Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 172

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

Statements

Message of condolence for Lucak family

L. Throness

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 53 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Wah Ngok

T. Wat

Gord Downie and Chanie Wenjack Fund legacy schools program

B. Ma

Fundraising by Lions Gate Hospital Foundation

R. Sultan

Muslim Youth Centre

R. Singh

Food garden and cooking program at John Allison Elementary School

L. Larson

Ron Dutton and archival collection on LGBT history in B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Community benefits agreement and workers

S. Bond

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Polak

Bioproducts development in agriculture sector

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Food security and food-processing sector

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Community benefits agreement and workers

T. Stone

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Thornthwaite

Meeting between Transportation Minister and workers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, referral report, Interim Assessment of

Implementation of Recommendations — Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of

Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters , October

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Members, in the gallery today is Leonard Schein, a well-known film

aficionado from Vancouver. Leonard is the former owner of the Fifth Avenue

Cinemas, the Park Theatre and the Ridge Theatre. He’s also the founder of

the Vancouver International Film Festival. Leonard has been known for his

philanthropy and his contributions to not just the arts and culture but the

fabric and dynamism of Vancouver and, indeed, all of British Columbia. Would

all members please welcome Leonard Schein to the Legislative Assembly of the

province of British Columbia.

S. Cadieux: There are a number of folks in the gallery today from the Alliance of

B.C. Students to meet with both sides of the House. I’d like to introduce

them: Andrew Dillman, Noah Berson, Matt McLean, Anna-Elaine Rempel, Patrick

Meehan, Chris Girodat, Snehdeep Kang, Sukhroop Kaur, Gurleen Sidhu,

Jasvinder Singh, Harsimrat Singh, Joseph Thorpe, David Piraquive, Jewelles

Smith, Gurvir Gill, Rajdeep Dhaliwhal and, last of all but not least, Emily

Gaudette. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Larson: Somewhere in the precinct today is the mayor-elect, Brian Taylor, of

Grand Forks and the chair of the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary,

Roly Russell. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: We always announce special events in the House. Today I’d like to

announce that one of our colleagues is turning a big “0” birthday. I’ll let

you guess which number goes in front of the big “0,” but please join me in

wishing a big “0” birthday to the member for Saanich South.

Hon. J. Sims: I have visiting me in the gallery today a very dear friend, like a

younger sister to me, and one of my constituents. I met her in 2012 and

really, really value our friendship and her support. It’s Rabina

Sattar.

I also have visiting here today Betty Dusange-Hayer, a friend I met

recently. We’ve made some very strong connections, and I would say she is a

big activist in the community. Accompanying them today is Anna Wu, who

represents the Canada Asia Economic and Culture Association.

Please assist me in welcoming them to this House.

J. Martin: Today in the precinct, we have several members from CLAC, the

Christian Labour Association of Canada; PCA, the Progressive Contractors

Association of Canada; Canada Works; and Canada West. They’re here meeting

with members, discussing fairness in the workplace, access to public

projects and restrictive hiring practices. Please make them

welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: I have a couple of introductions to make today. First, it is my

pleasure to introduce some very special guests in the gallery: Jastej Singh

Aujla — we call him Ronnie; his wife, Praneet Sandhu; along with their son

Mehtab. They are here along with their parents who are visiting them. They

are Ronnie’s parents from India. They are Dr. Kuljit Singh Aujla and Amrik

Kaur Aujla. Ronnie has brought them over to show our beautiful city of

Victoria and the people’s House. Please would the House join me in making

them very, very welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

E. Ross: Another birthday wish, a special birthday wish, to the first MLA that

I ever met in my previous term as chief councillor of Haisla Nation Council.

The birthday wishes go out, actually, to our House Leader, Mary Polak. Happy

birthday, Mary Polak.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll let that one go.

E. Ross: My apologies. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Happy birthday to the House Leader.

Hon. L. Popham: Just so nobody is left guessing, it’s the big five-o. A happy birthday

to my colleague across the way.

I’m going to join my colleague who introduced representatives from the

regional district of Kootenay-Boundary today. She mentioned Roly Russell and

Mayor-elect Brian Taylor.

Congratulations, Brian.

Also joining them, in their delegation, are Colleen Ross, city of

Grand Forks policy group liaison for recovery, and Graham Watt, the Boundary

Flood Recovery team recovery manager.

Please make them welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE

FOR LUCAK

FAMILY

L. Throness: I have a sad event to relate today. There’s an informal fraternity

among those who assist us here in Victoria and in our constituency

offices. When one member suffers, we all hurt a little bit.

Last Saturday my constituency assistant, Dagmar Lucak, and her

husband, Bill, smelled smoke in their house. They opened their bedroom

door, and the place was engulfed in flames. Dagmar was able to escape

without harm, but her husband, Bill, did not, tragically.

This is a reminder that our lives can change in a moment. We need

to hold those we love close to us.

The condolences of this House go out to Dagmar, to her daughter,

Ayla, and to her son, Emry.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Marta Cowling, the

newly appointed consul general of Portugal in Vancouver. Most recently the

consul general was a representative for Portugal to the European

Union.

As many of us are aware, the community of Canadians of Portuguese

origin is prominently represented in British Columbia, numbering over

40,000, including famous Victoria-born singer and songwriter Nelly Furtado.

I look forward to meeting with the consul general later this afternoon to

strengthen trade and investment relationships between our

jurisdictions.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the consul

general.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m not sure whether they have made it to the gallery yet. There are

50 grade 5 students from my constituency school of École Gabrielle-Roy. They

are joined by their teacher Assoli Renault. Please help me to say

bienvenue to all of them.

P. Milobar: Well, all of us in the House have family members who have supported us

along the way. It gives me great pleasure that I am joined by such a family

member here today, as well, surely the most patient woman that I know. My

wife of 25 years, Lianne Milobar, is here today.

M. Dean: Today here in the building, we’re visited by a class of grades 4 and 5

students from Eagle View Elementary. They’re studying government, and I

spent last Friday morning there answering an awful lot of questions that

were very smart from all of the kids. I would invite everybody to welcome

them and their teacher Ryan Nast. Please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Recall and Initiative

Amend­ment Act, 2018. This bill amends the Recall and Initiative

Act to ensure that the financing and advertising roles for the recall

process are consistent with financing and advertising rules under the

Election Act.

[10:15 a.m.]

Last fall amendments to the Election Act banned big money from

provincial elections and banned political contributions from outside of

British Columbia. This bill would implement similar rules for all

participants in a recall. Union, corporate and foreign contributions to

petition proponents and members subject to a petition would no longer be

permitted.

Eligible British Columbians would be permitted to contribute a

maximum of $1,200 per year to a petition proponent or a member subject

to a petition. Similar restrictions would apply to contributions to

recall advertising sponsors. The bill would provide for additional

transparency around fundraising functions held on behalf of petition

proponents or on behalf of members…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …subject to a petition when those functions are attended by party

leaders or cabinet ministers.

The bill also addresses the fact that, currently, recall

proponents and MLAs are subject to spending limits but third-party

sponsors of recall advertising are not. This bill would create an

expenses limit for advertising sponsors of $5,000 during the recall

petition period.

In order to promote transparency around recall advertising

sponsorship, individuals and organizations engaged in advertising that

directly promotes or opposes the recall of a member would be required to

register before sponsoring the advertising, regardless of when they are

conducting that direct advertising.

