price.

At the going down of the sun and at the ringing of the bells and

in the morning, we will remember them.

CHINESE CANADIAN MILITARY MUSEUM

A. Kang: I stand in the House today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of

the Chinese Canadian Military Museum, which was established in November

1998. The passion and the vision behind its establishment was its

founder and their first president, army colonel Howe Lee, who is also a

constituent of Burnaby.

With the upcoming centennial anniversary of the armi­stice,

marking the end of the First World War on the 11th hour of the 11th day

of the 11th month of 1918, it is important to remember and recognize the

efforts and sacrifices that all our Canadian veterans made over the last

century, including Canadian veterans of Chinese heritage

descent.

Early Chinese immigrants arrived in British Columbia between 1858

and 1874. They typically worked as low-paid labourers. They were

forbidden to vote in B.C. until after World War II, and they were

subjected to a head tax.

When World War I was declared in 1914, it is estimated that

approximately 300 Chinese Canadians fought in the Cana­dian

expeditionary force. During World War I, they volunteered in all three

branches of the Armed Forces, and some were even seconded to the British

forces. They fought on land, sea and air, and some made the ultimate

sacrifice.

However, despite their courage and patriotism, there are few

official displays dedicated to Canadians of Chinese heritage and their

participation in both wars. The role of the Chinese Canadian Military

Museum Society is to research, collect, record and preserve stories,

artifacts, memorabilia and photographs that help illustrate this

important part of Canadian history. Today they also work to educate a

new generation of Canadians on the role Canadians of Chinese heritage

played in our country’s history.

I would like to take this special opportunity to thank all of our

veterans and the Chinese Canadians who served and are currently serving

in our Canadian military and wish the Chinese Canadian Military Museum

Society a very happy 20th anniversary.

DIABETES AWARENESS

J. Isaacs: Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects one in three. The

disease has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from

it. Diabetics must regularly test their blood sugar levels, keep track

of how much sugar and carbohydrates they consume and plan their lives

around meticulous eating and exercise schedules.

These behaviours are necessary in order to mitigate the symptoms

and the complications of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. If left untreated,

complications can be severe and, in some cases, life-threatening. Some

complications include the development of cardiovascular disease, stroke,

heart attack, kidney failure requiring dialysis and non-traumatic

lower-limb amputations each year.

[10:25 a.m.]

The risk of blindness in people with diabetes is also up to 25

times higher than those who are not diabetic.

Education about the disease is vital to prevention and

treat­ment. The month of November has been declared

Na­tional Diabetes Month, and November 14 is World Diabetes Day.

Diabetes Canada has worked tirelessly to develop an awareness campaign

that helps to educate the public and examine the misconceptions that

surround type 2 diabetes.

Canada has the proud history of being on the forefront of diabetic

treatment, beginning with Dr. Frederick Banting’s role in discovering

insulin. Diabetes Canada continues to forge a path for a cure and

prevention by helping the 11 million Canadians with diabetes live

healthy lives and educating those that are at risk for developing the

disease.

On World Diabetes Day, sites across the globe, including this

Legislature, will be lit up in blue to commemorate and recognize those

living with diabetes. Please join me today in support of Diabetes Canada

in their ongoing efforts to raise awareness and work towards a

cure.

WEST SHORE TRANSITION HOUSE

M. Dean: One day at home ten years ago, Shelly’s partner, the father of

their two daughters, forced her to sit on a chair. He went to the

garage, he took out a hunting rifle, and then he held it to her head.

She didn’t know if it was loaded. One of their girls, Ella, ran in, saw

the situation and screamed. He stormed out of the house, violence

averted for the moment.

Shelly was already in a Stopping the Violence counselling program.

She had told her counsellor about being hit and choked and had the cuts

and bruises to show for it. After the rifle incident, she talked again

with her counsellor about her options.

The nearest women’s shelter was so many miles away. If they left

home, her girls would have to change schools, they’d be away from their

aunts, and they’d be isolated. Shelly felt forced to stay and create a

safety plan.

Fast-forward to this year as we mark November, nationally, as

Domestic Violence Month. Women like Shelly will soon have more options

to make safer choices. With the announcement of funding for transition

houses, Shelly and other women and children in my constituency will have

a refuge nearby that will provide immediate safety.

The home on the West Shore, to be operated by the Victoria Women’s

Transition House Society, will provide a safe shelter for women and

children to heal with the supports and services they need — essential to

creating safe, supportive communities and ending gender-based violence.

Soon women and children will have more and local safe places to regroup,

rebuild and reclaim their lives. It will make a difference

soon.

KEN CURRY

AND RAID ON DIEPPE

A. Olsen: Ken Curry is 96. He lives in Sidney now, but in 1937, he was a

15-year-old kid growing up in Stoney Creek, Ontario. That was when he

joined the reserves with the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry Regiment. Ken

was 17 when the Second World War broke out. Because of his age, he had

to get the blessing of his mother to sign up for active duty. It took

some convincing, but she finally relented.

On August 19, 1942, Curry was on a ship on his way to Dieppe. As

we all know, Dieppe was a disaster. Out of the 6,000 men, mostly

Canadians, who raided that French beach, over half of the men and boys

either died or were imprisoned. Dieppe was Canada’s costliest day of the

Second World War.

I’ve had the honour of hearing Ken personally recount the stories

of the time that he spent on that beach — the rain of bullets, the

pounding of mortar shells. As he describes it, it was really just hell.

The water was red with the blood of dead and dying Canadians.

Under an evacuation order, he boarded a boat that was immediately

hit, so he had to abandon ship as it started to sink. He swam

underwater, aiming for some cliffs, hoping to reach the French lines. He

was greeted by the enemy.

[10:30 a.m.]

Ken spent the next three years of his life as a prisoner of war in

Germany, routinely beaten, manacled, malnourished and interrogated. It

was a long and challenging testament to Ken’s endurance. At the end of

the war, tired, hungry and his knee joints destroyed from being marched

over 1,000 miles by the Germans, Curry was eventually released by

Canada’s advancing Allies.

Despite his disastrous day in Dieppe and as a prisoner of war, Ken

Curry stayed with the military, eventually retiring as a major. Ken has

lived in the town of Sidney for the past 20 years. He is now the only

remaining member of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry that took

part in

that raid on Dieppe.

Today I stand in honour of the courage, the sacrifice, the

horrific and haunting memories that Ken Curry has carried on behalf of

all of us. As we go home to our communities to solemnly honour Ken and

those that were not so lucky, at Remembrance Day ceremonies around our

province, I say to Ken and to all those who served and serve our

country: I am humbled by you. Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

ORGANIZATIONS IN FRASER

VALLEY

B. D’Eith: Recently I participated in a volunteer clean-up day on a

section

of the Windebank Creek in my riding, organized by the Mission

Environmental Stewardship Society and the Fraser Valley Conservancy.

Windebank Creek is an important salmon habitat that was acquired by the

conservancy after a fisheries violation in 2008 involving illegal

logging of the streamside. Since 2012, the conservancy has been working

to restore the habitat, and I’m pleased to report that because of their

work, salmon are returning to the area.

We were joined by a number of dedicated staff and volunteers to

pull and cut back invasive plants, clean and remove garbage and replant

vegetation native to the creek and the area. Of course, I only got a

taste of the ongoing work that’s being done to revitalize this important

habitat, but I’m amazed by the dedication from everyone

involved.

This is a constant battle to ensure that the creek is suitable for

salmon runs. It’s important to acknowledge the hard work of executive

director Joanne Neilson of the Fraser Valley Conservancy, her staff and

board in their quest to promote the acquisition and preservation of

areas with ecological and historical value to the Fraser

Valley.

The other organizing group, the Mission Environmental Stewardship

Society, has operated the Mission adopt-a-block program for 24 years.

They tackle littering and illegal dumping in the community. I’d like to

thank Sophie Thomas, the executive director, and her staff and board for

all their hard work. I’m proud to be adopting a block in Maple Ridge and

Mission, and I encourage everyone in the House to do so in their

communities. If we all pitch in, we can make our neighbourhoods,

communities and local ecology areas thrive.