Finally, the bill establishes monetary penalties for contravening

recall financing and recall advertising rules, similar to penalties

under the Election Act, to assist the Chief Electoral Officer in

enforcing the rules for the recall process.

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

Motion approved on division.

Mr. Speaker: The first motion passed on division.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the first motion has been moved on division. That’s been

noted. Let’s move on to the second motion.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[10:20 a.m.]

Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018, introduced,

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

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

following division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 40

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WAH NGOK

T. Wat: I’m very sad to learn of the loss of my former colleague and

friend Elliot Ngok at the age of 76 on October 20.

Elliot is more affectionately known to the community as Wah Ngok,

great brother Wah. We have known each other since the ’90s. He has

always been a passionate actor and an individual, both in British

Columbia and in Hong Kong.

Wah Ngok started his acting career in Hong Kong in 1963. He was

one of the most versatile and prolific leading actors and starred in

five to ten films per year in his golden days. His shot to fame was the

1966 film Come Drink With Me .

[10:25 a.m.]

Wah Ngok and his family moved to Vancouver in the ’90s. He and I

were colleagues at the multicultural radio station Mainstream

Broadcasting CHMB AM 1320. He was a Mandarin program host, a man of

strong work ethics and passion who always helped and cared for his

colleagues.

Wah Ngok has always been actively involved in community work in

B.C. He participated in many charity events and helped raise over $1

million for our local charitable organizations and those in need around

the world. He has always volunteered and visited seniors homes to sing

and perform for the residents, giving them warmth and laughter. He and

his wife, Tanny Tien, also a well-known actress in Asia, are dedicated

volunteers of the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada, which delivers disaster

relief and humanitarian services through the essence of

Buddhism.

I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to his wife,

Tanny, and his daughter, Faye. Words fail when a loved one is taken away

from us too soon, but I pray we’ll all find comfort and strength in the

love and support of family members.

GORD DOWNIE AND CHANIE WENJACK FUND

LEGACY SCHOOLS

PROGRAM

B. Ma: Chanie Wenjack was nine years old when he was sent to the Cecilia

Jeffrey Indian Residential School in 1963. Years later Chanie ran away

from the school to try to reunite with his family 600 kilometres away.

He didn’t make it. They found his body one week later at the age of

Chanie is one of an estimated 6,000 Indigenous children who never

made it home from a residential school. It was this story, the story of

so many Indigenous children in this country, that inspired Canadian rock

musician, writer and activist Gord Downie of the Tragically Hip to

create, in collaboration with the Wenjack family, The Gord Downie and

Chanie Wenjack Fund to continue the conversation that began with Chanie

Wenjack’s residential school story and to aid our collective

reconciliation journey through awareness, education and

action.

Gord Downie passed away on October 17, 2017, and this fund is part

of his legacy. Most of us in these chambers did not grow up learning

about the residential school system. Indeed, there are generations of

Canadians outside of these walls who have no idea. But our young people

know. Through the Downie-Wenjack legacy school program, classrooms in

schools will lead the movement in raising awareness about the history

and impact of the residential school system on Indigenous peoples and

the challenges they continue to face today.

Because of the leadership of district principal Brad Baker, five

North Vancouver schools — including Norgate Elementary, Westview

Elementary, Carisbrooke Elementary, Sherwood Park Elementary and Windsor

Secondary — will join Gord Downie in his commitment to reconciliation as

legacy schools.

Though the road to reconciliation is long and the path winding and

the journey arduous, let us all go forward with courage.

FUNDRAISING BY

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL

FOUNDATION

R. Sultan: Lions Gate Hospital on the North Shore is both a community

hospital and a regional centre of excellence, fourth-ranked in Vancouver

Coastal in volume of patient care. Lions Gate Hospital Foundation is

only a few hundred thousand dollars shy of reaching its $100 million

fundraising goal, about half of the funds required for a new high-tech

medical and surgical centre.

The $93 million raised so far was donated by 3 percent of the

North Shore residents. For those last few dollars, the foundation needs

support from all of the North Shore community, the 97 percent,

regardless of the individual dollar amount.

The Give Where You Live campaign was recently launched with the

slogan “Celebrate seven days of LGH for a lifetime of care.” Keystone

sponsors were Save-On Foods and McDonald’s, and supporting roles were

played by a long list of North Shore businesses.

[10:30 a.m.]

The public at large was engaged through a Burma Shave on Lions

Gate Bridge, a rally at the SeaBus terminal, a meet-and-greet tent on

Lonsdale, Facebook Live, and more. The results? The LGH Foundation

raised another $50,000 in one week. The campaign continues.

Our Minister of Health has one of the most financially challenging

jobs in government. Communities have an ob­li­gation to help

him out. All citizens must engage to ensure our health system

excellence. Thank you, Lions Gate Hospital donors large and

small.

MUSLIM YOUTH CENTRE

R. Singh: This past weekend the Muslim Youth Centre, a centre located in

Surrey just across the border of my riding, organized their fundraiser.

A while back, I, along with the member for Surrey-Newton, attended their

International Bazaar and International Food Festival.

These events are not just organized to exhibit the array of the

community’s goods and food but more an invitation to people of all

faiths and denominations across the Lower Mainland to join in the

celebration of the immense diversity of Surrey and our magnificent

province.

Events like these are not the only outreach that the centre

arranges. Since 1999, when the late Iman Asgar Husain, with the support

of his wife, Zuleika Husain, opened the centre, it has been a place for

young girls and boys to engage in spiritual, religious and educational

programs, besides having the opportunity to attend self-defence classes

and sports days. One of its objectives is to provide youth with a

friendly educational environment and to empower them enough to repel

unwanted elements.

In today’s world, where wild rhetoric and Islamophobia seem to be

rampant, the Muslim Youth Centre is not only a place of solace and

reflection but also a beacon working hard to bring people together,

whether it is with their events, their educational work or their

collaborations in the community.

I would like to acknowledge the Muslim Youth Centre and its

efforts to preserve the ideals of multiculturalism of our province and

to equip youth with values that will last them a lifetime and help them

to build stronger communities.

FOOD GARDEN AND COOKING PROGRAM

AT JOHN ALLISON

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

L. Larson: For the past five years, the students, volunteers and staff at

John Allison Elementary School in Princeton have planted a fabulous food

garden. The plants are carefully tended by the students during the

spring, watched over by volunteers in the summer and harvested in the

fall.

The next step is to cook, preserve and prepare what has been

grown. Volunteers come to teach the students how to cook from scratch,

the old-fashioned way. Retired teachers, professional cooks and bakers

and other talented people help out with the cooking lessons.

The students participating are from kindergarten to grade 3. The

kitchen kids program began in 2013 with a three-year renewing grant from

the Valley First Credit Union First West Foundation. The money helped to

develop the how-to-cook program and has inspired the very young to eat

healthy foods and develop skills in cooking and baking.

To celebrate the success of this program, a kids’ cookbook was

published with input from all of the kids’ parents and grandparents, who

submitted recipes that were easy for kids to do. The kids were

introduced to many different dishes from around the world, and the

recipes reflect their community’s diversity.

Thanks go to the Princeton Teachers Union, the B.C. Teachers

Federation, Mr. Bill Lawrence, Mr. Barry Clarke and school district 58

for their financial support over the last five years. But the driving

force behind this program was teacher-volunteer Shirley Low, and it was

her efforts and a grant from the government that enabled the printing

this past spring of the Amazing Kitchen Kids Food Tales

Cookbook . The students are very proud of their cookbook and

thank everyone for their support. If anyone would like a copy, just let

me know.

RON DUTTON AND ARCHIVAL COLLECTION

ON LGBT HISTORY IN

B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: While we all know the saying about how those who don’t learn from

history are doomed to repeat it, we also need to sometimes consider what

voices are missing from history, what conversations, what people are

missing from the record — in many cases, minority voices.

In my community, I have a remarkable constituent who’s worked hard

to ensure that the voices of LGBT people, in their fight for equality

and for civil rights, have not gone missing, have not

vanished.

[10:35 a.m.]

Over 42 years, Mr. Ron Dutton has collected posters, reports,

magazines, advertisements, articles and various ephemera of the LGBT

civil rights movement in British Columbia. He has now amassed over

750,000 items in his B.C. gay and lesbian archives.

Now, that’s a lot of items, and as a constituent of mine, where

would he find a place in the West End big enough to keep that? I don’t

know. He lives in a two-bedroom apartment, but he has somehow managed to

fit his archives into his apartment in an incredibly organized way. But

that’s been a challenge, because of course, he’s wanted that archive to

be able to be studied and learned about all across the province and for

anyone around the world.

They can’t all fit into his small apartment, so Ron has done

something remarkable, I think, in keeping the collection and now giving

it to the City of Vancouver Archives. This collection will not just be

held in the archives, where you have to go and research it there, as I

know that Ron feared it being locked away in boxes that nobody would

see. What they’re doing now is digitizing the collection. They’ve just

announced that they’re going to, through the next year, digitize all of

the audio-visual, all the graphics and all the artwork that he’s

collected to have available on line by next summer.

I want to say thank you to Ron, thank you to the City of Vancouver

Archives and thank you to everybody who makes preservation of history

and the stories that unite us so much more of a priority than it has

been.

J. Rice: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: They weren’t in the House earlier when they were acknowledged, but

considering all that this community has endured with an unprecedented flood

this year, I wanted the House to recognize the outstanding resilience and

leadership of the community of Grand Forks and the regional district of

Kootenay-Boundary. I’m hoping the House can please make welcome local

government reps Roly Russell, Colleen Ross, Brian Taylor and recovery

manager Graham Watt.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

S. Bond: Ryan Deforge is a heavy-equipment operator and a trainer from

Mission. He has a question for the Minister of Transportation. He says:

“I’ve worked on numerous major public infrastructure projects in my

career. To keep working, why should I be forced to join an NDP-approved

union?”

A pretty simple question to the Minister of Transportation: why is

she forcing Ryan to join a union he does not want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: As always, I’m willing to listen to constituents directly. If they

want to get in touch with me directly, I’d be happy to talk to Ryan

about this.

I would like to reference a government report prepared for the

former Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, the current member

for Prince George–Valemount, to answer the question. The report, which

was presented to the former government back in 2014, provided some

useful information on meeting the skilled labour needs for projects in

our province.

It’s talking about the use of project labour agreements, or

community benefits agreements, and the mobile workforce. It says that

they have a significant history of use in B.C. stemming back to the

1960s’ large-scale infrastructure development. The model continues today

under the Allied Hydro agreement, says the report.

That agreement was with the same 19 building trade unions that are

involved with community benefit agreements. Maybe the member can explain

to me why a number of projects that started and completed under their

government were using the same 19 select unions that are being used

under community benefit agreements.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

S. Bond: Well, it was a nice try, Minister, but the good part of the answer

was the part where the minister said she’d be willing to talk to Ryan.

It’s about time. In fact, Ryan is in the gallery today. Ryan is here

today, and he is a proud member of CLAC. In fact, he and his colleagues

are joining us today, and he wants a straightforward answer from this

minister.

Ryan wanted the minister to know this….

Interjections.

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

S. Bond: Ryan wanted the minister to know this: “These things used to

justify this deal don’t make sense. For example, the apprenticeship

goals are just aspirational and are actually lower than most projects I

work on. I still want to know why the minister would violate my right to

join the union of my choice.”

Will the minister explain to Ryan, who is listening very carefully

to her answers today, why she is forcing him to join an NDP-approved

union he doesn’t want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that the member opposite knows that on work projects,

people join the association or the union that’s part of the project. So

members are often members of CLAC, members of the United Brotherhood of

Carpenters and Joiners and other unions, depending on where the work is

and what the work format is.

Maybe the members opposite also recall a project which was started

under their watch in my constituency. I remember former Minister of

Energy Bill Bennett coming up to Campbell River, being there with

SNC-Lavalin at the start of the John Hart generating station. It started

in 2014 and is just wrapping up now. That, also, was constructed under a

project labour agreement with 19 select building trade

unions.

The member may want to explain why their government constructed

such a large project using an agreement very similar to that which we’re

using. But I think I can tell the member why: because the 19 building

trades unions know how to build major projects. They know about

construction; they know about apprenticeships. That’s why we, like the

opposition when they were in government, are working with

them.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.

S. Bond: I’m sure the minister will continue to dismiss and ignore the

concerns. The minister can stand in the House all she wants. With CLAC,

members who work hard, who actually also know how to build projects, who

have skills, who have expertise….

The minister can duck, dodge and ignore the question. Here’s what

Ryan had to say to the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Prince George–​Valemount has the

floor.

S. Bond: The members opposite can be as dismissive as they want. Here’s

what Ryan had to say to the members on that side of the House. He said:

“I know that the Premier has dismissively called CLAC members like me

turkeys. This feels like political payback” — the Premier can shake his

head; that’s what he said — “and I think that’s wrong.” These are Ryan’s

words: “Why should I be banned…?”

Interjections.

S. Bond: Let’s try it again. “The Premier has dismissively called CLAC

members like me turkeys. This feels like political payback, and I think

that’s wrong. Why should I be banned from working on public projects

because of the government’s political agenda?”

Why are Ryan and other experienced, hard-working British

Columbians who are here today being forced by this minister to join a

union they don’t want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to continue with the opposition’s record from when they

were government. The $900 million Waneta dam expansion began in 2010 and

ended in 2015. That project was also, under the previous government, a

labour agreement with 19 select building trade unions — exactly as we

are doing.

[10:45 a.m.]

The member opposite was the Minister of Jobs at that time so

should have known about labour agreements. The member opposite at that

time, as Labour Minister, would have also known that nobody is being

forced to join a particular union. It is a union jobsite.

The reason why, I’m sure, the opposition, when they were

government, used their 19 select unions is because the building trades

know how to build projects. They worked for the former government;

they’re working with us too.

M. Polak: We’ve heard a lot of dismissive comments from the minister when we

pursued this line of questioning, but this one, I think, is particularly

disgraceful, because it doesn’t take much time to compare the agreements

that were made in the past with what’s contained in this current

agreement.

I will go directly after what the minister just said about how

these people are not being forced to join particular unions. Well, the

agreement actually says they are. First of all, in

article 8.100 and

8.101, it says that maintaining their membership in such unions is a

condition of employment. It makes that very clear by saying:

“Application for membership shall be made to join the appropriate

affiliate within 30 calendar days.” That’s a condition of their

employment.

The minister should stop skating around that. It’s really

disgraceful that she pretends that’s not in the agreement. It’s

disgraceful to people like Natalie. Natalie Bak is a red seal welder

from Burnaby. She completed her apprenticeship with CLAC…

Interjections.