Environmental and heritage conservancy can only happen through

strong partnerships, education and action. Both the Mission

Environmental Stewardship Society and the Fraser Valley Conservancy are

great community leaders and an example to all of us of what needs to be

done to maintain our important habitats in British Columbia.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT USE OF EMAIL AND

STAFFING OF CONSTITUENCY

OFFICES

S. Bond: Well, another day, another breach. Yesterday we learned that

taxpayer-funded NDP issues management staff are using private Gmail and

B.C. NDP email accounts. But they’re not the only ones.

On September 6, 2017, Maura Parte, a supposedly non-partisan

public servant in the B.C. Public Service Agency, or PSA, emailed Layne

Clark in the Premier’s office and some­one using a B.C. NDP email

account — none other than B.C. NDP provincial director Raj

Sihota.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain this use of B.C.

NDP email accounts?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for the question today. It is

important for the public to have confidence that their government is

managing records properly and they are following the

processes.

[10:35 a.m.]

All employees are required to keep and dispose of records and to

use the emails according to the rules that exist. As mentioned before,

we have provided extra training, and it is important that rules and best

practices are followed. Our government is committed to that.

If the members have any additional information to share, they can

provide it, and we will look at it. If there’s an opportunity to

improve, I’m always interested. But the opposition has been taking

things out of context all week. I will look into the issue she has

raised today.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: It’s very hard to take out of context the fact that there are NDP

emails being used, along with government employees’. Pretty

straightforward, Minister.

Maura Parte was formerly the B.C. NDP president and is described

in internal documents as the Premier’s office PSA person. Layne Clark

was formerly the B.C. NDP director of operations, and according to

internal documents, her role in the Premier’s office was coordination

with the party. The subject of their emails, sent to the party account

of the NDP provincial director Raj Sihota? It was about staffing of

non-partisan constituency offices. It doesn’t get much clearer than

that, Minister.

Why would the Premier’s office and the PSA work with an official

from the B.C. NDP to staff what should clearly be non-partisan

constituency offices?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said yesterday, it’s very hard to sit on this side of the

House and listen to the sudden concern that we hear around use of emails

and record management from that side. As I have said previously, I will

look into this, and I will report back to the member.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I think it would be about time the minister looked into it.

Let’s look at September 5. The Premier’s chief of staff, Geoff Meggs,

emailed Maura Parte and directed her to hire political staff for

constituency offices — a clear breach.

The next day he emailed Layne Clark, telling her…. Here’s the

quote. The minister may want to write it down. “The idea was to put

someone out there to work on politics, not on case work,” in

non-partisan constituency offices.

Later that same day Maura Parte emailed Layne Clark and B.C. NDP

provincial director Raj Sihota about the specific issue, the partisan

political staffing of non-partisan constituency offices. Hard to get

much clearer than that.

Why is the PSA working with the B.C. NDP to politicize

constituency offices at the direction of someone no less than the

Premier’s chief of staff?

Hon. J. Sims: The government communications and public engagement department

provides communication support for government, as it did under the

previous administration. That hasn’t changed. Broad communication

materials are provided to CAs and EAs on government initiatives. As I

have said previously, I will look into the specifics, and I will report

back.

I want to remind people sitting across the way that we are a

government that is willing to look at what has happened and take

remedial action if and when necessary. We are a government that is

committed to openness and transparency, unlike the government previously

of quick wins, triple deletes and hide at all costs and then have

charges laid.

P. Milobar: Please forgive our cynicism, seeing as the minister said she’d

look into this six months ago and still has no answers for us — how hard

she’s actually looking into this.

[10:40 a.m.]

Let’s look at 2013, when the Premier said: “Whenever you’re

blurring the lines between partisan, political and government, then

you’ve got a problem.” Layne Clark did far more than blur the lines when

she worked with the PSA and the B.C. NDP to staff constituency offices.

This is wrong.

Let’s look at another Clark email with Geoff Meggs, the chief of

staff. “Meetings would include all political staff, GCPE and

constituency assistants” — both of which are supposed to be

non-partisan.

Does the Deputy Premier really consider constituency

assis­tants and government communications employees

poli­tical staff?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. We are

distinguishing between the work of political staff and the casework of

non-partisan constituency assistants.

Like all political staff, executive assistants do the political

work of the minister. That includes dealing with the political inquiries

that find their way into the constituency offices of ministers. This

ensures the constituency assistants can focus on their job of providing

support to constituents.

Constituency assistants interact with the public and need

information so that they are able to answer questions for people about

their government. That practice of sharing that general information has

not changed since that side sat on this side.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: I look forward to the day where I could thank the minister for an

actual answer to the question, but I don’t think that’s going to be

today.

It’s not just Layne Clark. It was Marie Della Mattia that wrote

about “GCPE folks that are doing political stuff” and referred to “all

political staff — constituency assistants, in particular.”

The pattern is very simple. It’s very clear here that the NDP is

not adhering to the rules. Multiple staff using private Gmail and B.C.

NDP emails; government communications, even the PSA, politicized; and

constituency staff and offices treated as partisan resources.

Constituency offices exist to serve the public in a non-partisan way.

They do not exist for the Premier and his party.

Again, to the Deputy Premier, when will they take accountability

and order a full review?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Sims: If you want to hear an answer, here it is.

The government communications and public engagement department

provides communication support for government, as it did under the

previous administration. That practice has not changed.

That includes broad communication materials provided to CAs and

EAs on government initiatives because, as they do their work in the

constituency, they are often asked about the work of government. That

practice was in place when that side sat on this side of the House, and

it is the practice today.

We pride ourselves on the fact that we’re working on improving

transparency and accountability. We’re not going to apologize for that,

and we’re going to take no lessons from that side of the House after

their dismal record for 16 long, long years.

OVERSIGHT OF MINING OPERATIONS

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

IN ELK VALLEY WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: In 2014, the B.C. government agreed to a water management plan

that allowed Teck Coal Ltd. to expand its coal operations, despite

concerns expressed in both B.C. and the United States that the Elk

Valley watershed was being poisoned by selenium and calcite

releases.

Initially, the Minister of Environment denied a permit for the

expansion, which extended into the westslope cutthroat trout habitat, a

species listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, but cabinet

approved it anyway.

[10:45 a.m.]

The then Minister of Energy and Mines sold the plan as a way to

keep Teck profitable while also solving the pollution problem. Two years

later Auditor General Bellringer said the government had ignored risks

to the watershed and was failing to protect B.C. from rising selenium

levels.

Last week in its third-quarter news release, Teck Coal Ltd.

boasted $1.3 billion in profits. It also makes passing references to

possible pending charges under the federal Fisheries Act in connection

with discharges of selenium and calcite from coal mines in the Elk

Valley.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Re­sources,

it looks like the company has indeed been able to continue making money,

but the potential federal charges indicate that pollution of the

watershed remains an ongoing issue. The poisoning of the Elk Valley and

Koocanusa reservoir is now happening under her watch. What is this

government doing about it?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for this very important question. Just a

year ago, actually, I was touring the Line Creek operations in the Elk

Valley. Part of that tour included a tour of the Line Creek Active Water

Treatment Facility, which is the treatment facility to address this very

issue that the member brought up about the selenium pollution that is

going on in the Elk Valley.

What the member may not know is that B.C. is actually leading the

world in terms of trying to address this problem. Not a lot of other

jurisdictions in the world are taking selenium pollution as seriously as

we are. That being said, it’s proving to be a lot more difficult than we

anticipated, and we’re learning a lot as we go along.

As we go along, we continue to work collaboratively with the

Ktunaxa Nation, with Teck and with the community at large, because, of

course, this watershed is critically important to those of us who live

in the Kootenays. We want to make sure that it’s protected and that our

pollution numbers are being reduced and that we’re going to be able to

meet that Elk Valley water quality plan and make sure that

we’re meeting its targets.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: It would appear that the federal fisheries are concerned about the

ongoing pollution, so maybe the treatment plant isn’t working as hoped.

To quote further from Auditor General Bellringer’s 2016 report on the

mining sector:

“Lack of sufficient and effective regulatory oversight and action by

the Ministry of Environment to address the environmental issues has

allowed degradation of the water quality in the Elk Valley. Coal mining,

which has been underway in the area for 100 years, has resulted in high

concentrations of selenium in the water system. As selenium accumulates

up the food chain, it can affect the development and survival of birds

and fish and may also pose health risks to humans.