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

M. Polak: …as many, many people do.

Here’s what Natalie says: “I’m proud of my training, and I don’t

understand why I can’t work on public projects as a CLAC member. How

does it make sense to exclude one of the top three sponsors of

apprentices in B.C. from public projects?”

It doesn’t make sense, and the minister should be explaining why

she expects that these people should be forced to join unions they don’t

want to join.

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite was in government for a number of years. She

should realize that it is a union jobsite, like Allied Hydro jobsites,

like the John Hart generating station under their watch, like the Waneta

dam under their watch. These are union jobsites. At a union jobsite, you

join the union after 30 days.

Many workers, which I think the member opposite realizes, are

members of a number of associations and unions. You can be a member of

the Carpenters and CLAC. You can be a member of a number of unions on

this jobsite. You’re anticipated — as at Waneta, as at John Hart — and

expected to join one of the 19 unions, the same unions that were under

Allied Hydro under the former government, as they are under our

community benefits agreement.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, I guess the really only interesting thing about the

minister’s answer is that it’s becoming obvious we built a heck of a lot

of infrastructure when we were in government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, proceed.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve already covered the first part of the minister’s answer on

the agreements, which is incorrect, and where it is not the same as

previous agreements. There’s something else that this agreement does

that’s equally disturbing and maybe even more so.

Interjection.

M. Polak: No, it’s actually the wages that are paid to pre-apprentices. For

example, if you’re a bricklayer pre-apprentice, guess what. You don’t

even get minimum wage. As the table goes on, out to 2024, you don’t even

get minimum wage then. You still only get $12.38. I mean, what’s going

on here? So not even minimum wage for the bricklayers pre-apprentices.

No minimum wage for the drywall taper-finisher. They get $11.78. No

minimum wage for the tile-setters and the commercial-institutional. They

only get 11 bucks.

This is something they don’t want to talk about, and they

certainly don’t want to tell people like Natalie. Natalie says that the

best way to train more apprentices is to work with everyone in the

construction sector. Especially, they should be working with people like

CLAC, who train thousands of apprentices each and every year.

[10:50 a.m.]

Again, why is the minister misleading workers and British

Columbians about what’s in this agreement? When is she going to come

clean and stop forcing workers to join unions they don’t want to

join?

Hon. C. Trevena: Those tables have been adjusted. Everybody will get above the

minimum wage. I have to say that….

The member can say that CLAC has apprentices. We are doing exactly

what the previous government did, using the building trades. The

building trades and the private sector unions have a great record on

apprenticeships, on skills training.

I really do not understand what the opposition doesn’t understand

about union workplaces. I mean, whether it’s going into a school where

you’ve got the BCTF and you’ve got CUPE, whether it is working in a

hospital where you’ve got HEU and the BCNU, whether it’s a liquor store

or the Langley police department, we have union workplaces around this

province. That’s what we’re going to be doing. We’re proud.

BIOPRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT

IN AGRICULTURE

SECTOR

A. Olsen: To continue our theme of embracing innovation to drive economic

prosperity in British Columbia, I’d like to canvass a few issues with

the Minister of Agriculture on her birthday. Happy birthday,

Minister.

Last week the European Union voted for an extensive ban on

single-use plastics. Plastic straws and plastic bags are already being

banned in various jurisdictions right here in Canada. As we move away

from plastics, sustainable bioproducts are taking their place. We see

examples of innovation happening around the province.

In Revelstoke, a brewery is using bread from a recovery program to

make new brew. Victoria is home to Abeego, a successful operation making

reusable food wraps from beeswax. Enterra Feed Corp. is using food waste

to feed flies and using the resulting fly larvae to create animal feed.

The list goes on.

There’s so much opportunity for us to be encouraging innovation,

to be encouraging farmers to develop bio­products. The world is

quickly changing, and alternatives to plastics are going to only

increase in demand.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. We have an

opportunity to position B.C. as a leader in bioproducts, but only if

government leans in to support this innovation. What concrete steps is

the minister taking to support the development of alternative

bioproducts in our agricultural sector?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to my colleague for the question. It is an exciting time in

agriculture. When you travel the province and meet farmers who are

embracing innovation, you know that the possibilities are endless. We

have just signed a new five-year Canadian agricultural partnership with

the federal government. This comes with a $14 million agri-innovation

program. This program will support projects relating to research and

development, pilot and demonstration, and commercialization and

adoption. It is an exciting time.

The member mentioned a few projects. I also have stumbled upon a

few really cool projects myself.

There’s a duck and chicken farm up in Kamloops operated by young

farmers that have launched a pilot project using flies to feed their

poultry. They’re using this as an alternative to food pellets. This is

replacing three tonnes of food waste every week from nearby restaurants.

Just in Delta, where my critic’s riding is, there is a dairy farm that’s

turning animal and food waste into biofuel and moving that fuel into the

Fortis grid. Then lastly, in the Fraser Valley, where the Speaker

resides, there’s a land-based aquaculture operation that uses food waste

to generate insect protein, which they then use to feed their coho

stock.

I’m as excited as the member is about innovation, and I look

forward to future discussions about that.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

FOOD SECURITY AND

FOOD-PROCESSING

SECTOR

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. There was a time not

too long ago that Vancouver Island produced 100 percent of its food.

Fifty years ago we produced about 90 percent of the food that we

consumed. Now we import roughly 90 percent of our food.

With climate change, disruptions in the global food network are

increasing. Costs of transportation and drought are just two challenges

facing food security, an issue that I know the minister is passionate

about. But it’s not just growing more food that we need.

[10:55 a.m.]

In Canada, 30 percent of our food goes uneaten, and $31 billion is

wasted every year. Approximately 18 percent of food waste happens at the

manufacturing level, so this is a huge opportunity for innovation to

address both food waste and food security. We have opportunities to

encourage more food-processing facilities to help local

farmers.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. What is the

ministry doing to address the lack of food processing here on Vancouver

Island and across British Columbia?

Hon. L. Popham: It must be my birthday, because that’s the best question ever. I

am proud to say that in my mandate letter from the Premier, one of the

things that I’m addressing is the capacity of our food processing. Up

until now, we are one of the only provinces in Canada that wasn’t a home

to a food innovation centre. We’re working hard, with partners, to see

that a success in the near future, but there is a lot more that we can

be doing. Food processing is a value-added part of agriculture, and it

also would address things such as waste.

I can tell you that the member is exactly right. We are producing

less food than we use, and we’re depending more on imports than we ever

have in British Columbia. We need to address this for many reasons. One

of them is climate change resilience. Food security is a hot topic right

around the world, and I am concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. L. Popham: But there are some successes as well, Mr. Speaker. Because it’s my

birthday, can I just talk about one?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

T. Stone: Tom MacDonald is a carpenter and a foreman. He’s worked for almost

20 years for the same company, Ledcor. He has participated — and is very

proud of his participation — in helping build major infrastructure

across British Columbia, like the B.C. Children’s Hospital, the Canada

Line, and highways and bridges. He’s been a member of CLAC Local 68 for

the entire period of time.

Here’s what Tom has to say: “My taxes are paying for these

projects, and I find it offensive that I would be forced to join a

particular union, lose the continuity of my pension and benefits, and be

dispatched to a company I have no history with, all in the name of the

NDP paying back their friends with no regards to my individual choice

and rights.”

Tom is with us here in the gallery today, and frankly, he deserves

an answer from the minister to this question. Why is the minister

forcing Tom to join a union that he does not want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member opposite, I thank him for the question. I repeat my

answer, from the previous two members, that we are using the same model

with the same unions that the opposition did when they were government.

We are using 19 building trades unions because they are proven, as

private sector unions, to be excellent at training those people in the

skills that we need training in.

We’re talking about heavy equipment. We’re talking about welders.

We’re talking about electricians. We’re talking about pile drivers and

ironworkers. These are all trades that we desperately need. The member

opposite, I know, was only in government for four years. He may not have

realized that there is a massive skills shortage. Part of the community

benefits agreement is to build up the people of British Columbia and

make sure that we’ve got those skills.

Looking at Indigenous people, looking at women and looking at

other people who don’t usually enter this and ensuring that they have

those skills and training, we are using the building trades unions to do

that training.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Frankly, the minister’s responses here, today, and in previous

opportunities where we’ve canvassed this subject are disheartening,

dismissive and highly disrespectful to people — workers like Tom

MacDonald and his colleagues who are here today and the thousands of

workers that they represent across this province.

[11:00 a.m.]

Now, let’s try this again, to refresh the minister’s

mem­ory. Tom has worked for Ledcor for most of his career. Tom has

been a member of CLAC Local 68 for that entire time period. CLAC has a

long-standing bargaining relationship with Ledcor, but CLAC is not one

of the 19 NDP-approved unions.

Tom says: “I object to the fact that if Ledcor obtains a contract

on the Pattullo Bridge project, I would be forced to join the building

trades unions to work for Ledcor, even though Ledcor already has an

existing bargaining relationship with CLAC.”

This policy is unfair, and it’s discriminatory. My question to the

minister, again, is this: why is the minister preventing Tom from

working on the projects he wants to work on, working for the company he

wants to work for, and why is she forcing him to join a union that he

doesn’t want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: Like the previous questions, I’d be very happy to sit down and

talk with Tom, to talk to him about this. These are the same unions that

the previous government used. We’re not forcing anybody to join a union.

It’s the union worksite, as are the Allied Hydro projects, as is a

school, as is a B.C. Transit operation. We have union worksites around

the province.

I just really wanted to reflect a little bit on the previous

government’s history. Yes, they did for…. Hydro used the 19 building

trade unions, because they can deal with the skills shortage. They can

deal with apprenticeships. But it has not always been their record.

Going back, the member opposite mentioned the Canada Line. That was

under the previous government, and under the Canada Line, they had 30

workers from Costa Rica being paid less than $4 an hour, working 12

hours a day, six days a week.

Yes, we are using a union worksite, and yes, we are using the

building trades, because the building trades can train people. We’re

proud of it, because we’re investing in the people of British Columbia

as well as the infrastructure.

J. Thornthwaite: Tim Spencer is 21 years old and a third-year apprentice from North

Vancouver. This is what Tim wants the minister to know: “This policy has

nothing to do with good-paying jobs. The increase in construction costs

doesn’t go to workers. It goes to higher union dues, the hiring hall,

bureaucracy and inefficiencies. I know I would vote to reject this

deal.”

My question, again, is for the minister. Why is the minister

forcing Tim to join a union he doesn’t want?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sure the member opposite did tell her constituent that it’s

really the honesty about what community benefit agreements are, that

we’re using the same 19 unions that their government did when they were

in government — the opposition, when they were in government.

I know that the opposition did have a relatively good relationship

with one union just before the last election, Ironworkers 97. There were

photos with the former Premier, Christy Clark. That union had some

thoughts about our community benefits agreement.

I would like to quote from Doug Parton, the business manager,

about the community benefits agreement. He’s talking about the Golden

Ears Bridge, what was there, and I have mentioned before about how the

Ironworkers had to bring pizza down to help people. But I’d just like to

quote from Mr. Parton.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: I don’t quite know what that answer was, but I’ll continue

on.

Carmen Elebracht is a fourth-year electrical apprentice. She, too,

is in the gallery today. The question she has for the minister is: “I

don’t see how giving a monopoly to unions controlling 15 percent of the

workforce helps anyone, certainly not the workers. Why not take a

collaborative approach with all of the industry and let workers decide

who represents them?”

[11:05 a.m.]

Again to the minister, could we please get an answer? Why is this

minister forcing Carmen to join a union she doesn’t want?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are using 19 unions in a union work­site in our community

benefits agreement projects, as the members opposite, when they were

government, had union worksites too. They had Waneta dam, John Hart and

other Allied Hydro projects. They were union projects.

I’d like to go back to their union, the Ironworkers. Mr. Parton,

the business manager, was involved in the Golden Ears Bridge project,

one of their flagship public-private partnerships. Mr. Parton asked

this. He was a strong…. His union supported the previous government at

the last election.

He said: “But I ask this. Where are the community benefits on that

bridge?” — meaning the Golden Ears Bridge — “Where was the training of

the next generation of ironworkers, labourers, carpenters or whatever?

We got nothing out of it, except a big bill. An employer there made out

with a bunch of money, and there was no benefit to B.C.”

We’re investing in the people of B.C. We’re investing through

apprenticeships. We’re investing in Indigenous people. We’re making sure

that the people of British Col­um­bia get the benefit when

we’re building infrastructure.

MEETING BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION

MINISTER AND

WORKERS

A. Wilkinson: It’s so good to hear that the Minister of Transportation is

concerned about workers. It’s so good to hear that she’s interested in

meeting with them. It was great to hear her say last week: “If the

opposition would like to share with me the details of the people that

have been in touch with them, I’d like to talk with them myself, because

there’s obviously a concern.”

The minister’s office is up here behind me to the right, and in a

short 20 minutes, the four people we mentioned today — Tom, Natalie,

Ryan and Tim — will all be available to meet with the minister at her

convenience on her way back to her office.

Will the minister meet with these workers and explain to them why

they’re being shut out of employment for the next five years?

Hon. C. Trevena: Of course I’ll meet with them.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Interim Assessment of Implementation of Recommendations — Misfire:

The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related

Matters from the Office of the Ombudsperson.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 49, Professional Governance Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[11:10 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL

GOVERNANCE

ACT

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

The proposed Professional Governance Act has been developed to

fill a need identified by many British Columbians to better protect the

public interest in relation to professional reliance. The purpose of the

proposed act is to provide improved and consistent oversight and

safeguards concerning professional conduct and services, specifically

for the professions involved in decision-making in the natural resource

sector.

This bill has been prepared after this government’s consideration

of the independent Final Report of the Review of Professional

Reliance in Natural Resource Decision-Making , released earlier

this year and following extensive consultations with Indigenous nations

and stakeholders, concerning the policy elements for the bill itself.

These stakeholders include the professional regulatory associations

concerned, employers of regulated professionals and a range of other

citizens concerned about natural resource management and public

oversight.

Over 4,000 responses were received and considered during the

engagement process for the professional reliance review and,

subsequently, through the consultation process supporting the

development of this legislation. Many meetings with the five

professional regulatory associations named in the bill were invaluable

for their knowledge and expertise on professional governance with

respect to their professions.

A bundled engagement process on wildlife management, species at

risk and professional reliance matters was conducted by government

staff, with 105 Indigenous na­tions participating in 15 regional

sessions from May to August of this year.

There were also face-to-face discussions with individual First

Nations, as well as two on-line sessions that focused exclusively on

professional reliance, with eight First Nations

participating.

A two-day advisory round-table workshop included representatives

from community groups, professional regulators both in and outside the

natural resources sector, the business community, labour unions,

environmental organizations and coastal First Nations.