“For 20 years, the Minister of Environment has been monitoring the

selenium levels in the Elk Valley and noted dramatic annual increases of

the chemical element of the watershed’s tributaries. MOE tracked this

worsening trend but took no substantive action.”

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Mining activities and ongoing resource extraction will

continue to impact the environment far into the future. How and when can

we expect to see concrete action to protect B.C.’s polluted rivers and

the fish that rely on them for their survival?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The member, like all

British Columbians, cares about what happens to our land, our air and

our water and takes the pollution of water and the impacts on fish and

other wildlife very seriously. So does this new government.

Let me say, first of all, that with respect to selenium levels

from Elk Valley, in the past four years Teck has paid over $600,000 in

fines for environmental violations. Teck has worked with our government

and the Ktunaxa Nation council to implement an Elk Valley water quality

plan, which includes the construction of water treatment plants,

including the one that my colleague has referred to.

We have dedicated staff in the East Kootenays overseeing Teck’s

operations and a compliance plan to ensure that we are doing due

diligence, including inspection frequency and audit sampling.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’re conducting regular compliance verification inspections,

on-site inspections and data reviews. We’ll continue to monitor the Elk

Valley to make sure the rules are followed, as well as the ongoing

Environment Canada investigation and the conservation officer service

investigation.

The West Line Creek Active Water Treatment Facility, following a

shutdown by Teck, began a recommissioning on August 30, under the

auspices of the ministry and in accordance with our conditions. We

expect it to be fully on line by December 28 and expect a reduction in

selenium levels in fish prior to the spawning season.

COVERAGE OF EXPENSES FOR

GOVERNMENT

MINISTERS

M. Stilwell: Yesterday the Advanced Education Minister said she was aware of

the policy on miscellaneous travel expenses, which is very clear that

dry cleaning is covered in per diems. She has now had a day to think

about her near $500 in dry-cleaning expenses in less than a

year.

Will the minister admit that she inappropriately claimed these

expenses and repay the taxpayers?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the follow-up question from the member opposite. The

member raised it yesterday, and I committed to taking action to locate

the policy. After question period, I immediately asked my staff to

locate the policy that I referred to. They’re here. I know we’re not

allowed to refer to props in question period. But the claims that were

made are in line with core policy that exists for all members, and that

goes back to 2008. That goes back over a decade.

The same policy that the member raised yesterday has been in place

for the last decade. I’m happy to provide the documents to the member

after question period.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: The Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Re­duc­tion

announced that she would repay expenses after being caught yesterday —

and, I think, probably rather em­bar­rassed — for profiting

from her welfare food challenge.

We’re still waiting for that clear answer from this Minister of

Advanced Education if she intends to repay that $500. I’m not sure of

the document that she is referring to.

Will the minister today do the right thing — admit she

inappropriately claimed these expenses and repay the money to

taxpayers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have in my hand here the ministers’ salaries, benefits and

expenses policy. It is not a prop; it is a document of this House. It is

a document that outlines what are allowable expenses and how they’re to

be claimed.

The member can sit there all she wants and shake her head, but

it’s clear that the member’s expenses are very much in line with the

policies outlined by this government. More importantly, the policy was

in place, in this document, in April of 2017, when that side of the

House sat on this side of the House.

My question really would be to that member. If she’s so concerned

about violations of a policy that was in place in April 2017, why on

earth is she not wanting to go back and check her own members’ records

when they sat on this side of the House and ask the same question

then?

The fact of the matter is the policy isn’t clear. It has been in

place since 2008, for the nine years that they sat on this side of the

House and had this same policy that they used.

If they have any further questions after question period, they can

review this document. This is the official document of this place,

governing the expenses for every member of the executive council on this

side of the House or when they were on this side of the

House.

[10:55 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: It’s not just the Minister of Advanced Education who thinks

taxpayers should pay for her dry cleaning. In less than a year, the

Minister of Energy has also stuck taxpayers with her dry-cleaning bills

that should have been covered by her per diems, and it is to the tune of

almost $800.

Will she, too, do the right thing and repay this money to

taxpayers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It seems that members on the other side want to change a policy by

a process of what’s call gotcha politics.

If they want to change the policy, that’s fine. There are forums —

LAMC, for example — where they can bring forward a recommendation to

change a policy. But to stand in this House and try and do gotcha or

smear members and give an impression that they are somehow doing

something that is not allowed, when they have been abiding by the

specific policies that were in place for over a decade — from when they

sat on this side of the House — is absolutely reprehensible, and they

should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The ministers know, and this government knows, that it’s clearly

wrong to be charging the taxpayers for their dry-cleaning expenses. Your

colleague, the only one that seems to have some integrity here — the

Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction — quickly realized that

the public had no appetite for her food challenge

profiteering.

When will this government stop taking taxpayers to the

cleaners?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear cries of indignation and self-righteousness. I understand

the opposition likes to do that, but the fact of the matter is — let’s

be clear — they have been trying with these questions to give an

impression to the public that members have been doing something illegal,

that they have been doing something wrong, and that it is something that

they have never done.

What’s clear is there is a policy in place. Policies are put in

place so that members know what they can do and know what they cannot

do. This policy has been in place since 2008. They sat on this side of

the House. That policy was in place and not once did they ever say: “Oh,

we’ve got a problem here that we think needs to be

addressed.”

No. They sat here and didn’t say a word. Now they want to say:

“Oh, we think the policy changed, but we’re going to do it by playing

gotcha politics.”

That says everything. The member uses the word “integrity.” Well,

that says so much about why they are sitting there and why the public is

fed up with the games that they are playing.

If they want to change the policy, that’s fine, but do it on the

high road, not the low road.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

ON GOVERNMENT

EMAILS

J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services has admitted to the use of her

own personal email account and this week defended the use of private

email by Marie Della Mattia.

On May 16, the official opposition submitted FOI requests for 36

personal email accounts to determine if they’re being used to conduct

government business, in direct violation of the law.

[11:00 a.m.]

What is the minister trying to hide by stonewalling these

requests?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I am kind of…. I

very rarely get speechless, but I am wondering if my colleague across

the way was actually sitting and listening to the responses I made

yesterday.

The very fact that they have those emails means that the FOI

process is working. This particular employee ceased being an employee,

became a contractor, and just as was the practice when they sat on this

side of the House, most contractors use their personal emails. They

become part of the records, and that’s why they’re available to

you.

My colleagues across the way have spent all week trying to project

that something underhanded is going on. I’m saying to them: if you have

issues, bring them to us. This is a government, from the Premier down,

that is interested in getting this right, and we’re going to do it.

We’re going to continue working to make sure that the FOI process works

and our employees follow the processes that exist.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: For six months, government lawyers have blocked attempts to pursue

a legitimate inquiry into this government’s use of dozens of personal

emails. The public is being denied the records of ministers, NDP

political staff and senior government officials. Yet all we hear from

this minister is sanctimonious, self-righteous NDP nonsense.

Will the minister tell her lawyers to stop fighting the public’s

right to know?

Hon. J. Sims: To hear the word “sanctimonious” coming out of that member is

really, really rich.

We are committed to being open and transparent and making the FOI

system work. And it’s working. That’s why they have those

emails.

I want to tell you — and let me be very, very clear — that the

civil service has indicated that there has been a large volume of

requests that is beginning to impact our ability to provide timely FOI

service. One applicant submitted a request that would require government

to process more than 850 individual FOI requests, at a cost that could

exceed $2 million. That is why the civil service asked the Office of the

Information and Privacy….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Minister, continue.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you.

That is why our hard-working public service took a

section that

exists in legislation, and they went to the Privacy Commissioner for

advice. And you know what? That is what they’re supposed to

do.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 51,

Environmental Assessment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

committee on Bill 49, Professional Governance Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pride to continue the debate on Bill 51, the

Environmental Assessment Act, 2018, on behalf of the southeast corner of

our province, the gateway to the U.S.A. and Alberta and the home of the

fun-loving and hard-working people of Kootenay East. To finish where I

left off yesterday….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

M. Stilwell: I reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The member will continue.

Debate Continued

T. Shypitka: To finish off where I was yesterday, I want to summarize what I

was speaking to.