Staff in my ministry also met informally with a number of industry

associations during the development of this bill, including the Mining

Association of B.C., the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers,

the Council of Forest Industries and the Association for Mining

Exploration.

[11:15 a.m.]

In addition, a number of resource companies participated in the

advisory round-table workshop and met bilaterally with ministry staff.

Discussions were also held with the Provincial Forestry Forum and the

Forest Practices Board.

As a result, this bill is the product of thorough engagement with

a wide-ranging cross-section of organizations and citizens that want to

see effective and trusted management of our province’s natural

resources.

Perspectives do, of course, vary, but a common goal is that

professional reliance, in the context of natural resource management and

decision-making, must happen in a way that is transparent and

accountable to government and to British Columbians around the

province.

To that end, this bill establishes and provides for the functions

of a new office of the superintendent of professional governance to be

located in the Ministry of Attorney General. This office will be a

centre of expertise in professional governance and will have the

authority to carry out various functions as required or authorized by

the act.

The act will initially apply to the key five professional

regulatory associations that govern professions involved in land and

natural resource use decisions. These are: the B.C. Institute of

Agrologists; the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C.;

the College of Applied Biology; the Association of Professional

Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., also known by the shorter name,

Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.; and the Association of B.C. Forest

Professionals.

The office will be charged with administering the act and keeping

the public interest front and centre as it works with the professional

regulators, regulatory associations and other stakeholders to develop

effective regulations to fully implement the act.

The superintendent will have statutory authority to issue

guidelines for consideration by professional regulatory associations, to

conduct investigations and audits of professional regulatory

associations, to issue directives, to take enforcement action in

relation to offences under the act and to appoint public administrators

to take over some or all duties of a professional regulatory

association, as a last resort.

The intent is that the superintendent and professional regulatory

associations will work collaboratively to identify issues and make

improvements so that there will be no need for the superintendent to

resort to enforcement measures. However, these measures will be

available, if this bill is enacted, as final safeguards to ensure that

the public interest is protected.

The act includes requirements for the professional regulatory

associations to report annually to the office with respect to their

effectiveness as regulators of their profession. This information will

inform annual reporting by the superintendent to the Attorney General

concerning the effectiveness of the act. The superintendent may also be

called on by the Attorney General to make recommendations for changes to

improve the act.

In addition to overseeing the professional regulatory associations

operating under the act, the office will be empowered to look into the

state of practice of professions generally in British Columbia and will

be able to make recommendations to cabinet regarding the designation of

additional professions under the act to safeguard the public

interest.

The professional regulatory associations under the act will

operate with a common set of standards and associated requirements to

bring consistency, improved transparency and accountability to their

respective professions. For instance, the act sets standardized duties

and responsibilities for professional regulatory associations, the first

of these being the duty to serve and protect the public

interest.

The act also standardizes and bolsters the complaints and

discipline process for professional regulators. The size and structure

of the governing councils of professional regulatory associations are

also standardized in this bill to ensure that these councils have

greater public representation and are made up of individuals who possess

the competencies needed to govern their respective

associations.

[11:20 a.m.]

The provisions in this bill are designed to strengthen and focus

the responsibilities of professional regulatory associations governed

under the act to regulate their professions. Councils are given the

authority to adopt bylaws without member ratification, subject to

oversight by the office. Certain forms of advocacy currently allowed in

existing professional statutes that do not necessarily align with the

public interest are eliminated.

Authority is also provided for any professional regulatory

association governed under the act to regulate firms that employ

professions in the regulator’s practice area and to set requirements in

key aspects of professional regulation, including ethics, conflict of

interest, continuous professional development and quality

management.

This bill also extends practice rights to these professional

regulatory associations that currently have the exclusive right to their

professional titles but not exclusive right to practise their

profession. Specifically, the applied biologists, the agrologists and

the applied science technologists and technicians will be enabled to

have this right under the act.

This bill also brings new obligations for the individual

professionals who are governed by the professional regulatory

associations under the act. Individual professionals governed under the

act will be required to declare their competency for the specific work

they undertake and declare any real conflicts of interest or

circumstances that may reasonably be expected to give rise to

perceptions of conflict of interest.

Professionals will also be required to follow a common set of

ethical principles and report when the conduct of other professionals

poses a risk to the public and the environment. The act also includes

new whistle-blower protection for those that report in accordance with

this requirement. Finally, requirements for continuous professional

development will be new for some of the professions under this

act.

After roughly 15 years of experience with the enhanced

professional reliance model, it is reasonable and necessary that

government reflect on this model and take steps to address issues that

were identified in the review concluded earlier this year as well as in

other reports over the last decade. This act and the proposed office of

the superintendent will address areas in the professional reliance model

that need to be improved.

This government is responding to public concerns about a need for

more oversight and transparency to ensure that professional regulatory

associations and their members are clearly placing the public interest

first and foremost. A similar approach to governance of professional

regulatory associations has been successfully adopted in other sectors

and jurisdictions over the last decade, most notably in the health

sector here in B.C. and in the United Kingdom.

This proposed act would put a governance framework in place that

follows international best practices and helps professional regulatory

associations to strengthen their role in protecting the public interest

and to improve public trust in professional oversight.

I’m proud to introduce this bill, and I look forward to

debate.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate around

Bill 40, in second reading. Or Bill 49 — sorry. Wishful thinking, maybe.

Bill 40 is the proportional representation bill.

Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act, frankly, could be

retitled the “Take a sledgehammer where a fly swatter is needed” act.

I’ll delve into that through my comments here as we move

forward.

I don’t think there’s a concern about regular review, regular

re-engagement of professional bodies to make sure that best practices

are followed, that modernization is happening, that the public is being

well served by those bodies and that government is being well served by

those bodies.

[11:25 a.m.]

But Bill 49 does that and so much more, and that’s, I think, where

our underlying concerns on this bill are. This bill, as witnessed by

being introduced by the Minister of Environment, seems to be very

heavily targeted with a very specific outcome already underway and

undermined.

I say that because once implemented, this bill will be fully

managed and used and regulated through the Attorney General’s office,

not the Minister of Environment’s office, not the Minister of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development’s office — any

of the other ministries that these five organizations actually touch

upon on a regular basis. It’ll actually be managed by the Attorney

General’s office. Yet it’s a piece of legislation being brought in by

one of those other four ministers instead.

I think that’s what creates some of the underlying concerns — when

you talk to agencies, when you talk to some of the groups that have been

consulted on this — where this bill has landed. This bill has landed to

the extreme of trying to make some changes within some of these bodies

and how they self-regulate themselves and how they work

forward.

The fact that there may be some oversight, I think people can

understand, is a desired outcome in terms of wanting to make sure there

is that public confidence within any of the projects as they’re getting

reviewed. However, with such a strong focus on simply the natural

resource side of the great many tasks that all of these associations

do…. They do so much more than simply natural resource work. In fact, I

believe the engineers…. Only about 20 percent of their membership

actually works within the natural resource industry.

However, 100 percent of their body will fall under this act, which

has been created expressly, as the minister has said, to try to work on

natural resource projects and natural resource codes of conduct and

standards of care, which leads you to wonder. How does that, such a

heavy reliance and such a heavy view towards the natural resource side,

come into play, when people within those scopes of work that are doing

something totally outside of that type of natural resource work come

into play?