We live in a resource-rich jurisdiction, one of the richest in the

world. Our strength as a province is to provide the essential materials

in a safe, responsible way to those that don’t have them. This is

evident just by merely walking in the hallowed hallways here of the

Legislature. We look at the architecture inside the building here, and

we see the four cornerstones of our economy: fisheries, agriculture,

forestry and mining.

We have come a long way in our short 147 years as a province, and

we have seen an evolution on how we do business and the good work done

so far on sharing prosperity with our First Nations, with well over 500

economic and reconciliation agreements. That being said, we need to

continue this great work. The task will never, ever be done.

As I understood, across the province, from various stakeholders

associated with the mining and energy industry, they’re not opposed to

regulation — far from it. They are not opposed to due process. What

industry needs are six crucial things. They need clarity, certainty,

consistency, consultation, competitiveness and cash. I call these the

six Cs of the industry.

This bill in front of us right now does nothing to address these

critical pieces. Without these critical pieces, industry stalls and

slows down. To put it short and to simply state it: time is money. When

we slow down the process with unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, we

attack the seventh most crucial thing, and that is

confidence.

Without confidence, investment dries up and disruptive

technologies go by the wayside — technologies that will move us forward

to a low-carbon economy. In mining, some of these disruptive

technologies are smart shovel technology, blast hole sensoring, 3D

mapping and virtual reality — seeing into the future of a mine’s

lifetime, reclamation that is needed and what the cumulative impacts

are.

We all move forward to a low-carbon economy. We need steel. We

need copper. We need precious metals in order to launch us forward to a

greener planet. By slowing down our process, not only do we drive

industry to other jurisdictions, but we lose our economical partnerships

with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of our province.

There are some communities in this province that suffer from 60 to

80 percent unemployment. These communities need industry, and they need

industry to move in a timely, seamless transition in order to facilitate

these high unemployment numbers. This bill does nothing to do that. It

adds more bureaucracy, more red tape, more uncertainty to the industry,

and therefore I cannot support it.

I’d like to see this debate go forward. The member for Kelowna

West is coming up next, I believe. I look forward to this

debate.

In short, this bill is adding more layers of bureaucracy to the

process that we already have — a process that we’ve seen evolve over

many, many years, a process that has incorporated good partnerships

between industry, government and First Nations. This process, I fear,

with this bill, is going to impede that natural, evolving

process.

With that, I do not support this bill in any way, shape or form,

and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

[11:10 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, first of all, I rise to speak today on Bill 51, the

Environmental Assessment Act. I think about the importance of this act

and getting it right and why it is so important.

British Columbia is a rich, prosperous province. The peo­ple

of British Columbia are some of the most talented and hard-working

people in the world. They go to work every day to build better futures

for their families, their communities and their province. So many of

those hard-working British Columbians, whether they’re working in our

coastal forests or northern gas fields or in a downtown Vancouver office

tower, are working to make the most of our bounty of natural resources

and their responsible development.

It’s important that we move forward to develop natural resources

for the benefit of all B.C. families and we do it in a way that protects

the environment, in a way that ensures increased Indigenous involvement

in shared decision-making. We believe that this is the right thing to

do, and we believe that this is what we want to do to have prosperous

First Nations and prosperous British Columbians.

We believe in the opportunity for all of B.C., because we know

that the opportunity leads to prosperity, prosperity builds better lives

for people, their families and their communities.

When we were on that side of the House, we delivered on that

vision year after year with First Nations. Together we completed final

agreements with the Tsawwassen First Nation, Maa-nulth First Nations and

Tla’amin. We put our goal of shared prosperity into action, with more

than 500 economic and reconciliation agreements with First

Nations.

We were relentless in pursuing LNG as an opportunity for First

Nations, the north, our province — for our people that are on the docks,

working in all aspects of industry in British Columbia to build better

lives. We’re glad that the opposite side of the House has come to

recognize our accomplishments — and many of them, Site C, LNG — and the

continued responsible development of resources in the province of B.C.

But there are aspects of what’s in front of us, in Bill 51, talking

about a change, fundamentally, in the way that we see environmental

assessment.

This is a process that not only has taken a lot of work on both

sides, the federal government and the provincial government, in making

certain we worked to streamline a process to provide certainty.

Certainty so that people that are in British Columbia, that have

investments here, and communities have certainty — that businesses that

are in their community providing jobs, income, taxes, have an

opportunity to make certain that there is certainty around what they can

do.

I think that a lot of the issues that we see in Bill 51…. It’s the

fact that we have created a high level of uncertainty. Rather than

providing the clarity that I think communities and investors are looking

for, it’s heading in the opposite direction.

We talk about red tape. We talk about the burden of having

increased regulation. I had the opportunity to serve and work for the

government of British Col­um­bia in trying to work with our

partners that invested here in British Columbia over decades,

generations. Many of those in­ves­tors counted on a direct

link with government to make certain that they were able to understand

the toughness of our environmental regulations, the fact that we were

not the easiest jurisdiction to necessarily do things in, but we

provided certainty.

We provided certainty around the fact that once you had invested

in consultation and making certain that First Nations — economic benefit

agreements, the fact that every aspect of trying to improve life for

people that are in an area where resource development is going to have

an impact in their community, make certain that the consultation is

thorough and comprehensive….

Once that was accomplished, then there was a process, under the

environmental assessment office, that allowed for people to have

certainty, to know that the people that are staffing that office have

all of the right information before you start the countdown to a

decision. That countdown to a decision was 180 days from the time you

delivered all of that information. That was certainty — the fact that

after a decision, a recommendation, went to the minister, was another 45

days.

[11:15 a.m.]

This new act talks about all sorts of uncertainty — the fact that

there’s a potential for, essentially, consultation that has no

timelines, consultation that can literally take not just weeks or

months. It could be years. It could be used under the guise of

essentially stalling out resource development of any sort, any type of

development on the land. The bottom line is that that is not what we

were trying to do. We were trying to build up communities.

We heard the member for Skeena talk about the benefits to his

community. When he became chief councillor, he moved his community by

having the opportunity, not just money. There was an opportunity to

train and take on those jobs because of the skill sets that were needed

to help manage and improve the process all the way along. Whether it had

to be LNG or whether it was mining or forestry operations, the fact is

that we are learning through the fact that our institutional knowledge

grows every day.

This document here doesn’t say one iota about what we learned in

terms of how we did it. It’s about increasing red tape, regulations. It

leads to more uncertainty. And it’s not just the people that are helping

bring the opportunity, maybe, to British Columbia. It’s leading to the

fact that it’s uncertainty for communities, the fact that they are

already on tenuous ground based on all of the tragedy that they’ve

faced, whether it’s forest fires or the fact that there has been a lot

of discussion around uncertainty in their communities. This document

doesn’t lead to one more iota of crisp, clear understanding and

certainty around what it is that communities can expect.

Where does it leave First Nations, who often are more removed? The

fact is that their communities are the ones that are often wanting to be

a part of this success. We saw that recently, a process that took years,

a decade, of review. The National Energy Board was involved. It was a

system where there was a collaboration between our environmental

assessment office…. We had the National Energy Board involved. The

process was essentially worked to where there was consultation and

numerous community benefit agreements. I know that that’s under review

at the present time, but the point I make is that the fact is that over

a decade, we do improve things.

When Gordon Campbell, who was the Premier, went to Kelowna and

signed the Kelowna accord, the idea was that we were going to empower

and make First Nations more successful through education, through

certainty. The bottom line is that what we’re doing here is creating

that uncertainty by the few that are maybe lacking in understanding,

lacking in the capacity to understand. But the bottom line is that it’s

our responsibility and your responsibility as government to make certain

that this act helps bring those communities further ahead.

What it does is it throws numerous roadblocks and uncertainty in

front of First Nations, let alone the development. But the fact is that

their futures are going to be stymied by the fact that the act that’s in

front of us, Bill 51, is not providing the clarity that I think we were

all expecting. Of course we want to improve things. We want to make

certain that it’s a seamless process from the environmental assessment

office, the Oil and Gas Commission, you know, the things that we’re

talking about with the Agricultural Land Commission. They’re all linked

together. How do we make it so that we don’t add more rules and

legislation?

Then on top of that, in the background, we create numerous

regulations which are ill-defined. Nobody knows what the regulations are

going to be. The fact that many people are sitting there wondering…. Or

based on how something happens in a community, a regulation will change,

and all of a sudden we’re going to have something that was unexpected in

a process that could have taken as long as the Trans Mountain pipeline

that we talk about. That was over a decade in the making.

[11:20 a.m.]

When the rules start out and they keep changing and whatever, it

means that investors look at a province like British Columbia as being a

jurisdiction where there really is no certainty. The fact is that all we

end up doing is creating this kind of cycle of people investing, and

they finally just throw up their hands and say: “You know what? We’re

done. We cannot come to a jurisdiction where the rules continue to

change and there’s less certainty and the fact that we don’t have

timelines.”

It costs a lot for these companies. I’ve met with them, as I said.

Whether it’s Japan on LNG or simple things about just getting their

product, grains, to the port, the bottom line is that there are huge

investments, generational commitments here in British Columbia by these

companies — Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Idemitsu, JAPEX.

The fact is that they are counting on British Columbia as a

partner, not just some place to take resources and do that. They want,

more than anything, to know what the rules are so that they can live up

to that expectation.

When we look at other nations — Korea — the companies that are

there doing responsible investment have put up with changes in the

environmental regulations that the province has put up, but they

continue to invest here and do business because of the fact that we have

continued to try to work with those nations to get to certainty. Take

the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Just in itself…. I mean, the

trade was up a massive amount, double-digit growth, over what we had

seen over years. It’s about these trading relationships, which help us

in our diversity, to make certain that communities….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.

The member for Surrey–Green Timbers has a point.

R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I want leave of the House to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Singh: As I mentioned before, a school group from my riding, David Brankin

Elementary, with 40 students, is here, along with their teacher Lisa

Hutchcroft. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Stewart: Well, it’s good to see that there are young people here in the

House who are here to learn about important things that are going to

affect their future. We do want to give them the right tools to make

certain that we guide them into the future.

Getting back to the partnerships that we were trying to develop.

Everybody here in this House is celebrating the first investment in LNG

here in British Columbia. It will not be the last. It could be if this

act goes ahead, because in that act there are stipulations about the

fact that there is an emission bucket that British Columbia will have to

live underneath.

I don’t disagree that we should have targets that are set in

motion, but the point about it is that we have entire parts of this

province — the northeast, the northwest — where they’re wanting to make

certain that responsible resource development gets the

tidewater.

We need to make certain that we don’t handicap ourselves so much

by being naïve to think that a dozen new LNG receiving terminals being

built on the coast of China over the last three years are not there to

receive cleaner-burning LNG. They know that they’re polluting. They’re

using thermal coal to power their electricity — the fact that it’s

operating their heating systems, their district energy systems. They

want a cleaner alternative.

Now look at Japan. They’re the largest importer of LNG in the

world. The fact is they’re not a growth market, but they still see the

reliability of supply, so important, from a place like Canada. Our

competitors over in the Middle East, etc. — Qatar and other ones like

that — are not as reliable. They’re certainly not as close.

We can walk away from that opportunity and not have the people in

the north or the northwest enjoy that benefit, of the fact that we have

natural gas that is way cleaner burning than other fossil fuels. It’s

head and shoulders above thermal coal. Those CO 2 emissions —

methane, etc. — are coming across the ocean in about eight days. I’m

sure the minister would know more about those details than I

do.

[11:25 a.m.]

What I’m trying to say here is that when we revise something, we

should be looking at how we streamline. How do we make acts so that they

increase performance, efficiency?

We worked with the federal government, as I mentioned earlier, on

an idea about a joint process of environmental assessment. We used to

duplicate it. Our old system was one where the clock started — stop,

stop — and it went on like that. People that were doing resource

development never really knew how long it was going to take. The idea of

working with the federal government on a joint environmental streamlined

process was to remove the impediments that we were creating because we

had a bureaucracy that was set up to take its time or

whatever.

Time is money, and we find that…. Let’s go back to affordability.

We talk about housing and about what it takes for a community, a

developer, anywhere in British Columbia to actually get to yes to

develop his property. They’re sitting there for years on development

where municipalities or local government, maybe the provincial

government, cannot give them the certainty.

That’s where this is a step backward. It is essentially stepping

back, adding time, adding regulation, and the bottom line is that this

document doesn’t lead to one more new deal coming to British Columbia.

In fact, it’s probably going to turn dozens away. If this document

passes in this House — and I will not be supporting it — the bottom line

is that this document is going to turn deals off, whether it’s China,

Japan, Korea, Malaysia, India. They will not come here. They will not

invest here.

They are going to look to Australia, New Zealand, other places

where their standards of certainty are why they get business. We need to

make certain that we’re competitive in that. I think that’s one of the

things we need — to make certain that we don’t give up our opportunity,

make certain that we’re working towards providing those economic

opportunities for people.

We want to make certain…. We do want to invest in climate change.

Almost 70 percent of the CO 2 emissions in this province — I

don’t know if the members opposite realize that, the situation — is

emitted from transportation and the built infrastructure.

What can we do about that? We can continue to focus on the use of

wood in buildings. Look at Brock Commons at UBC. It’s 18 storeys high

and essentially an all-wood-frame construction building. Look at the

emissions that it’s putting out. It goes to show that in a seismically

active area, we can build buildings out of wood. We don’t have to have

concrete and steel. That’s how we can reduce things even in the built

environment — and the changes in terms of what we’re using, the

technology, whether it’s insulation or the glass, the glazing,

etc.

I think the bottom line is that there are countries, like China,

that are looking at British Columbia as a leader in these things, in how

they reduce CO 2 emissions. But this act doesn’t do anything

to help improve that. It doesn’t mean that there’s going to be one more

Brock Commons building built. It means that people are going to be

sitting there and looking at other jurisdictions to invest in because:

“You know what? We’ve got all these rules in British Columbia. Why would

we want to consider developing a mine or why would we want to build a

pellet plant?” It’s got a good outcome, but why would they want to do

that when we make it so that the process of setting up something is

actually far from certain? And that’s the whole point.

Actually, if this was really properly understood, I think that

many First Nations, which was mentioned many times in here, are going to

be…. The consequence of this act on them is going to mean a lack of

opportunity for them. I think when it comes to First Nations — as I go

back to mentioning Gordon Campbell and Prime Minister Martin, at the

time, signing that accord — it was about providing certainty for First

Nations, British Columbians.

That’s what it’s all about. We want certainty on the land base. We

want to make certain that those children that are disadvantaged, that

don’t have that opportunity, not only improve their educational outcomes

but have the opportunities for economic development.

We’ve done lots, and there’s lots to be done. The bottom line is….

I still think this is something that has been developed around people

sitting around in coffee shops drinking lattes in Vancouver and have no

clue about what it’s really like to have to develop something — out in

the forest or the mountaintops or in the northeast, in the Peace River

district — being able to try to develop constructive, positive projects

that actually work for the benefit of British Columbians.

[11:30 a.m.]

We’ve seen all sorts of improvements in environmental standards in

terms of the way that things are done. It doesn’t mean that we have it

perfect. But by creating months or years of uncertainty with new

regulations, new legislation that is going to tie the hands of not only

the people that are trying to bring economic opportunity here but First

Nations that would like to benefit from it…. And the fact is that

people, even in the Lower Mainland that are drinking those lattes, etc.,

just want to know that it’s being done in a responsible way.

I had that privilege of selling that message to people. They said:

“Your environmental rules are so tough, so impossible.” I had an

opportunity to work with the former Premier and the Minister of Natural

Gas Development on bringing people to the table to convince them that it

was not an impossible task. The fact is that, although it was tough, we

worked very hard at making certain that people valued British Columbia’s

pristine environment.

We were not willing to give that up just for the sake of a deal.