When you look through the bill, there are some very concerning

aspects to it. First and foremost, and probably the most significant, is

the absolute power that would be granted to the superintendent in this

bill. The superintendent in this bill would have absolute power. The

superintendent in this bill would be able to look at an organization

that’s not currently under this legislation, a professional body, and

deem that they feel that professional body should fall under this

legislation.

Now, that professional body would have no say in the matter. They

could protest. They could make a case for why they don’t think they

should be. But if the superintendent is so inclined to demand that they

become part of this legislation, it’s as easy as making a recommendation

to the Attorney General, and then that is so.

If the superintendent under this act deems that two associations

should be joined to form one, the superintendent can consult with those

two professional bodies to see if they would like to join together and

become one. So he could talk to, say, the agrologists and the foresters

and say: “Hey, it might make sense that you two become one professional

body. Why don’t you talk together and see if you can’t work this

out?”

Now, my hunch would be that those two sides would say: “Thank you

so much. We’ve talked about it. We’re not interested in joining

together.” One would think that would be the end of it.

But no, under this Bill 49, the superintendent can still turn

around and say: “Well, I still think it’s more appropriate that you two

actually join.” Whether or not the agrologists and the foresters agree,

the superintendent has the power in this legislation to make that so. He

has the ability to amalgamate professional bodies together, whether they

want to be amalgamated together or not.

That is not oversight. That is an overreach, and that is the

biggest problem that I’ve been able to find in this bill. Going through

an update with staff, a briefing with staff ahead of time, they

confirmed many of our

interpretations of some of the sections in this

bill, because that’s ultimately what this bill says. This bill says that

the superintendent has ultimate power. The superintendent, if they

believe that either an organization should have passed a bylaw or a

bylaw would be appropriate for them or a piece of code-of-conduct policy

would be appropriate for them….

[11:30 a.m.]

Whether those organizations, the engineers be­lieve that

would be a good piece of bylaw or a good code-of-conduct policy to have,

the superintendent has the ultimate authority under this new legislation

to implement it regardless of what those professional bodies say. As

much as this sounds like it is a wonderful thing to try to get those

organizations to rely on best practice, even if it’s a proposed bylaw

that would not actually be best practice but a personal opinion of a

yet-unnamed superintendent to put into effect, those bodies would now be

beholden to that bylaw with no recourse.

There is whistle-blower protection like crazy in here for people

within these organizations to report, because there is a duty to report,

and I can understand that, but there’s no whistle-blower protections for

anyone feeling that the superintendent might be acting out of

order.

Again, it’s creating a situation where over time, the

superintendent will have too much authority, too much autonomy and too

much power without proper checks and balances. The minister referenced

the word “intent,” and the minister’s staff in our briefing referenced

the word “intent” on a couple of questions. Well, intent is wonderful,

but this is a legal document. It’s not about what the intent of the

drafter of the legal document thought was going to happen. It’s not what

the intent of the minister might be. The minister may have the best of

intentions in the world as it relates to how the superintendent should

operate.

The Attorney General who will oversee this could have the best of

intentions, regardless of political stripe, for how this is going to be

done. Then there’s a new Attorney General in office, maybe there’s a new

superintendent hired, and maybe there’s a new staff person in the

background. There’s always movement happening in government. Nothing is

an absolute.

From that, intent goes out the window. The person that drafted the

legislation had a certain intent in mind, based on direction from the

minister — who gave the intent of what the minister would like to see

this drafted around. It was followed up by an Attorney General that, one

would assume, was somewhat involved in the drafting of legislation that

they will now be responsible for moving forward. All of those people’s

intent is no longer relevant. What are the legal powers and authorities

written in this document, and what does it legally allow the

superintendent to do? What does it legally allow the Attorney General

and cabinet to do?

In this bill, it puts way too much power and authority into the

hands of those people when you’re talking about the oversight of, to

start with, five. It could actually drop down to two or three as the

superintendent decides to amalgamate a bunch of these groups together.

Then it can actually grow again as the superintendent starts to go a

little further afield with some other professional organizations, and

say: “You need to be under this legislation. You are now under this

legislation.”

That’s the overriding problem here. The superintendent is unlike

other offices that would be statutory in nature. If you think of the

Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner or offices of that nature,

those are appointed by a committee of this House. Those people answer to

this House as a whole. This superintendent is hand-selected by the

Attorney General and cabinet. Their tenure solely lasts at the will of

the Attorney General and cabinet.

There are lots of positions out there that are like that if you

sit on a board. I don’t take issue with the fact that the four laypeople

on the five boards would be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the

minister. I get that. I was on the B.C. Transit board. It’s very clear.

You serve at the pleasure of the minister. I understand that. That’s at

the board level, though. That’s a board member at a board level. We have

so many boards out there. That’s the only manageable way to make

something like that happen, from universities to transit to Hydro. You

name it. That makes perfect sense.

What doesn’t make perfect sense, though, is when you’re appointing

somebody that will be able to have ultimate control and ultimate

direction over five professional bodies in a piece of legislation that

is supposed to control those five professional bodies as a whole, yet

has been crafted specifically, by the minister’s own words, with a focus

on natural resource.

[11:35 a.m.]

I don’t know many elevator technicians that need to worry about

the natural resource sector and UNDRIP, but they fall under this. This

has been crafted 100 percent in a way to try to knuckle down on the

natural resource industry and try to shut things down. Let’s be very

clear about that.

When you look into areas around “duty to report,” the

section

around “duty to report” in this…. Again, clarified by staff in the

briefing, and with 157 or 158 sections of this bill to go through, I’m

sure it won’t be a short committee stage of this bill as we delve into

trying to get answers from the minister on each section. But at a high

level, when we queried what “duty to report” would mean…. It says that

if you’re a professional and you believe there may be harm being done to

the environment, you must report.

My question was: if I’m a forester that’s out for a drive on the

weekend, and I’m driving by a cutblock, and just by my eye, with the

terrain of the hill, I feel that they cut 15 feet too close to the road,

do I have a duty to report the other forester, who probably did months

and months of work trying to figure out the proper guidelines of where

that cutblock should be?

The answer back was: yes, because if the person on a Sunday

afternoon drive — a forester, a professional — feels there may have been

harm done to the environment, they must report. In fact, if they don’t

report, they find themselves in hot water. There’s no definition around

what “may” and the level of damage to an environment may be, but one can

see where it doesn’t take much for this to expand.

Now, I go back to the elevator service person — who would fall

under ASTTBC, I believe — or other such types of technicians. Very

skilled in what they do, very knowledgable in what they do, they fall

under this professional model as well. If that person is going fishing

for the weekend and just has a personal opinion that they feel that that

cutblock is too close, do they have a duty to report? They fall under

this. Their professional code of conduct says that if they think

something may be harming the environment, they must report it. If they

don’t, do they face sanction?

Are we turning an office that is scheduled to have an original

staff of 12…? I would suggest it’s going to take a lot more than that,

because of the amount of potential reporting coming in, because of what

people think may be happening out there — people that might have zero

training as it relates to that field but that fall under this

legislation in one of the five categories and that do work that’s

totally unrelated to anything to do with natural resources. It actually

says that it’s their professional duty to report. That’s what it says in

this.

When you look at this bill strictly with a lens as a forester,

only about foresters, you can understand the duty to report, forester to

forester. That will work out over time, I’m sure. There’ll still be some

differences of opinion, absolutely. But when you start looking through

the duty to report in this whole bill and how it’s all-encompassing,

it’s mind-boggling — the overlap and the situation that the government

is putting into place with this bill, instead of tightening up and

working with these organizations to get some better oversight. Again,

they are going to the extreme.

Now, we’ve heard a lot about the “public interest” and the public

good. The minister referenced that several times in his opening

comments. Yet there is no definition for that in this. We have pages of

definitions. We don’t have pages of definition — or even one paragraph,

one sentence of definition — around what that means, yet it’s integral

to how the superintendent is going to conduct their duties.

The minister’s own staff were not able to provide us…. Again, I

don’t take issue with the staff. I think they’ve done a wonderful job.

They have taken their direction from the minister and other

ministers.

[11:40 a.m.]

One would presume, since this touches on, actually, four

ministers’ purview, that they would have taken direction from all four —

and in fact a fifth minister, the Attorney General, who would have had

nothing to do with these groups to this point but now is the overseer of

all five. One would assume that these staff took direction, and I

believe they did. I believe our professional public service does

exceptionally good work at a very high level. They can only provide

back, though, that under what direction they’ve been given.

One has to believe that the direction they’ve been getting from

government is to make sure that this is solely focused on the natural

resource side of the equation. There was a total lack of oversight in

how these will work in practicality with all people in these professions

under this act that now have a duty to report and now have to make sure

that the public interest is being considered. But there are no

definitions for them to operate under, so they’ll be left to their

own.

There is not something as easily answered as potential conflict of

interest. Now, potential conflict of interest, I agree, comes down to

one’s own perception of what may or may not be conflict of interest.

When you ask a question, in my mind, as simple as….

Does this mean if you are a forester and you work for a private

forestry company, you would be considered in conflict of interest if you

turned around and worked for B.C. Timber Sales, if you worked for the

government on a separate contract? It may be in the same valley but a

different cutblock. Would that put you in conflict of interest? Would

you no longer be able to do contract work for the government and

contract work for the private sector if you’re a forester? They can’t

answer that question.

One would think that with a bill that’s had so much consultation

and so much discussion, as the minister alluded to, the fundamental

issues like that would have been worked out and thought about, and what

those ramifications mean to these professionals. This is about these

professionals being able to hang on to their ability to do their craft,

to be able to say that they are professionals, to still be able to have

a job, to still be able to provide for their families and know what

rules they’re operating under.

Yet under this legislation, there’s no clarity there. It’s not

good enough to say: “Well, the intent is this.” Intent is wonderful, but

discipline tribunals don’t look for intent. Discipline tribunals will

look for the language of the legislation and say you were in

contravention. That is a problem.

For this and many other reasons that I’m sure my colleagues will

be getting into, I have a hard time supporting this. We don’t know,

don’t even have a ballpark of what the cost of this office will be. It

will be run through the Attorney General’s office. They say it starts

with 12, but one only has to guess how much that will actually cost. It

appears that the superintendent doesn’t actually even fall under the

public sector act, so the superintendent appears to have the ability to

negotiate whatever pay packet they decide would be reasonable for them

one on one with the Attorney General.

That seems a little odd to me, but we’ll get clarification of that

going through committee stage. But it would seem strange that somebody

that not only owes their whole job to the Attorney General and cabinet

and gets fired, potentially, by only the Attorney General and cabinet

can also go in and negotiate their own pay packet and make sure that if

they want to see that pay packet still continue on…. You know, where is

that line of separation when they keep reporting back to the person that

has the ability to fire them? Where is the independence towards these

five groups with the superintendent’s office?

I know the intent. We, hopefully, will hire the person with

impeccable qualifications, but that doesn’t guarantee person No. 2 has

impeccable qualifications. It doesn’t guarantee that someone with this

much power doesn’t wind up in the midst of political changes and

back-and-forth debate and back-and-forth ideology that happens around

this place.

[11:45 a.m.]

That doesn’t provide stability to these five organizations. That’s

doesn’t provide stability to the general public. That doesn’t build

confidence. That just creates uncertainty and a patronage appointment

that gets to set their own pay scale. That’s very troubling.

There doesn’t seem to be any length of term for the superintendent

to serve. They’ve got lots of language in there around the councils that

get appointed, the seven professionals and how they get appointed, the

four laypeople and how they get appointed. And I agree that they should

be merit-based, like they have laid out in the legislation. So they’ve

done some things right in this legislation.

I can’t find a length of term for the superintendent. Is it a job

for life? No one really knows. If they get to negotiate their own pay

packet, that also means they get to negotiate their own parachute of

severance, if they don’t fall under the same guidelines the rest of the

public service would fall under.

The bylaws that are drafted by the councils have got to be given

to the superintendent. The superintendent screens them. The Attorney

General, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, then introduces

them into regulation. Again, it doesn’t matter what the professional

organizations say.

Those bylaws could just die a slow death and go nowhere? Or if

those organizations aren’t cracking down on development quite like the

government would like to see, then that can be created with this bill.

The superintendent has the power to do that. The superintendent has

large, wielding powers when it comes to investigations. The

superintendent has the ability to pretty much do as they

please.

Now, that’s not, again, oversight. That’s an overreach. This bill

has taken what started out to be a reasonable concept moving forward.

And although the government will say they consulted, consulting and

reaching out to hear what people have to say and actually listening to

or taking any of their advice are two totally different things. I have a

hard time believing…. In fact, some of the groups have said, even as

this was being developed, even as the intentions papers and that were

being released, indications from government around the

consultation….

These organizations had said that the biggest, troubling piece

they have out of this is the power and the overreach that a

superintendent could have. Yet that’s exactly what we see in here. We

don’t see it tempered. We don’t see it managed. In fact, it’s almost

like the government heard those concerns and said: “Well, you know what?

Maybe let’s stack on the authority of the superintendent even more.

Let’s make the superintendent even more powerful, just to show these

organizations who’s boss.”

If you look and wonder why some of the organizations aren’t going

to be overly vocal in this…. It really doesn’t take much of a stretch to

understand why. If you look at where and how much work is contracted by

the government for some of these professions, it’s pretty hard to stand

up and publicly say to the person that’s hiring you for the majority of

your work that you don’t agree with this overreach.

It’s incumbent upon us to stand up and speak for them and say that

this is exactly what it is. It’s an overreach. It is creating the office

of a superintendent that will do nothing to further the professionalism

of these groups, other than create a bureaucratic nightmare for them.

The only reason you would need a superintendent with this much power is

if you as a government are not happy on the natural resource side of the

equation that there have not been more restrictive bylaws put into place

to try to prevent people’s scope of practice and try to create an

environment where everyone is nervous about what it is they’re doing and

designing.

[11:50 a.m.]

That’s all this bill does. For the most part, there are many

sections of this bill that actually speak to existing bylaws within

these professions, so it’s not changing any of that. This bill is trying

to recognize…. By making a board for each one, with seven professionals

within that professional body on that board governing it, there is

obviously capacity within those organizations to manage

themselves.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But instead of making sure that those groups can still work

independently, it’s created a situation where there is an all-knowing,

all-powerful superintendent, and I think that’s untenable. That’s

something that we need to get a lot more information on as we move

through committee stage, questioning the minister on this.

Noting the hour, I just need some guidance here. I’m pretty much

done with my comments, but we have other speakers. So how do I phrase

it?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps, rather than have another speaker, unless the next speaker

believes they can be completed in a couple of minutes.

P. Milobar: No, I will just adjourn debate.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:51 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