We wanted to make certain that they understood that they had to work

hard at it and that they needed to make certain that First Nations were

a big part of that, not just the consultation, but they needed to

benefit from it — the jobs that are there.

You know, you look at a community like Smithers. It’s one of the

places that’s not well known — the fact that it trains more of the

people that run mining, the drilling rigs, than anywhere else in North

America. It’s a mining capital. And the people that run those drilling

rigs, etc. — most of those are First Nations. They have a school

dedicated to that that’s up there training people locally in those

communities to be able to do that exploration.

The bottom line is that these regulations are written with the

idea that we can improve everything with a document, rather than

real-life experience. What does it take for somebody to actually get out

there in the bush and clear a road, after the geologists or the people

that have gone out and done the prospecting have identified

something?

The fact is that from the time that the prospector is out there in

the environment, finding a possible lead, what we’re getting to is the

fact that they bring back the results and they do the core samples. Of

course, they’ve got permits to get to that point. And then what happens

is that they start to develop. They have to go around the world to talk

to investors about: “Here’s an opportunity in British

Columbia.”

Well, first, we have to make certain that they know that British

Columbia is not somewhere — and another one of the Commonwealth names

that’s a British name. The bottom line is that we want them to know that

it’s in Canada, a place of law and order. Certainty would be helpful.

And the fact is that we want them to be able to do their fundraising,

whether they’re in Vancouver or Hong Kong at the mines and metals

show.

These are the types of people that have to do the hard work to

make certain that those opportunities from the prospector turn into a

reality. Once they get the resources and they have people that they are

somewhat confident in, then they start that slow process of building out

a plan, going through the environmental process. It doesn’t always mean

that you get to yes.

I know that there’s a mine that we turned down, when I was in

government, near Granisle. Basically, it didn’t meet the requirements.

It was a tough, tough decision. But the bottom line is that the

ministers and the environmental assessment office did their job in

making certain that the environment came first. We were not just going

to approve something that was going to be without any kind of…. You

know, throw the risks out the window and pursue

some­thing.

I think that, more importantly, one of the things that our

government is looking for when it comes to revisions in the

Environmental Assessment Act is: how do we provide the tools to the

people that are working in that office to be able to collaborate to make

certain that they get the right answers? What technology is out

there?

Rather than just throwing roadblocks up…. I think that what’s

important is that people that are working to develop their investment

here in British Columbia are looking at the opportunities with this idea

that there’s collaboration. I mean, what have we learnt in the last 100

and some years here in British Columbia?

[11:35 a.m.]

I think that probably one of the things that we want to talk about

is: how do we change this act to empower First Nations, to give them the

opportunity that they can be a part of the decision process in a

positive, constructive manner?

I think that one of the things that we will hear more about is the

fact that some of the suggestions in this act lead to the fact that

First Nations may not necessarily be empowered but actually lose their

ability to help empower making things happen where overlapping

jurisdictional issues with First Nations ends up meaning that they won’t

get to certainty. They’ll have disputes amongst themselves.

Who’s going to resolve that? There is no body that is higher in

the province than this government right here. But for First Nations,

there’s no dispute resolution between them if they have overlapping

claims or uncertainty. That’s why they need certainty in

this.

They need to know that the consultation has been done

thoughtfully, to make certain that their opportunities are not

necessarily taken away by somebody else that maybe doesn’t feel that

some overlapping jurisdiction leads to the inability for what should be

a positive decision for British Columbia, for all First Nations

involved. It should mean that we’re getting to the point where this is

moving ahead.

I think that when I talk about cost and investments here, I talk

about a prospector going out, finding a claim or staking a claim,

developing that. You think about what it takes to get to yes in an

investment like the LNG Canada facility. It’s over $40 billion. That is

the number that’s labelled at it. Why would we want to not have other

follow-on investments? We build that first, the improved gas line

getting to the coast.

The investment in all of the people that we’re training in our

trade schools, whether it’s at BCIT, Okanagan College — all of those

opportunities for those people that have trained to be the best people

in the business to help get LNG Canada off the ground…. Why not have the

other opportunities that are so close being behind that? Why would we

want to have that trapped under some sort of cap of greenhouse gas

emissions when we know that the displacement of greenhouse gas emissions

in Asia is something that really matters to our environment both here in

British Columbia and Canada, and in Asia?

I think it’s shortsightedness on the part that we’re going to

train up a generation of workers that are highly skilled. We’re going to

have the opportunity for those workers being able to build other

projects. We want to make certain that we do everything possible to

attract future projects here in British Columbia. Unfortunately, Bill 51

does not get us closer to that mark where we’re trying to build

confidence and certainty, reduce cost and make certain that we are the

place where people are wanting to come to — so that there are jobs for

everyone.

That’s really something we should be thinking about. Whether it’s

the Lower Mainland and people are sitting in a coffee shop, they should

be able to think about the opportunity of the jobs that are going to be

created out in…. Whether they’re doing the work, whether it’s on an

assessment or a project or actually physically working out

there….

I think that probably this House knows where I stand on that, on

this project or Bill 51. The fact is that I don’t think that it’s going

to lead to further development of our resources. I think that there are

many things in here that could be improved.

I look forward to committee stage, where we can talk about the

individual components of this and find out how the minister and his

staff have seen fit to make it so that these new regulations will

streamline and improve environmental assessment here in British

Columbia. I look forward to hopefully making the improvements that I

think this act needs.

[11:40 a.m.]

R. Sultan: It’s a pleasure that I offer a few additional comments on Bill 51.

As a preface, I would indicate I’ve had some personal experience

permitting large resource projects in British Columbia and across

Canada. I’d refer explicitly to a very large lead-zinc mine in the

Yukon, which I permitted environmentally. I was CEO of a very large

fibreboard project in Williams Lake with an American partner. Through

delays, partly, the American partner went home, and that was the end of

that project.

I played a lead role in the permitting of a large mining project

in the Fort Ware district above Williston Lake, and finally, I played a

senior officer role in a conglomerate with operations in Manitoba,

Alberta and Arizona. In all of these settings, I’ve had an intimate

exposure, and, in fact, leadership responsibilities, in making sure that

environmental standards were being fulfilled and project standards could

be lived up to. With that background, I read with great interest the

provisions of Bill 51.

Let me begin by acknowledging a couple of laudable attempts in the

bill, at least, to (

a) provide some very specific timelines, which is

advertised as perhaps creating certainty in the permitting process.

Although, as I will subsequently observe, I don’t think the brave effort

is successful, at least the motivation should be applauded.

Secondly, in a similar fashion, it does try to add some certainty

to the role of the First Nations in what can be a very confusing area

for proponents, particularly those not used to how we conduct our

relationships with First Nations here in British Columbia, as they try

to come to grips with what is required to get a project off the ground,

particularly a resource project in British Columbia.

I applaud the efforts, if not the results, along those two efforts

— the timeline and First Nations resources dimension of Bill 51.

Unfortunately, standing back and looking at this bill in the broader

context of the work that we have been engaged with in this Legislature,

I see a certain tendency in the mass of legislation that we are asked to

consider that is not to be applauded.

I would mention, first of all, the tendency among our friends on

the other side of the aisle to introduce legislation which concentrates

and elevates power and authority up the line, eventually into the

cabinet room, where, no doubt, politics plays more than a small measure

of decision-making authority in what one would hope would be more of an

objective exercise in what is truly in the best interests of British

Columbia from an environmental point of view and other dimensions. This

concentration of power, I think, is not in fact going to be a healthy

phenomenon, but we see it riddling many, many aspects of legislation

presented in this House in the past several weeks.

The second phenomenon in many pieces of legislation, including

Bill 51, is an excessive — I would say almost mind-numbing — reliance

and faith in process and rules and the sublime confidence that if a law

says something should be so, it will happen. Unfortunately, that’s not

quite the way the world works, but nevertheless, we see it over and over

again. “Thou shalt do this. Thou shalt not do that.” Sometimes I wonder

whether I’m actually in church on Sunday morning.

[11:45 a.m.]

Then the third dimension that riddles and permeates much of the

legislation we see is a tendency to secrecy, opaqueness, suppression of

dissent and the muzzling of contrary opinions — indeed, to the extent of

requiring participants to sign confidentiality agreements. As an aside,

I read journalist reports. This is even extended within the NDP party

itself. I find that a little hard to believe.

The bills I would refer to, aside from Bill 51 itself, are the

proportional representation act, which certainly represents these three

tendencies to the maximum, and the proposed law on the agricultural land

reserve imposing provincial authority, cabinet-level authority, over

what should be, essentially, municipal rules.

Thirdly, the act on professional governance being debated in

committee stage in the little House, as we speak, creates what I would

call an über-super, an über-superintendent, who will decide all things

professionally. I hope that I have a chance to meet this super person

when appointed.

The community benefits agreement relegates into the cabinet the

decision of who can be hired on major public works projects and which

unions pass the loyalty test and which unions do not.

Then Bill 51 itself has similar tendencies, particularly its faith

in process and its concentration of ultimate authority backed up by

modest fines, which can be levied to individuals, ranging from the low

end, of $1 million, up to $2 million per person. I hope they get a lien

on their house.

This is an unfortunate tendency, in my opinion. And why do we

observe this in this bill and elsewhere in this government’s agenda? It

is, I have to conclude, driven by some desire to install what in other

contexts might be called a command-and-control economy: “We know what’s

best here in cabinet, and we are going to shape this economy, this

culture, this working place, this environment to suit what we know is

good for British Columbia. We’re certainly not going to leave it up to

the messy decision-making of the marketplace.”

Unfortunately, we have seen this experiment in command and control

elsewhere. I have seen it played out in places such as Cuba, East

Germany and Myanmar, in the extreme. I’m not suggesting that these folks

actually plan to install a similar degree of command and control in

British Columbia, but they are drifting in that general

direction.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The target, in this particular legislation, is the resource

industry. Those rascals who dare dig holes in the ground and drill for

oil and gas and do other things which disrupt the natural environment. I

fear for the impact of this mindset and this legislation upon, in

particular, rural B.C., which is still heavily dependent on resource

industries. I don’t see Microsoft eager to relocate its software

facilities up to Williams Lake. At least, it hasn’t been mentioned that

I’ve noticed.

Rural B.C. is still very much a resource-driven place. And I would

caution my friends across the way that…. While we have our skew — our,

shall we say, disproportionate representation outside of the large

metropolitan area — they have the same handicap being excessively

focused, in terms of their membership, within the large membership,

within the large metropolitan area. Therefore, they may not be as

sensitive to the realities of life in places like Williams

Lake.

[11:50 a.m.]

The consequences of Bill 51 are not particularly favourable, in my

opinion. Rather than define and shorten the assessment process, I think

the chances are it will lengthen it. I think the expectation that the

role of First Nations will be clarified, unfortunately, removes strength

of claim as a requirement for Indigenous involvement. Fees for the

entire paper-driven process will be passed on to the

claimants.

Many details are not defined and await regulation. The sweeping

new powers of the new officer in charge bring to mind the

über-superintendent envisaged for the professions. And finally, I think

that delays, uncertainties and added costs, the added red tape, will

certainly not accelerate resource project development in British

Columbia but, in fact, could slow it down, if not eliminate it

entirely.

On that basis, unfortunately, I must say I will not be supporting

Bill 51.

R. Coleman: Noting the time, I rise and reserve my time to speak this

afternoon, after lunch.

R. Coleman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I see a class just came in. I know we are just going to finish the

work here today, but I would like to welcome every student.

I don’t know what school you are from, but I would like to welcome

every student who is here today and all the teachers and the parents who are

with you. Welcome to this House.

I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL

GOVERNANCE

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 49; S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

section 1.

S. Furstenau: In terms of defining “conduct unbecoming a registrant,” can the

minister explain who sets the methods or principles that are the

foundation of the professions? Will these principles, if they’re

determined by the respective professions, be approved by the

superintendent’s office?

Hon. G. Heyman: Before I answer the question, I just want to take the opportunity

to introduce the staff who are here with us today. On my immediate left

is Jennifer McGuire. She’s the assistant deputy minister, environmental

sustainability and strategic policy division, and is acting deputy

minister today. On my right is Peter Trotzki, director of legislation in

the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Behind me is

Jesse Baltutis, who is the policy analyst on the professional reliance

review team.

Thank you, Member, for the question. The

definitions of both

“professional misconduct” and “conduct unbecoming a registrant” are

embodied in the legislation itself. There are cross-linkages to sections

22, 63, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 110.

It’s expected that the associations, because these are very

specifically defined in the act, will use these

definitions. That’s the

expectation. Of course, the superintendent would act if, for any

unbeknownst reason, they weren’t applied as strictly defined in the

act.

[11:15 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I wasn’t sure whether to dive too deep into

definitions or not.

But I’m just wondering if the minister can explain….

All through this act, whenever we see minister referenced, it’s

the Attorney General, which means the Attorney General will be the

administrator — for lack of better phrasing, I guess — of this act once

it’s enacted moving forward. I can totally understand that there are two

or three different ministers that oversee various associations right now

that would come under this act. But I’m wondering if the minister can

explain the thought process as to why it was the Minister of Environment

spearheading this development and environmental staff versus the

Attorney General and the Attorney General’s office staff, given that

they will have to be the people that actually oversee this act once it’s

enacted.

If we can get clarification on why the minister defined is

Attorney General and not Environment.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is that my mandate letter directed me and my ministry

to review the professional reliance model and to bring reforms to it. As

a result of that, we commissioned an independent review which took

place. We also consulted with all of the associations, with industry and

with other stakeholders. The reviewer did that during the process. We

did it after the report was tabled and made public.

We also consulted across ministries and ministers who have had and

currently have a responsibility for the associations that are going to

be regulated. In the course of that, we had a discussion about where the

best place is to situate the office, because we’re taking the

responsibility of several ministries and streamlining and consolidating

it for more consistency and efficiency in one ministry.

The general consensus was that it was best placed in the Ministry

of Attorney General. We consulted with the ministry and the Attorney,

and they agreed. So I continued to carry out my mandate and bring

forward the legislation they were actively engaged in developing. But I

can assure the member that all ministries affected, including the

ministry that will ultimately have responsibility for the

superintendent, were consulted throughout the process, and that is how

we got to where we are today.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Furstenau:

Section 3 establishes that a firm may only be registered in a

regulatory body if the Lieutenant-Governor has, by regulation,

authorized it or it is included under this act.

The question is: does the LG-in-Council have to separately

authorize each of the regulatory bodies to register firms?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. It’s not that each firm will have to be

named, unless…. I may have misunderstood the question, but as each

regulatory body is prepared to recommend a specific regulation for

regulating firms which employ professionals whom they regulate, they

will develop and work with government for the regulation that will

implement that regulatory authority for firms within their

jurisdiction.

P. Milobar: I think when many people would read “Appli­cation to firms

as registrants,” they automatically jump to an engineering firm or a

forest professional firm — those types.

Can the minister explain how this

section is going to work and

apply, with how broad this bill has become with the five associations

under it, specifically the technician side of things? There are lots of

various firms in there that don’t have a natural resource sector type of

bent to them, but they would be caught in this legislation. So how are

those firms going to be handled in terms of registrant? Will they have

to go through all the same processes?

Hon. G. Heyman: The ability to regulate firms was a power that was requested by

the regulatory bodies’ associations themselves, and the reason, quite

simply, was to ensure that while they were responsible for enforcing

ethical and practice standards on their professionals, they had the

ability to address issues of a conflict that might occur between one of

their professionals upholding their ethical and practice standards

versus their employment. So the engineers are the furthest along this

road, in terms of developing policies that will lead to regulation of

firms within their jurisdiction.

I can’t give express detail to how this will look in all the

associations, because as I said earlier, those regulations will be

developed once the act is passed by the associations, through

consultation processes. By that time, the superintendent office will be

being established in the Ministry of Attorney General, and I would

expect that the superintendent may choose to provide advice and guidance

and support. But the details have to be worked out through regulation,

and the consultation process about how best to apply it will be

conducted by the associations themselves.

[11:25 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I’ll touch on this in

section 4 as well, but my understanding is

the superintendent would have the power and the authority…. So if a

regulatory body chose that they did not want firms to have to be

registered under this because they’re on some of the new associations

that are coming under this legislation, that regulatory body if it chose

to say that those firms don’t have to, the superintendent can say: “I

don’t really care what you think. I’m mandating that the firms need to

be registered as registrants.”

Is that not the case: that the superintendent, under this bill,

has the ultimate power to be able to actually decree, whether a

regulatory body agrees with them or not?

Hon. G. Heyman: The question is asking me to speculate on some hypothetical

matters, but what I can tell the member is that the Engineers and

Geoscientists Association was the most actively interested in having

this power. Therefore, they’re the furthest along. They advocated for

it. I think B.C. and Quebec are the only provinces where engineers do

not have the ability to regulate firms.

Other associations expressed some early interest in potentially

using this enabling authority under the act, and it will be up to those

associations, which ultimately have the regulatory authority, to decide

whether they want to exercise this provision. I expect they would do

that with consultation and feedback from their membership to see if the

issues that faced engineers are also issues facing them.

The ultimate authority, as the member refers to it, of the

superintendent is an authority that is there on all aspects of the act

simply to ensure that, through oversight, the spirit and intent of the

legislation is being upheld in all cases. If there is no reason to think

that it is necessary to regulate firms in a particular area, I would

expect the superintendent to not act.

[11:30 a.m.]

If there was evidence that there was some reason to do so, and

associations were reluctant to, the superintendent might act. But there

is no overriding directive in this act to exercise that enabling

authority to regulate firms that was in response to specific requests

and submissions made by engineers and geoscientists for whom the issue

is very real. When discussed with other associations, they wanted to

give it more thought. That’s why the provision is enabling rather than

directive.

P. Milobar: Let me try this again, because I don’t think we really got an

answer to the question.

The question is, regardless of the intent of this…. I fully

recognize that this is meant to enable the regulatory bodies and the

associations to govern themselves. But the question is, in spite of

that, if the superintendent feels that firms should be registered, does

the superintendent have the power, under this bill, to enact that?

Conversely, if a group wants to have firms registered, and the

superintendent feels it’s not appropriate, do they have the ability to

block that?

It’s a fairly straightforward question around the powers of the

superintendent to be able to override

section 3 or not. I’m not

interested in the intent. Frankly, ministers come and go. Opposition

critics are going to come and go. Superintendents are going to come and

go.

The intent of how it was written by the people who drafted it and

what the minister may intend for this…. I would point out it will

actually be interpreted by the Attorney General, not the minister whose

staff drafted this bill, so there is already going to be a different

interpretation with intent on this bill.

It’s a legal power. This bill provides for the legalization of the

powers of the superintendent and how these organizations will interact

and work moving forward. I’m just simply trying to ascertain, not the

intent, but what is the legal authoritative power of the superintendent

in relation to

section 3? Can they override and either institute the

registration of firms or actually block the registration of firms if a

body was choosing that?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I did answer the question, but I’m happy to answer it with a

bit more specificity, even though we haven’t got to the

section

yet.

Section 11(1)(

c) states: “for any matter the superintendent

considers necessary in the public interest with respect to professional

governance, including a directive that is (

i) consistent with any

guidelines established under

section 9, or (ii) necessary to address

issues arising out of an investigation or audit under

section

10.”

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s the superintendent’s general and broad authority to act in

the public interest. However, in this case, it’s constrained by

section

3, which says: “A firm may only be registered as a registrant in a

regulatory body if (

a) the Lieutenant Governor in Council has, by

regulation, authorized the regulatory body to register firms in the

regulatory body as registrants.” So until there is a regulation, the

superintendent could not do that. Once there was a regulation, the

superintendent could do that.

Then the second part of 3 is: “the council has made bylaws under

this Act to enable or to require the registration of firms as

registrants.” So again, the bylaws would have to be made by the council,

but the superintendent could direct the council to make

bylaws.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I recognize that we’re

going to have to move around a little bit on some of these because there

are so many forward-and-back references in terms of sections. So there

is going to be some overlap.

In (b), though — the minister referenced 3(b) — “the council has

made bylaws under this Act to enable or require the registration of

firms as registrants.” Is it not the case that the superintendent has

the ability to create and impose a bylaw on the council, whether or not

the council agrees with the bylaw? Is that not also a part of the

superintendent’s powers — that they are able to unilaterally impose a

bylaw they feel is missing or needed?

Hon. G. Heyman: My answer to the last question is a perfectly good and sufficient

answer for this one.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

P. Milobar: Well, I think we’re getting into the area of the superintendent

and the powers, and it sounds like they do indeed have the ability to

override and insert any bylaws as they see fit. Just, again, in relation

to the office of the superintendent being established. Could the

minister clarify…?

It appears that this will be a purely internal government

political decision by the Attorney General and/or cabinet input, but

it’s not intended to be an all-party appointment. It’s not intended to

have any more input than whoever is currently in government. Is that

correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: The superintendent will be a member of the public service, hired

through a merit-based process under the Public Service Act.

P. Milobar: Then item (6) says: “The Public Service Act does not apply in

respect of a person retained under subsection (4).” That’s not referring

to the superintendent. That’s referring to any “…persons the minister or

the superintendent considers necessary to enable or assist the

superintendent to exercise powers or perform duties, including

investigations or audits, of the superintendent, or the office, under

this Act.”

Those will be strictly contractors that this

section applies to,

in terms of not being part of the public service? Or will the staff of

the superintendent not be part of the public service? I don’t think so,

but I just want to make sure I interpreted that properly.

Hon. G. Heyman: Just contractors. Other staff will be, again, hired under a

merit-based process pursuant to the Public Service Act and the Public

Service Agency guidelines.

[11:40 a.m.]

P. Milobar: So the office of superintendent…. It sounds like it’ll be through

a merit-based process, through the Public Service Act. That means that

things like termination or tenure, length of service will all be

standardized and not at the whim of a minister coming in or

out?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes.

M. Lee: I wanted to ask, in terms of

section 4(1), if the minister could

just walk through the rationale for why the office of the superintendent

is established under the Ministry of Attorney General, as opposed to his

ministry.

Hon. G. Heyman: I answered that question before the member entered the room. It’s

on Hansard .

P. Milobar: Perhaps the minister can give a little more detail on how this

office of the superintendent was established through the consultation.

My understanding, in talking with various associations that are impacted

by this legislation, is that there is an unease about the overall power

and overarching abilities of the superintendent in general and a concern

around spreading out that expertise over five different agencies — and

potentially more being added in, which we’ll get to in later

sections.

Was there any push-back from any of the five associations, the

people, that are being impacted by this legislation around the creation

of the office of the superintendent?

Hon. G. Heyman: There certainly was some initial unease from a number of the

associations. We consulted with them extensively and continuously,

including workshops to walk them through the legislation. Some of their

unease was founded on misinterpretations of what the superintendent’s

role would actually be, what their powers would or wouldn’t be and what

we were intending to do under the act.

Their unease diminished considerably as they came to understand

what actually would happen in the act. They also made a number of very

helpful suggestions about the things that were causing them some unease.

We made some changes to the legislation to address those concerns. In

the end, all five of the associations endorsed the legislation,

including providing support in the news release that accompanied the

legislation.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, we’ll do one more question, as

we’re almost at time.

M. Lee: Given the nature of that, in terms of the consolidation under the

Attorney General’s office, is there not a concern regarding duplication

and a lack of understanding as to how the superintendent will report to

the Attorney General on areas that are not specifically in the areas of

expertise within that ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: Actually, the answer is no. The member is incorrect. In fact,

we’re taking different forms of governance and different oversight

responsibilities from four separate ministries and streamlining them

into one, under a superintendent whose area of expertise will vary

specifically…. It’d be governance, which we discovered, in reviewing how

the different associations are currently overseen by four different

ministries, was not necessarily a core competency of those particular

ministries.

We are moving to ensure that the core competency of overseeing

governance is with a subject matter expert in one ministry. But the

associations themselves retain full regulatory authority and may get

suggestions and work with the superintendent. It is intended that they

exercise their function, but we streamline and consolidate the

oversight.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada