Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 258

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

Jacky Ko

J. Yap

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

David Kampe

Hon. A. Dix

D. Ashton

Introduction of Bills

D. Barnett

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

New curriculum in schools and news analysis by students

J. Routledge

70th anniversary of Hope-Princeton Highway

J. Tegart

River of Belonging art project at École Heritage

Park Middle School

B. D’Eith

Anniversary of B.C. government apology to Chinese Canadians

T. Wat

Frank Burden

R. Leonard

Ralph Nilson and Vancouver Island University

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Soil disposal site in Shawnigan Lake watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister and political fundraising issues

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

J. Thornthwaite

Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Sims

Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister and political fundraising issues

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

Petitions

S. Sullivan

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

Committee of the Whole House

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

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 (continued)

M. Lee

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling)

Committee of the Whole House

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

(continued)

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

M. Lee

R. Sultan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

G. Kyllo

Hon. M. Mungall

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I’m proud to introduce paramedics from around B.C. who’ll be visiting

with members of the Legislature today. They’ll be visiting with me much

later, because I and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country will be doing

Health estimates and probably talking a little bit about ambulance

paramedics and B.C. emergency health services at some point.

I wanted to welcome Cameron Eby — I want to say, again, no relation —

who is the president, of course, of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. and who

plays an extraordinary role every day. There are 33 paramedics here to meet

with us today. They’re all around us in the gallery, particularly up there —

hi, Cameron. I look forward to meeting them later; I know members of the

House do.

Please give them a warm round of applause, welcome them, and thank

them for all the work they do every day for British Columbia.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of students from

Western Washington University. They’re the political science class on

Canadian government and politics. We’re joined here by their instructor,

Butch Kamena. I just spent the last 25 minutes with them trying to explain

everything that happens in this place, which was about 24 hours less than

what I needed — in a very unbiased fashion, Mr. Speaker. Would the House

please make the students feel welcome.

N. Letnick: I would like to follow up on the Minister of Health’s introduction,

and for once, I actually have the list of all the names — which, usually,

the Minister of Health gets to do, and I can’t. The honour falls to me to

misquote some of these wonderful names.

Before I do that, I just want to say thank you, on behalf of all of my

colleagues here in the House, for the work they do. I know I have availed

myself of your expertise over the years, on more than one occasion. I’m sure

my colleagues to the left of me and to the right of me have also availed

themselves of that expertise.

Thank you, and thank you for the privilege of advancing the blood

bill, the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, on your behalf in this

Legislature just a few years ago.

So the brave soul jumps in. Let’s welcome Keith Taylor, Shane Thair,

Melanie Stevens, Paul Alberts, Amy Chris, Gretchen Bonegardener, Corey

Viala, Cameron Eby, Greg Hayes, Keith Moraes, Scott Sywake, Warren Leeder,

Jessica Chilton, Annemarie Byers, Corey Froese, Dave Deines, Dustin Jackson,

Kelly Budway, Kevin Marriott, Kevin Lemay, Robert Parkinson, Sophia Georges,

Megan Nelson, Jason Jackson, Andre Ledoux, Chris Andersen, Matt Bordewick,

Ashton Paradis, John Strohmaier, Grant Farquhar and Dave Leary.

Before I ask the House to make you feel really welcome, you should

know that I’m giving the list to Hansard , so it will actually be

spelled correctly. If I missed the pronunciation, don’t worry about

it.

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

J. Routledge: Well, I’m very excited to introduce Jody Torrance, who is a teacher at

Gilmore Community School in Burnaby North. With her are 58 grade 4 and 5

students, one of which is my granddaughter, Asia Brassington. Also with them

are nine parents who are here for the trip, one of whom is my son, Bill

Brassington. Please make them all feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today we are joined by representatives from the

regulatory body for architecture. The Architectural Institute of B.C. is an

independent professional self-regulatory body that was incorporated in April

1920 under the Architects Act.

We have several guests from the AIBC joining us today: chief executive

officer Mark Vernon, general counsel Thomas Lutes, director of registration

and licensing Jenelyn Torres. They had a chance to meet with me this

morning. I know that they’ve met with the members opposite.

I’m pleased to recognize that AIBC is commemorating its centenary

year. For the past 100 years, the institute has served the public interest

by ensuring that architects meet the qualifications and standards needed to

practise architecture in B.C.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them and those that aren’t

here. There are 2,167 members as far as I know today. Would the House please

join me in welcoming the architects of B.C.

Hon. C. Trevena: It gives me great pleasure to make two sets of introductions

today.

One is in the gallery, representatives of the B.C. Automobile

Association. I think that many of us in this House are members of the BCAA.

They do a great job for us. They’ve been talking to members of the

government caucus and are going to be talking to members of the Liberal

caucus later on.

We have in the gallery Shawn Pettipas, the director of community

engagement and marketing; David Weloy, the senior manager of automotive

safety and training; Sara Holland, who is the senior manager of

communication advo­cacy; and Sacha Trueman, a road assist fleet driver. I

hope the House will make them all very welcome.

My second introduction. I impinge a little on my colleague, the

Minister of Agriculture’s role here, but in the gallery today is one of my

constituents. He’s here as part of the B.C. Seafood Alliance. Gary Casavant

works at Keltic Seafoods, a seafood company up in Port Hardy. I hope the

House will make Mr. Casavant very welcome also.

Hon. L. Popham: With us today in the gallery are a number of folks from the B.C.

Seafood Alliance. The alliance collectively represents more than 90 percent

of the commercially harvested seafood in British Columbia, and that’s worth

almost $1 billion in annual sales.

Members that are joining us here today are Christina Burridge, the

executive director of the B.C. Seafood Alliance; Chris Sporer of the B.C.

Seafood Alliance and the Pacific Halibut Management Association; Tiare

Boyes, B.C. Tuna Fishermen’s Association; John Nishidate, the Seafood

Producers Association of B.C. and Grand Hale Marine Products; Robert

Hokness, who is a fisherman; Lyle Pierce, who is a fisherman; Brad McLean,

seafood producer, French Creek Seafood; Gary Casavant, as we heard from the

Minister of Transportation, a seafood producer from Keltic Seafoods; Grant

Dovey, Underwater Harvesters Association; and Dane Chauvel, Gulf Trollers

Association.

Please make them feel welcome.

M. Dean: In the precinct today we have over 30 grade 5 students from École

Victor Brodeur. They’re here today with their teacher Daniel Bernatchez.

Please make them very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to stand to celebrate a devoted dad, a

loving husband, an incredible athlete, a good friend, a hard-working MLA for

the people of Delta North. A very happy birthday to the MLA for Delta

North.

Tributes

JACKY KO

J. Yap: I have some sad news to share with the Legislature. We learned

that last night Jacky Ko, who is well known in the Richmond community

and the Chinese-Canadian community as a very successful, popular

photographer, passed away.

Jacky Ko will be best remembered for founding the Vancouver

International Photography Festival, which I know some members on both

sides of the House have attended over the years. He was a wonderful

human being who carried out his profession of photography with great

energy and passion and supported, most notably, the not-for-profit and

charitable sector by providing photography services, often without

charge. He did operate as a professional photographer with his own

professional photography studio.

[1:45 p.m.]

As I said, very well known and cared for in the community, so very

sad news to hear of his sudden passing last night. I ask all members of

this House to join me in sending condolences to the family of Jacky

Ko.

Introductions by Members

S. Furstenau: I have two sets of introductions to make. I’m pleased to introduce

Christine McLean, Eric McLean, Judith Pringle, Doug Watt, Marlene Watt and

Doug Gook, all from the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake. I’d like to

applaud their commitment to protecting their local watershed, which, as

members may remember, was decimated by the Mount Polley disaster. They

continue to raise awareness about the impacts to their watershed, which is

sadly synonymous with experiences that we have had in Shawnigan Lake. May

the House please make the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake most

welcome.

Speaking of Shawnigan Lake, I have three members of the Shawnigan

community here today, and I’m delighted to introduce them. John Hayes was

one of only two citizens who filed an Environmental Appeal Board appeal when

the permit to put five million tonnes of contaminated waste into our

watershed was delivered. He went to all 31 days of the EAB hearings. He is a

true hero in our community.

Shelagh Bell-Irving and Marnie Hare are also here in the gallery.

Shelagh was relentless in her efforts on the road every morning, and Marnie

as well. I would like to really acknowledge that the friendships that we

formed over those many years are deep and true. I’m delighted to see you

here today. Thank you for coming.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to introduce 30 grade 5 students from Maple Ridge Christian

School from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. They’re in the precinct

today, led by Mr. Reid and accompanied by 15 adults. They are touring the

building at this moment, but I had the opportunity to meet with them this

morning and brought them into my office. They took numerous selfies at the

minister’s desk. We have a bunch of budding ministers in this group. I’m

very excited to have had the chance to visit with them. Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

R. Kahlon: I share a special birthday with, I just found out, two special people.

A special message to one of the birthday boys in the chamber today from his

son, Dev, and his partner, Romi.

I want to recognize the member for the West End. We share a birthday.

People often confuse us as twins. I just want to make sure, for the record,

that we’re not twins. We just look very much alike.

Also, it’s the birthday of the member for Penticton’s mom, who is

turning 94 today. A lot of great people born on this day.

Ministerial Statements

DAVID KAMPE

Hon. A. Dix: I rise to give a ministerial statement.

Last Wednesday David Kampe passed away, surrounded by family and

friends, and our province lost a community builder, a role model and

benefactor.

Mr. Kampe was a true champion of the city of Penticton and the

entire South Okanagan. He grew up in Summerland and built Peters Bros.

Construction and Paving from scratch to a company that is in every

market in B.C.’s interior.

A kid at heart, one of Mr. Kampe’s passions was giving youth a

chance to have success, no matter whether they had money or not. He was

all about community, and I think it’s fair to say he loved

Penticton.

In recent years, he donated close to $8 million to Penticton

Regional Hospital for its new patient care tower, one that now bears his

name, and a further $1.7 million for future equipment. We are so

grateful that he was able to be with us when we opened the hospital — to

be with the member for Penticton and the member for

Boundary-Similkameen, who were there with us that day. I know that we

were able to express our gratitude to him, and he was able to celebrate

a hospital that he wanted very much to be a five-star hotel. I think we

met that test on that day.

His loss is, of course, considerable for his family, friends,

employees and all of the staff of Penticton Regional

Hospital.

I ask members of the Legislature to join with me and the member

for Penticton today to honour Mr. Kampe, whose work represented, I

think, Penticton, his community and his province so well. His dedication

will live on at the hospital and everywhere in Penticton for generations

to come.

[1:50 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I would really like to thank the Minister of Health for his kind

words.

The gentleman of which the minister speaks was a very good friend,

a mentor and an incredible philanthropist not only in the Okanagan but

throughout British Columbia, an individual who never, ever, ever wanted

credit for his generosity. He actually really preferred to be anonymous.

He actually had to be persuaded to have his name put on that brand-new

tower at the hospital in Penticton. I was taken into his confidence many

times on some of the contributions that he wanted to remain anonymous

on.

I can say that Mr. Kampe did an incredible job of not only

employing hundreds and hundreds of people in this province but making a

difference to many in the province, especially those in need.

With the graciousness of all of us in the Legislature, I’d just

like to reserve the opportunity in the future, when things settle down,

to give him another word of thanks.

Introduction of Bills

D. Barnett: I move that the bill entitled Adoption Amendment Act, 2019, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read

a first time now.

I am pleased to stand in this House to reintroduce the Adoption

Amendment Act. I first brought this bill forward on November 21, 2018. This

bill removes the legislative stipulation that disqualifies adults over the

age of 19 from formally being adopted if these individuals were not

supported as children by their prospective adopter during their youth. It

increases the ability for consenting adults to have the freedom to define

their family relationships and have them recognized by the state without the

unnecessary and arbitrarily restrictive legislation exclusions currently

present in the Adoption Act.

If passed, consenting adults who enter adoptions will have the ability

to have equal access to state benefits afforded to families. This will align

British Columbia with other Canadian jurisdictions that already have

allowances to adulthood adoption in place, such as Manitoba, Alberta,

Ontario and Saskatchewan, among others.

The bill will allow for the same protective safeguards against abuse

of the adoption process that are already granted to the adoption of minors

to remain in place for adults by allowing the courts to determine the

validity of the motivations of prospective adult adoptions.

Finally and most importantly, this bill has been brought forward due

to the fact that in my constituency, I have adults who wish to be adopted,

and under the current system, it is difficult. I see no reason these

individuals should not be allowed to define and have recognized their

consenting family relationships.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. We will take that on notice for the moment. It

wasn’t on the order paper. There must have been some glitch. We’ll look

forward to hearing you introduce that again at the earliest

opportunity.

D. Barnett: It was my understanding it was.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NEW CURRICULUM IN SCHOOLS

AND NEWS ANALYSIS BY

STUDENTS

J. Routledge: The other day I was having lunch with my granddaughter Asia, and I

asked her what she was learning in school. She told me they were

deconstructing the news. That’s right, deconstructing the news — her

words, not mine. She’s ten years old.

Now, I must have looked impressed, because my son shrugged and

said: “New curriculum.” I decided to find out more about this new

curriculum, but first, I had to remind myself what “deconstruct” meant —

to analyze by breaking something down into its component parts in order

to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions.

The new curriculum recognizes that kids in school today will

graduate into a world that’s totally different from the one we know now.

Not only do we need to teach them to embrace technology; they must

become highly skilled in communication, collaboration and critical

thinking.

[1:55 p.m.]

B.C.’s new curriculum allows students to have more input with

respect to how, when and where they learn. It helps kids, both girls and

boys, feel more connected and engaged with what they’re studying so that

they can have a better chance of success.

Back to deconstructing the news. My granddaughter explained it to

me like this. Everyone in the class picked a local news story and

described it by answering a few questions. What’s the story? How has it

been constructed? Who is the target audience? What persuasive strategies

have been used to connect with the reader? What does the story want you

to think and feel?

Asia picked pipelines. Now she watches the news with her dad, and

she views it very differently than she did before she learned how to

deconstruct it.

Let’s keep in mind that today there are 58 young people in the

gallery who know how to deconstruct what we’re saying. They may even go

home and share their analysis with their parents.

70 th ANNIVERSARY OF

HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

J. Tegart: Recently I had the opportunity to attend a celebration of the 70th

anniversary of the Hope-Princeton Highway. The event was hosted by the

Hope Communities in Bloom Committee, which had printed copies of the

original program used in 1949. The program indicates that they actually

sang God Save the King .

The contract for the building of the highway was let to J.

Tomlinson and Emil Anderson. Work began in 1945, and four years later,

at a cost of $12 million, the route was complete. We would not even have

environmental assessments done in that period. Six thousand people

attended the opening day ceremony.

One of my constituents shared the following story with me, how

exciting it was to be 16 years old at the opening day celebration of the

highway that would open up the southern Interior of B.C. and to drive it

on the first day with his two friends. His buddy had borrowed his dad’s

car, and the three of them hit the road. He said he will never forget

that experience.

He indicated they drove up to Princeton and back to Hope with a

great many others who were excited about the new highway. When they

arrived back in Hope, there was more excitement, as it appears his buddy

who drove that day had forgotten to ask permission to borrow the car.

The police were waiting for them when they arrived back in Hope. It was

a memorable day all around.

The Hope-Princeton opened up the southern Interior of the

province. It provided an efficient route for trade and produce out of

the Okanagan, and for tourism. We only have to look at the economy of

the southern Interior to know the impact that this highway has had in

the last 70 years.

Congratulations to the engineers, the contractors, the workers and

those with the vision to see the importance of highway infrastructure.

Your work and vision have had a significant impact on the past and

future of this great province.

River of Belonging ART PROJECT AT

ÉCOLE

HERITAGE PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL

B. D’Eith: I continue to be amazed by the students and teachers in my riding,

and I’ve shared a few of their accomplishments in the past — their

dedication to helping others in programs they’ve created. Once again,

I’m happy to stand and speak about an initiative taken on by teachers

and students in Mission.

Last week École Heritage Park Middle School unveiled a new

12-by-4-foot art project called a River of Belonging . The piece

is made of mostly coloured glass and glass rocks, and it depicts a

beautiful river filled with salmon. It’s indeed something special,

because every student and staff in the school contributed a

piece.

Each person created a rock for the river, with a message or a

picture that was meaningful to each of them. This actually was the

brainchild of outgoing vice-principal Mikel Brogan. Artist Marina Papais

collaborated with Daniel Collett and local First Nations carver Peter

Gong to work with the students.

The vice-principal said that the project was aimed at creating a

stronger sense of belonging in the school toward reconciliation, and it

encapsulates the notion that every student truly matters and belongs.

The school’s six core values — respect, responsibility, perseverance,

courage, integrity and empathy — are all represented in six beautiful

carved salmon by Peter Gong.

[2:00 p.m.]

It’s our job to teach the next generation about truth and

reconciliation, and it’s so wonderful to see schools and school

districts take this amazing step towards this reconciliation.

I want to thank vice-principal Brogan for his dedication to the

students at Mission and for starting this project. I’d like to thank the

artists and the Stó:lō First Nation who were part of the unveiling

ceremony. And of course, I want to thank every student and staff who

participated in this amazing project.

This piece of artwork is now permanently displayed at the school,

in their Clark theatre. I encourage everyone to visit Mission to see

this wonderful work.

ANNIVERSARY OF B.C. GOVERNMENT

APOLOGY TO CHINESE

CANADIANS

T. Wat: As we move to the halfway mark of Asian Heritage Month, we land on

an anniversary of a day that is very important to me and to the

Chinese-Canadian community — a day that fills our hearts. In May 2013,

as the then Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, I began a

consultation process that saw more than 1,300 people attend a series of

seven forums throughout the province.

This all led to May 15, 2014, five years ago today, when I had the

honour of standing next to the then Premier, Christy Clark, as she

shared these words: “We can’t undo the actions of the past, but we can

acknowledge them, apologize and learn from them. Today we rightly

recognize and celebrate cultural diversity, and that’s why all sides of

the Legislature were able to come together to offer our deepest regrets

to members of the Chinese community for historic wrongs.”

The report that came out of the consultations outlined 13

recommendations to recognize the social, cultural and economic

contributions of Chinese Canadians. One of those recommendations that

received consensus at every forum was to update the social studies

curriculum to acknowledge the contribution of Chinese British

Columbians.

Other recommendations, such as repealing racist legislation,

identifying sites and artifacts of historical significance, publishing a

book profiling the contribution of notable Chinese British Columbians

and creating commemorative monuments, have also been

implemented.

It is with great pride that I repeat this again in the House. “In

the words of one forum participant, our efforts will not only heal the

past but generate new thinking about how to ensure we have a vibrant,

inclusive community and continue to make a real difference in the lives

of many thousands of Chinese British Columbians.”

FRANK BURDEN

R. Leonard: Frank Burden is someone who steps up to help without question. I

wasn’t surprised to learn that I’m not the only one in this House that

knows he’s always looked for ways to be of service to others. It began

small, with his children, coordinating activities for local Cub and

Scout leaders. As a secondary teacher-librarian and union activist, he

served as union rep at his school, then as union president and

bargaining chair in his school district.

He facilitated countless workshops and advocacy and curriculum

change through the B.C. Teacher’s Federation and was elected to the

board of the B.C. College of Teachers. After retiring, he didn’t stop.

He supervised the work of UVic student teachers and was a founding

counsellor for the Community Justice Centre in the Comox

Valley.

Along the way, Frank joined his local legion wherever he lived,

from Alberta in the 1960s to Vanderhoof, Nelson and, finally, to the

Comox Valley. With Courtenay’s Branch 17, he’s been poppy chair and

president and served on the board of central Vancouver Island zone

command before taking on the role of service officer.

As service officer, Frank conducted poppy services and other forms

of remembrance ceremonies for veterans and legion members. His advocacy

and support for veterans, their spouses and dependents and other members

of the community, went above and beyond, with deep gratitude in return.

Digging up military records, helping apply for pensions, filling out

forms and appeals — these were his regular fare. Through the poppy fund,

he’s helped families leave abusive relationships. He’s helped two

veterans settle after a house fire.

There are countless other stories. His legion has honoured him

with a life membership. Frank Burden has enriched the fabric of our

whole community with his selfless service on behalf of

others.

We love you, big Frank, and thank you.

[2:05 p.m.]

RALPH NILSON AND

VANCOUVER ISLAND

UNIVERSITY

M. Stilwell: I would like to take a moment to recognize and celebrate the

wonderful work and dedication of Dr. Ralph Nilson, president and

vice-chancellor of Vancouver Island University. He’ll retire at the end

of June, after more than a decade at the university. I know that he will

be greatly missed.

Many of my colleagues already know Dr. Nilson, having either

worked with him or because of the initiatives that he’s launched in his

time at VIU. He came from Acadia University in Nova Scotia to the

post-secondary institution in 2007, when it was still Malaspina

University College, and he led it through to its transition into a

university.

Under his leadership, the university has been recognized for its

work on reconciliation with First Nations communities and became the

first university in B.C. to launch the tuition waiver program, meant to

improve access to post-secondary education for former youth in

care.

In 2017, Dr. Nilson was recognized for his work, with the B.C.

Community Achievement Award.

I didn’t know Dr. Nilson well prior to entering politics, but I

can say that he has become someone I respect and admire for his

leadership and advocacy to create opportunities for all students

attending VIU. The WEST program that my son will attend in the fall is

just one program. The university has become a national leader in

creating educational opportunities for non-traditional learners, thanks

to him.

It has been an absolute pleasure to work alongside Ralph on

successful projects like the expanded marine, automobile and trades

complex and the health and sciences building at the Nanaimo

campus.

I want to congratulate Dr. Nilson for all that he’s accomplished

at VIU and wish him the very best in retirement. I know I’m going to

miss his storytelling. He has such an incredible memory for personal

details, and of course, his personal delivery of my Christmas wreath

along with his homemade plum jam over the holidays will certainly be

missed.

I also want to give a warm welcome to the new chancellor and

president, Dr. Deborah Saucier, who I look forward to working

with.

Oral Questions

VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

S. Bond: On October 23 and again on December 18, 2018, the Minister of

Citizens’ Services used her position as a member of the executive

council to write sponsorship letters for ten Pakistani citizens.

According to the whistle-blower: “In my questioning of the minister, she

admitted that she did not know these individuals personally but vouched

for them regardless.”

Can the minister confirm again today that she did not personally

know the individuals she vouched for?

Hon. J. Sims: I take my job as a representative very seriously. I’m a minister,

and I’m an MLA, and when I’m in my riding I meet with

constituents.

A number of letters were sent out with my electronic signature,

and I did not see the final draft. I take responsibility for what

happened. When I became aware of the issue, I immediately had a serious

conversation with the staff to ensure that it would not happen

again.

While the opposition continues to focus on gotcha politics, I’m

focused on our government’s important work to make life better for

people in our province.

The letter was written on the Legislature letterhead and had the

Legislature signature on it.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: That is an absolutely unbelievable and irresponsible answer from

this minister. This is a very, very serious allegation.

We have seen six letters where the minister used her ministerial

title to sponsor individuals who turned out to be on a security watch

list. In the letter, she describes all ten individuals as friends and

even claims that she plans to host them, both in Victoria and on the

Lower Mainland. Her personal relationship with these ten individuals is

clearly laid out.

How does the minister explain the contradiction between the letter

and what she admitted yesterday?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I’m so disappointed to see the opposition spreading unfounded

accusations — not only that but also spreading people’s private personal

information all over the Internet.

I take my job as an elected official in my riding very, very

seriously. As MLAs, we get all sorts of requests from members of the

public. A number of letters were sent out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the last time I checked, the job of the opposition is to

bring these issues to the Legislature and hold ministers of the Crown

accountable. The minister may be disappointed, but what she should do is

recognize that we have seen not one, not two, not five but six letters

that this minister signed, that were signed in this minister’s

name.

reference letters for visa applicants. The minister should well know

this. She was a former MP and, believe it or not, had critic

responsibilities for immigration, of all things.

In fact, when the whistle-blower raised the concerns with the

minister, the minister said to her: “I know what I’m doing. I had the

immigration file.” The guidelines require documentation of the

relationship to the person seeking a visa and that “you must tell the

truth and write the letter in good faith.”

Why did the minister misrepresent her relationship with these

applicants and write letters in bad faith on behalf of individuals she

did not know?

Hon. J. Sims: My colleagues across the way know that this was a challenging HR

matter involving a former employee who was employed for six weeks. I do

take my job seriously, and I try to do my very best for my constituents,

which is our job.

I take responsibility for what happened. I do take responsibility

for the fact that those letters were sent. I also take responsibility

for the fact that I sat my staff down and had a serious conversation

with them to ensure that those kinds of mistakes would not be made

again. That was done, and that is what happened.

J. Johal: You know, I’ve heard about throwing your staff under the bus, but

this minister keeps reversing and keeps doing it over and over. It’s

ridiculous — wow. Wow.

Here are the facts. This minister wrote six letters and spent

months trying to use her position as a minister of the Crown to expedite

these visa applications. Three of the individuals that she personally

vouched for and falsely described as friends were on a security watch

list. The only reason we know this is because of a whistle-blower who

raised concerns and was promptly fired.

Can the minister explain her appalling lack of

judgment?

Hon. J. Sims: As an MLA, when I’m in my constituency, I meet with constituents.

I advocate for them, and yes, I do write letters to support — I don’t

sponsor — visa applications. I explain to them; “This is a federal

matter. Go to your MP.” We give them the phone number. We give them the

address for the MP. They go there.

When they ask us for a letter…. I did write those letters. As I

have said before, I take responsibility for those letters. Once I became

aware of the full content of them, I made sure that I had a conversation

with my staff to make sure that that did not happen again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: As I said before, I advocate for members. I do the work that other

MLAs do in writing letters to support.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

J. Johal: This was clearly a high-priority political file for the minister,

who spent five months attempting to expedite these visa

applications.

Three initial letters were sent on October 23, 2018. Three more

letters were sent on December 18, 2018. On February 6, 2019, the

minister told her staff: “Drop everything, and deal with this.” She

approved these bad-faith letters and vouched for individuals she doesn’t

even know on behalf of her political supporters.

This just wreaks old-school political cronyism. How does the

minister explain her inexcusable actions?

Hon. J. Sims: You know, for my colleagues on the other side to talk about

cronyism is really, really rich. And let me say that I take….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. J. Sims: When I’m in my riding and I meet with constituents, I listen to

their concerns. When a constituent came and asked me for a supporting

letter, I wrote one. It was done. It went out under my electronic

signature.

And let me assure you that the first letter went out, but it never

got used because the people did not apply. They asked for…. The

constituent who sponsored asked for the letter again with a different

date on it. That letter was given, and the new employee….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response, please. Thank

you.

Hon. J. Sims: The ex-employee…. The only thing she was asked to do was to phone

the MP’s office, which is normal practice, to find out where these visas

were in progress. Once she brought the information back, we pulled back

and said: “Do not pursue any further.”

SOIL DISPOSAL SITE

IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: There have been at least three iterations of a closure plan for

the contaminated landfill in the Shawnigan drinking watershed — two in

2017 and one just a few months ago. The company that was hired to

complete the original and updated closure plans, however, has not been

paid for their work.

So what to do? Well, it seems that there’s a convenient change to

the most recent closure plan. Now the plan is to import an additional

70,000 tonnes of soil to the site in order to generate the revenue to

pay the company that provided the design for the closure

plans.

To be clear, there is no need for this additional soil as there is

currently 100,000 tonnes of soil that our community was repeatedly and

explicitly told was intended for remediation of this site, and also to

be clear, our community will not rest until the contaminated soil has

been removed. Essentially, it seems to appear that we have a situation

where a company has devised a new closure plan so that they can

eventually get paid.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Does the minister

see a conflict of interest in this situation?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for again raising

this issue on behalf of her constituents.

We understand, on this side of the House, how important safety of

drinking water is and assurance that drinking water and their

environment will continue to be safe are to people all over British

Columbia. And we understand that as a result of the decision that was

made a number of years ago to dump the soil in this area, there has been

ongoing stress on the residents of the area.

To the question that the member raises, we have met with her as

well as with residents of the area on a number of occasions to go over

information they’ve brought forward, information that we have had. When

we’ve had inspection reports and other studies, they have been posted in

the interest of transparency.

The closure plans to which the member refers have been posted for

public comment. I’m aware of the member’s concerns and the community’s

concerns about the qualified professional in question, and that’s

precisely why we also retained and continue to retain another qualified

professional, completely independent, to review all of the plans and are

proceeding to evaluate all the information that has come

forward.

[2:20 p.m.]

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

S. Furstenau: It is getting complicated to keep track of all the qualified

professionals and which ones weren’t paid at which time, but I’ll help

the minister a little bit more on this.

In his 2017 decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sewell said that

the conflict of interest at the centre of the case, the secret

profit-sharing deal between the landfill owners and the original

engineers “struck at the heart of the Environmental Management Act” and

that the withholding of information about Active Earth’s equity position

“brought the integrity of the approval process and appeal into

question.”

One of those qualified professionals continues to provide

information on this site, but now we’ve got the new qualified

professionals. Consultants like Active Earth are hired to provide expert

advice. The recommendations they put forward are supposed to be based on

the best available evidence and their expertise. They are not supposed

to give advice that benefits them financially. That is a conflict of

interest.

I would suggest that the current landfill closure plan in front of

the minister contains a similar conflict. The closure plan proposes to

import tens of thousands of tonnes more soil to this site for what

appears to be no good reason except to generate income to pay for the

landfill closure fees.

My question is, again, for the Minister of Environment. I know he

still needs to make a decision, but in light of this, how can the third

iteration of a closure plan even be considered by his

ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member. She’s quite correct. Ultimately,

I will have to make a decision on the closure plan based on information

brought to me by ministry staff who’ve been working on this issue, as

she knows, diligently for a long period of time.

In my role as minister, I wanted to be assured that all due

diligence is done — that if there’s any question of conflicts, we retain

completely independent, qualified professionals to review the work that

went into the closure plan so that we can be assured that whatever

information forms the basis of our decision is science-based, that it’s

based on the best evidence, that it’s independently reviewed and that

it’s consistent with the acts under which we must make our

decisions.

The member also knows that this government took actions with the

Professional Governance Act to deal very strongly with the questions of

conflict of interest that hung over the activities of this company and

this permit for a number of years. We believe that this act will close

loopholes in the future, and we’re taking measures today to ensure that

people can be reassured that all information is independently

reviewed.

VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

AND

POLITICAL FUNDRAISING ISSUES

P. Milobar: It’s very interesting today. The Minister of Citizens’ Services’

first answer was that staff wrote the letters, and her last three

answers have been that the minister wrote the letters.

Let’s take a look, again, at what happened last year. Last year in

October and again in December, the Minister of Citizens’ Services wrote

sponsorship letters for ten Pakistani citizens. Yesterday she told the

media: “I know the people who are sponsoring them.” The minister is the

only name in the sponsoring letters listed as a sponsor, but apparently,

there were other people pulling the strings.

Can the minister confirm that the people she referred to as

sponsors were Rabina Sattar, her fundraising chair, and Kulwant Dhesi, a

well-known NDP political supporter?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said previously, when we are MLAs, we have all kinds of

duties and responsibilities when we’re back in our offices. A number of

letters were sent out with my electronic signature and without me seeing

the final content. I take full responsibility for that happening, and I

have taken measures to make sure that my staff is fully

aware.

I am disappointed. I am disappointed that the opposition is

spreading unfounded accusations. Not only that, they are spreading

people’s private and personal information all over the

Internet.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Rabina Sattar is the minister’s fundraising chair, who claimed

donations would be made for these letters in the allegations from the

whistle-blower.

[2:25 p.m.]

I have here an email chain between the minister and Rabina dated

October 29, 2018. Attached to the email are three sponsorship letters.

Rabina’s business partner is Kulwant Dhesi, the same individual who has

donated over $14,000 to the NDP and who hosted the infamous O.K. Corral

cash-from-convict event at his private residence with Maninder Gill and

Jawahar Padda.

Why do this minister’s fundraising chair and political supporters

have any role in facilitating immigration issues?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say very, very clearly that Ms. Sattar is a constituent of

mine, and she has the same rights as anybody else to come into my

constituency office and ask for guidance or support. Let me also tell

the members across the way that Ms. Sattar has not donated a penny,

either directly or indirectly, to me.

J. Thornthwaite: Let’s make this perfectly clear. The individuals behind the

minister’s falsified visa letters were Rabina Sattar, the minister’s

fundraising chair, and Kulwant Dhesi, a prominent political supporter of

the NDP. According to the whistle-blower: “The minister stated to me

that the visa issue had to be fixed, as these were very important people

to her campaign.”

My question to the minister: does the minister think that this is

an appropriate behaviour for a minister of the Crown?

Hon. J. Sims: Once again, it is outrageous that the opposition keeps repeating

unsubstantiated allegations that result from…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …an employee who is no longer in my employment, an employee who

was there for six weeks. Let me say that I take my job very, very

seriously. I take no money, and I do no political or other favours when

I’m doing my work as a minister or as an MLA. That is my job.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The minister wrote six letters trying to expedite visa

applications. She misrepresented her relationship with these people,

three of whom turned out to be on a security watch list. And she did all

of this on behalf of her political donors. That is

disgraceful.

I’ll ask the minister once again: does she feel this is an

appropriate behaviour for someone on the executive council for the

province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Sims: I am a member of the cabinet, of the executive council. I am an

MLA. When I’m an MLA and I’m back in my riding, I meet with

constituents. They come to me to ask for letters of support for this,

for guidance to deal with, sometimes, their issues with health care.

They come to us for a variety of reasons.

I deal with people who walk through that door in the same way,

whether they have donated to me, voted for me or not voted for me. This

issue is about providing service to constituents, and I think that it

is…. I want to stress that I will never, ever apologize for working with

constituents to get them the best services.

[2:30 p.m.]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

J. Tegart: Kate Gillie attempted to blow the whistle on the wrongdoings she

observed in the minister’s office and brought her concerns to the NDP

executive director, Roseanne Moran, on February 15. One week later, she

was fired. On March 4, she wrote to the Premier’s office, again

outlining her serious concerns.

What steps did the government take to investigate these serious

allegations they have known about for over two months?

Hon. J. Sims: I’m really happy to be able to get up to clarify and answer this

question.

This individual was hired as a constituency assistant. My

colleagues across the way, because they did sit on this side for 16 long

years, know that as a constituency assistant, she is not an employee for

government.

The matter was raised in the March 4 letter. If my colleagues had

read the letter from the lawyer, the employee says that her last day at

work was on the 22nd of February.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: The letter dated March 4 relates to her six-week employment as a

constituency assistant. When the March letter was received by the chief

of staff to the Premier, he met with the executive director of caucus,

which is the appropriate thing to do. The allegations….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please allow the minister to respond.

Hon. J. Sims: The allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to

support them. The matter was dealt with by caucus, as she was not a

government employee. This is an HR matter, and the members across the

way know it to be, but they are confusing the issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: Well, let me provide some clarity. The whistle-blower attempted

numerous times to raise what are extremely serious concerns. But instead

of investigating these serious allegations, she was fired, and the

concerns were simply covered up.

The Premier has been aware of these serious allegations since

March 4. What steps did he take?

Hon. J. Sims: I keep believing I am communicating clearly, but let me do it one

more time. This was a constituency assistant. Constituency assistants

are not government employees, and the constituency assistant’s last day

at work, according to her own information, was on February

She wrote a letter on the fourth of March, after having worked for

me for six weeks. When the letter was received, the chief of staff to

the Premier met with the executive director of caucus, because it’s the

executive director of caucus who deals with constituency staff. The

allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support them.

The matter was dealt with by caucus because that is the right place for

it to be dealt with. This is an HR matter, and my colleagues across the

way know it to be.

VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

AND

POLITICAL FUNDRAISING ISSUES

M. Polak: It’s not just an HR matter. It is also a matter of confidence and

whether or not people can have confidence in this minister in terms of

fulfilling her role.

We know from the email chain that’s been mentioned that Ms.

Sattar, as the fundraising chair, also played a role in coordinating the

visa sponsorship letters. That’s questionable, certainly. But now we

also know from a further letter — this one that was directed to

Elections B.C. — that Ms. Sattar was also involved, quite actively, at

the constituency office and with constituency staff in developing what I

can only describe as rather questionable fundraising practices involving

an awful lot of crossover between the riding association and the

constituency office.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’ll read in part from this, that this included a fundraiser

organized by Rabina Sattar “to get the Chinese money.” It is described

in the allegations as a cash-for-access event. That’s consistent with

activities that we’ve known the minister to be a part of in the past and

that she’s apologized for. Certainly, there are more and more questions

every day to be answered.

I need — we all need — to hear from the minister how on earth she

can justify that kind of behaviour between her riding association and

constituency office.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me state that I help people because it’s my job as a

representative. I’m an MLA. I do not take money for it. I’m offended

that the opposition would spread these unfounded accusations, especially

given their record of taking massive corporate donations

themselves.

Our government banned big money and brought in the strictest

political financing rules in Canada. And no such fundraising event was

held or planned that my colleagues across the way talked

about.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, unfortunately for the minister…. I won’t hold it up, because

we’re not allowed to have props, but here on my desk, I have the program

for the evening. In addition to that, we also have screen grabs of

communication about it. So there was, indeed, an event being

planned.

One more day, one more series of questions that need to be

answered. The minister already has a history of breaking the rules. She

has apologized for her fundraising behaviour in the past. She has

apologized for breaking FOI rules in the past.

Now, we know that not only is this about an abuse of FOI but also

that we have to wonder if the Premier can continue to have confidence in

this minister. The Premier, last time, expressed profound disappointment

himself.

I have to ask the minister. Is there any reason she thinks that

the Premier should still have confidence in her as a

minister?

Hon. J. Sims: Outrageous innuendos, implying things that are happening. I know

the rules around fundraising. I know the difference between constituency

and riding. Let me assure you that my focus is on providing the very

best service for British Columbians. I do the work as a representative.

I do not take money for that.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Sullivan: I would like to table a petition of over 400 names out of 24,000

people very concerned about surtaxes on property. The petition is organized

by a group called STEP UP and titled “Say no to new provincial

surtaxes.”

S. Furstenau: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Furstenau: In addition to the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake, who I

introduced before question period, Matthew Nefstead, the lawyer, is with the

group as well.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage debate on Bill 31, Police

Amendment Act. In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee

stage debate on Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), and in

the Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for

the Ministry of Health.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, we’re ready to go here. I have staff here, and we’re

ready to hear the member’s questions.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Morris: I’ve provided an amendment here.

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 38.06 (3) is repealed and the following

substituted:

(3) The chief civilian director may not appoint a person

under subsection (2) if the person

(

a) is currently a member of a police force or law

enforcement agency outside British Columbia,

(

b) is currently a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police, or

(

c) was a member of a police force in British

Columbia at any time during the 5-year period immediately preceding

the appointment. ]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: Basically, I’ll just sum it up. It’s eliminating

section 2 of the

bill, where it reverts back to the original state after a two-year

period of time.

[2:45 p.m.]

I just want to just explain my concerns around this particular

part of the bill. I honour the fact that the intention of the IIO is to

become fully civilianized and be a fully civilianized organization that

provides these kinds of investigations and this kind of support for the

public. I think that’s important. The optics are important. The public

deserves to know that there’s a fresh set of eyes that are independent

of a police department that sit on an investigative body like

this.

I look at a couple of different sections in the existing statute.

The issue that I have…. It was made clear during the process, when we

had the committee looking into the IIO a couple of years ago, that

perhaps led to these amendments — concern from police organizations, for

sure — that the expertise in the IIO was missing. When we consider the

fact that we have a member’s livelihood at stake when they become a

subject member under this statute and the IIO is looking into one of

these incidents…. Unfortunately, somebody has lost their life or

somebody has been seriously hurt, perhaps. But the implicated member —

his or her livelihood is at stake.

The stress that’s involved by the extended and protracted

investigations done by this particular unit, the stress caused not only

to the member himself or herself, but the added stress on the family

because they don’t know what really is going to happen at the end of the

day as well…. I think it needs to be taken into consideration here.

That’s one of the things that we looked at on the committee

itself.

Part of the recommendation…. I’ll go back to the report that we

put in, back on February 23, 2015. I’ll quote from the recommendations

that the committee made at that time. “In exceptional cases, the chief

civilian director have the discretion to appoint investigators who were

former police or law enforcement members in other jurisdictions or in

British Columbia within the past five years in order to provide special

expertise to complete effective investigations….” The part that was

added to this particular recommendation to provide that level of

oversight: “And that, in such exceptional cases, the chief civilian

director be required to notify the Ministry of Justice and provide a

justification for the appointment.”

So we know that it’s not going to be done carte blanche. This

particular part of the recommendations was put in there just so that it

wasn’t a free-for-all in appointing members of police forces within that

five-year limitation.

The other part of it that I’m concerned about with the bill in its

existing form without this amendment is that under subsection 38.06(5)

of the Police Act, it says: “The chief civilian director may retain

consultants, experts, specialists and other persons the chief civilian

director considers necessary to enable or assist the chief civilian

director in exercising powers or performing duties of the chief civilian

director under this Act.” So he or she has the authority to appoint

whatever expertise he or she requires to get those investigations

conducted.

If we revert back to the way the act states right now, where you

can’t hire somebody within that five-year period of time, we’re

excluding a lot of expertise that this

section provides the ability to

hire. By excluding those investigators who have been out for less than

five years from the pool of expertise, I think we could be making a

mistake here.

Having been heavily involved in criminal investigations in the

past, it doesn’t take very long for your level of expertise and

information that you have that you make your decisions on to become

dated because things change so quickly. When we look at the amount of

jurisprudence that’s emanating from every court level in the country on

a routine basis that could change in an instant how an investigation is

done, I think that needs to be taken into consideration.

[2:50 p.m.]

The other part of this as well and sort of one of the other

recommendations that was made in the original report that I didn’t see

in this particular bill, which would have provided a level of oversight

as well, was the fact of the recommendation that we had in that same

report: “That the Police Act be amended to require a comprehensive

statutory review of the independent investigations office by a special

committee of the Legislative Assembly at least once every six

years.”

Again, that would have been another level of oversight. It should

eliminate the fact that this arbitrary two-year period be placed in this

particular act. So the amendment that I’ve put forward is basically

eliminating

section 2 of this particular bill, Bill 31, striking out

just the numbers on the subsequent sections there and amending the

schedule to eliminate that particular piece in the schedule.

I don’t think an arbitrary time limit of two years does the IIO

any favours. It doesn’t provide the public with the necessary expertise

in the IIO. I know there are some good investigators involved in that. I

know they have training programs involved with the IIO to bring them up

to speed. But this provides that extra ability to go out and find the

technical requirements that are necessary for these kinds of

investigations.

I’ve seen these where an investigator will attend the scene and

examine the evidence, seize evidence. Of course, there’s all kinds of

jurisprudence, and there’s direction on how that’s done. But the

investigators also have to be finely trained enough so that when they

get to that line and they realize that something could be criminal in

nature, the entire aspect of that investigation changes — the

requirements for various warnings under the charter, for the collection

of evidence, for treating witnesses and suspects and whatnot. The whole

element changes when you cross that line, and these folks need to have

that level of expertise to understand that.

In order to be accredited and to get to that level of expertise,

having somebody that has recent and extensive criminal investigational

experience work beside them, as an apprentice, for a period of time

until they become fully functional on their own is, I think, something

that should be considered by the minister here. That’s one of the

reasons why I put the amendment forward and would like to see it

stand.

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to the member’s proposed amendment, the effect of the

amendment would be to strip out a key provision of the act, which is the

intention that the IIO become, ultimately, a civilianized body. I

understood from the member’s remarks at second reading that this is

something that he supported in principle, and his issue, as I understand

it, is with the two-year period. He thinks it should be

longer.

Well, actually, with this amendment, it appears that he thinks it

should be forever, that, essentially, the goal of civilianization of the

IIO is not one that is achievable, if this is what his amendment is

aimed at.

Now, I agree with the member. I think it’s certain that the most

qualified criminal investigators in British Columbia are police. They do

these investigations. They have many years of experience doing these

kinds of investigations. There is an exception to that, unfortunately.

There were two….

This act, the IIO, didn’t show up because someone thought: “Let’s

take investigations away from the most obvious qualified investigators.”

It came out of two very high-profile public inquiries. The first was the

Frank Paul inquiry, and the second was the Robert Dziekanski

inquiry.

I agree with the member. The expertise among police in doing

homicide investigations, in doing death investigations — unparalleled.

Yet for some reason, in these two investigations, the investigators

failed to use the videotape of the incidents to form their conclusions —

in both cases. There was videotape of Frank Paul being dragged out of

the VPD cells, yet the investigator’s report said he walked out under

his own power. In the Dziekanski case, there was videotape of what

happened at the airport. The RCMP account of what happened — completely

at odds with that.

[2:55 p.m.]

The reason for that, in my opinion, is that it is very difficult

for police to investigate themselves in these kinds of things. That is

what the record shows from these public inquiries.

With the support, actually, of some very significant people in

police, this agency was established to take the responsibility for these

very serious investigations into a separate body. Broadly, it supported

the idea that these not be police officers that have a history in

British Columbia, who potentially have no other members or have a

relationship with a particular force, but that these be, ideally, people

who don’t have that kind of record in terms of relationships and daily

interactions that can lead to those sorts of problematic

investigations.

That was the idea behind the whole thing. The member wants to take

that out with his amendment. I guess I don’t have to say it, but I will:

I don’t support it. I support the goal of civilianization for the IIO,

but I also recognize, as the member does and as many people do, that the

IIO is not there yet. Civilianization is a work in progress. Ontario has

struggled, as well, with their Special Investigations Unit and critiques

of the investigations that have been done there.

This provision, these amendments as a whole, this package, is

aimed at addressing a difficult issue. One is that the police generally

support this idea of civilianization, as I understand the member does

and as I do. Yet civilianization, in terms of training, major case

management and other pieces, was not put in place when this body was

struck by the previous government. So we’re in a situation where,

unfortunately, we’re really back to, in some ways, the beginning of this

organization again — a rebirth, if you will. Part of that means we have

to bring on additional people that have experience in major case

management and in investigations, just as the member says.

Police are able to do this work. It is a compromise, and the

compromise is for a two-year period. There’ll be a significant number of

people, hopefully, hired during this period that have that experience.

They will continue their careers with the independent investigations

office, and they will continue to provide the support, the mentoring and

the training that the member is talking about. Ultimately, the

independent investigations office is working on civilian training, and

ultimately, there will be, as more and more provinces move to a civilian

model, training across the country and exchange of people who are

civilian investigators very well qualified to do this kind of

work.

There’s just a shortage of people who meet the requirements under

the act right now, so this two-year period is trying to strike the

balance. I don’t support the member’s amendment to give up on

civilianization. I don’t support the suggestion that we go longer than

two years. Two years should give the IIO the time to do the hiring that

they need, to bring in a critical mass of people to support with the

training, with the goal of civilianization.

M. Morris: Just so the minister is clear…. I think we’re on the same page.

They were just talking a little bit about the technical aspects of this.

I’m not supporting that this amendment exist in perpetuity. What I’m

saying is that it should be there to allow the IIO to hire that

expertise, because every once in awhile, there will be a requirement to

hire somebody with a specific skill set from the criminal investigative

side of things that is more modern than perhaps the individuals that are

doing the job already.

Keeping the amendment, under

section 1, as the basis for doing

that I think allows the civilian director to do that, at the end of the

day. If I’m going to be proven wrong in this, and if there’s an abuse of

this particular process, we’re not…. Right now we’re suggesting that the

chief civilian director report to the minister whenever he does hire

somebody within that five-year period of time. But if, at the end of the

day, that other amendment that we were recommending, that another review

be done every six years…. Legislatively, that would catch

that.

That would give that opportunity to ensure that any of the

deficiencies that are found, any of the abuses that we might see in the

process, where individuals are hired where perhaps there were other

qualified people on the civilian side of things to do the job…. They

would have that opportunity.

I’ll just say it one more time — and I hear the minister say he

doesn’t support this: I just think that we are limiting the ability of

the chief civilian director to hire the talent necessary to complete

these technically elegant investigations in a timely fashion, to satisfy

the public but to protect the members that are involved in it

themselves.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is their job; this is their livelihood. This is the rest of

their life that is at stake, based on the quality of the investigators

they have. It’s their families, it’s their mental health, and it’s

everybody that’s attached to that. I’ve seen it. I’ve witnessed this

many, many times. For people that are subject to these kinds of

investigations, it is a load of stress on the family. I think this is

one way to ensure that those investigations are done properly and

quickly, as quickly as possible. It does give the chief civilian

director the opportunity to have these options.

The Chair: Members, the question is the amendment to

section 2 proposed

by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

[3:05 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 44

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

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I neglected to introduce the staff assisting me: Sherri Lee, the

director of criminal justice policy, and Sarah Mason, senior policy

analyst in the policy and legislation division. I very much appreciate

their assistance.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 17, Environmental Management

Amendment Act, 2019.

[3:15 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 3:16 p.m.

J. Rustad: Could I request a five-minute recess, please?

The Chair: A five-minute recess has been requested. Granted.

The committee recessed from 3:16 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, I’m not sure about the member for the Green

Party, but I have no questions on this bill. They were all answered in

the briefing and in second reading. So if you want to do everything as a

block, I have no objections to that.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Sections 30 to 49 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 30, Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019.

[3:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 3:26 p.m.

section 1.

J. Martin: Thank you, and welcome, Madam Chair, and the minister and the

staff.

section 1, can the minister tell us how lawful consumer

leafleting won’t be used as a stalling tactic to unduly

intimidate?

Hon. H. Bains: To the member: I think, when you’re talking about the changes

here, we are bringing ourselves up to the Supreme Court of Canada’s

decision, which, during the United Food and Commercial Workers Local

1518 v. Kmart Canada , 1999…. The court ruled that consumer

leafleting constitutes an exercise of freedom of expression protected

under the Charter. As the code definition of picketing encompassed

consumer leafleting, it was overly broad and unconstitutional. So the

proposed new definition, designed to meet the constitutional

requirement…. This is to exclude consumer leafleting and to provide

clear guidance to employers, workers and unions on what constitutes

picketing for the purpose of the code.

J. Martin: Can the minister explain why, in this section, there is no

definition of “construction,” as was recommended by the

panel?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: When we sent this report out for further consultation, no

stakeholder asked that the definition should be there. But those who did

said that it was not inclusive enough. It excluded some of the sectors

from construction.

[3:30 p.m.]

The way we are doing it…. We are leaving it out, because

construction has been defined already by the labour relations

jurisprudence over the years. We know that the labour board is the right

place to continue to work on that area, defining what construction is

and what construction is not.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Martin: Can the minister explain why he’s adding a new provision that he

“must appoint a committee of special advisors to undertake a review of

this Code” every five years, when he can already do this with the

existing provisions in

section 3 of the code? In fact, the minister can

appoint a committee of special advisers that could provide him with an

evaluation every 12 months if he chose. In other words, there’s nothing

preventing the minister from properly utilizing the review process as

is.

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, that was the recommendation of the panel. And the

reason is, Member, that just because the language was there for 27

years…. No review took place. I think the panel felt — because of the

changing nature of work these days, how work is changing so fast — that

there should be, at least every five years, a review to reflect the

changing nature of the world, of workplaces.

The needs of the workers change. The needs of the employers

change. We see the economy changing. So I think they are saying that we

should be doing at least five years, rather than leave it like what

happened for 27 years, where nothing was reviewed.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Martin: Thank you for the previous response from the minister.

section 3, why is the provision in

section 6(1), which provides

for the right of a person to communicate on any matter — which I note is

being amended in the next

section of this amendment bill — being

removed?

It appears that through the earlier amendments that provide for

“lawful consumer” and the amendment here that removes the right of a

person to communicate on any matter, the government is actually

broadening a union’s ability to communicate, while simultaneously

limiting an employer’s ability to communicate.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the panel was very clear. The panel heard from all

stakeholders. I think almost everyone agreed that the decision to join a

union or not to join a union should be solely of the worker and that no

one should be influencing that decision or stop them as far as joining a

union, by coercion, by intimidation.

The language that in 6(1) was there…. That would allow, somehow,

when you read that along with

section 8, the next one…. The first one

says: “Except as otherwise provided in

section 8, an employer or a

person acting on behalf of an employer must not participate in or

interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade

union….”

[3:35 p.m.]

So when they recommended that the language that was there was too

broad…. That allowed an employer to engage in anti-union activities and

approach, and that caused a lot of problems for both sides. There were

all kinds of unfair labour practices as a result of that, so they are

making it much, much clearer, with language that used to be there before

2002. They are saying that the workers’ right to join a union should not

be impeded by someone trying to coerce them or intimidate

them.

The previous language was quite vague. It allowed that to happen,

so they are tightening the language. That gives the opportunity to the

worker to make their own decisions rather than being influenced by

anybody else.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Martin: This is fairly detailed, what I’m going to ask, so please bear

with me on

section 4.

In lieu of an employer being able to provide information, it would

default to the board. How does the minister expect the board to provide

information in a timely manner to an employee looking for a quick

response, especially if the time frame for representation votes is being

reduced from ten to five business days?

Is replacing the employer with the board an equitable substitute?

That would now require a person to call the board, likely after they’ve

left work, likely having to leave a message for someone on the board to

return their call and then, hopefully, being able to take the return

call, either when they’re at home or if it’s on their mobile, this being

a convenient time and, ideally, in a private setting so the person can

engage in a conversation.

It would seem far more likely that a person would pop in after

work to ask a question of their employer and be on their way than go

through this call-to-the-board process.

Hon. H. Bains: I think when the panel was hearing and taking presentations from

all different sides, they actually wrote, on their page 8, to address

exactly what the member is asking. I’m going to quote that, and I hope

that that will help the member. They said:

“We agree informed employee choice is important, and we understand

an employer’s interest in responding to employees’ questions about the

certification process. However, the interests of employers and employees

are distinct and not aligned. It is difficult for employers to provide

objective, neutral information that best assists the exercise of

employee choice. The board is a neutral body and, therefore, is better

able to provide that information. To fulfil that role, the board will

have to update its existing information guidelines and website, provide

information in different languages and have more information officers

available.”

I think that’s what they recognized.

Also, Member, you know that freedom of speech does not actually

work here if an employee wishes to join a union and there is no such

opportunity for employees to have that debate without consequences.

Those who would openly talk about a union, they know, and it’s

recognized in the history, that those employees end up losing their

jobs, in most cases.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m suggesting — and I agree with the panel’s report and their

research — that the interests of employers and employees are distinct

and different. Therefore, an employee cannot rely on information

provided by the employer.

The labour board is neutral, and that’s where you will get

objective information without any slant, one way or the

other.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Martin: On

section 5. With the addition of subsection (4.1) to

section 14

of the code, why have sections 10, “Internal union affairs,” 11,

“Requirement to bargain in good faith,” and 12, “Duty of fair

representation,” been removed as prohibited acts when a board is

considering certifying a trade union despite a failed representation

vote?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, this

section talks about, as was recommended by the panel,

that if an employer violates those sections and they’re found to have

violated, then there is a remedial certification that applies there. A

board may give them a remedial certification.

What sections 10, 11 and 12 talk about…. They’re talking about

something different. That doesn’t apply to this

section here. Sections

10, 11 and 12 talk about internal union matters — fair representation

and internal union matters. Those are dealt with somewhere else. The

board may rule…. If the union is contravening those sections, then the

board will make a decision accordingly and deal with those issues at

that time.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Martin: Why has the government opted, once again, to deviate from the

panel’s recommendation to provide different rating provisions for the

construction sector compared to all other sectors?

Hon. H. Bains: This was very clear. I think right now, if you look at it in

construction, the raiding is allowed every year. But the panel heard

from stakeholders. They came back with a recommendation in one area.

They came back with a recommendation that it should be the third year.

If the collective agreement is three years, then it’s on the third year.

If it’s longer than three years, then the third year and every year

thereafter.

When we sent this for further consultation, we heard from the

stakeholders that most construction projects last two years or three

years. So if you put that provision in there that you could only raid in

the third year, and the employees choose to change unions, it’s about

employees. It’s about workers. It’s not about anybody else.

If the worker chooses to change their union and their

certification, then they will not have that opportunity in construction,

because most of those contracts are two years or three years. Most of

those projects are two years or three years. Compared to all other…. You

know, if you have a manufacturing facility, that is there forever. So

every third year, for the stability, makes sense — the third year and

every year after that. So for that reason, we are keeping it.

After further consultation, we’re saying that in construction, an

employee can change their union every year. But they also came back that

it should be in July and August. Now, the current language is the

seventh and eighth month of the collective agreement. The seventh and

eighth month could be in July and August. The seventh or eighth — the

collective agreement — could be in January or February, when hardly

anybody is working in construction.

Again, it’s the uniqueness of the construction industry. It is

recognized not only here but across all jurisdictions in Canada. There

are different provisions for construction in different places, so that’s

why we’re suggesting that we keep July and August, because a majority of

the workers should have the right to decide their representation vote.

So July and August are kept, but for construction, because of

uniqueness, because of the short period of their projects, we’re saying

that for that particular industry, the opportunity to change their union

every year makes sense.

J. Martin: I appreciate the response, Minister.

The Labour Relations Code Review Panel remarked: “…raids are

divisive and disruptive to employers, unions and employees.” Hearing

considerable support from unions and employers to reduce the frequency

of raid, the panel recommended to reduce the frequency of the open

period for the raids to the seventh and eighth month of the third year

of the last year of the collective agreement, contingent on the length

of the collective agreement. As just stated by the minister, for the

construction sector, to July and August of the third year or the last

year of the collective agreement, depending on the length of that

agreement.

Can the minister explain how he can justify the amendment in this

act allowing the construction unions to be raided in July and August of

each year of their collective agreements? How is that not divisive to

employers, unions and employees?

Hon. H. Bains: There is no doubt that when workers decide to join a union, there

is that debate that goes on. When workers decide to change union and

certification, there is that kind of uncertainty. There’s no doubt about

that.

[3:50 p.m.]

When one union raids on another one, it is very divisive. It can

be very disruptive, no doubt. That’s why we agreed with the panel’s

recommendation everywhere else that if they are in a collective

agreement that is three years long, then only the third year could you

raid. But if it’s longer than three years, then the third year and every

year after, we could do that. But in construction, because of the reason

I’ve given you, most projects are two years or three years long, and

those employees, those workers, then, will never have the opportunity to

change union membership if they wish to.

It is about those workers, and we heard from workers. We heard

from the representations, and that’s why we’re saying the uniqueness of

the construction, because of the short period of projects…. That’s why

we decided that in that sector, every year — which is the case today —

makes sense.

J. Martin: Can the minister cite the other jurisdictions in Canada that have

a more frequent open season for raiding that applies solely to

construction?

Hon. H. Bains: I can tell the member that in other jurisdictions, there are

unique and separate provisions in the labour code. We don’t have that

here. For example, there are other jurisdictions where they have

sectoral bargaining, so they deal with issues differently, and our

industry is, again, different. That’s why, currently, in construction,

raids are allowed every year. So that’s why I’m saying that we decided

that we should keep it, after receiving further consultation — that we

should keep construction a little bit different, but also agreeing with

the panel’s recommendation to have that raid in July and August, when

most of them are working. That’s the difference between other

jurisdictions and us.

J. Martin: Can the minister cite the specific data that was used to base this

decision on to have more frequent open seasons for construction? What

was it based on — what data?

Hon. H. Bains: We listened. This is the input that we received from those people

who work in the industry. Those are the people who understand what goes

on out there on a daily basis.

[3:55 p.m.]

Member, you know that when we put this panel together, they went

around the province. They listened to everyone. They had their input

from industry, from workers, from unions, from academics, from the law

practitioners and all those. And they came back with a recommendation.

When they put that together, their report, we sent it out again for

further consultation so that we get the information and the input from

people who actually work in those industries, all kinds of different

industries that are covered in the labour code.

That’s the input we received: that construction is unique. We all

know construction is unique, different than manufacturing plants. Other

jurisdictions, again, because of the uniqueness, have different

provisions in their labour code. That’s what we considered. We

considered the recommendations and the suggestions from those who live,

work and make their living in construction.

J. Martin: Projects don’t get raided; companies get raided. Companies

typically have ten, 20, maybe 30 projects going on simultaneously. Has

the minister taken into account the degree of instability and problems

that are presented with an annual open season allowing for such frequent

raiding?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, today they can raid every year. So when the

recommendations came — that in construction, a raid could take place in

the third year in a collective agreement that is three years long, and

in every year thereafter, if the collective agreement is longer than

three years — we received the input, and we were advised that this is a

mistake. This is taking the opportunity from those members who wish to

change a union. In construction, they will not have that opportunity —

or very little opportunity, if the projects are only two years long or

three years long.

I think that’s the issue here, and we are trying to address that

issue through consultation and through the input that we received from

those people who work in the industry.

J. Martin: With respect to the projects that come under the community

benefits agreements — where there are no-raid agreements between the

unions, presumably because it would be disruptive — what impact are the

changes to raiding going to have on the major infrastructure projects

that come under the community benefits agreements?

Hon. H. Bains: What unions agree among themselves is up to them. The labour board

has nothing to do with that. If those unions wish to raid each other at

some point, then the labour board will make their decision, based on the

labour code that we are talking about.

[4:00 p.m.]

J. Martin: Hypothetically, could an independent union, or a union that is not

covered under a community benefits agreement, raid during one of those

projects?

Hon. H. Bains: If one union decides to raid another union or the members decide

to change unions, whether there’s a community benefits agreement or not,

they have that opportunity. Then the labour board will have that

application, and they will deal with it according to the law.

G. Kyllo: I propose to introduce an amendment to Bill 30, the Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019.

The Chair: Proceed.

G. Kyllo: The amendment that I’m moving…. Bill 30, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act, 2019, is amended as follows:

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 19 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection

(1) and substituting the following:

(1) Subject to subsection (1.2), if a collective

agreement is in force and is for a term of 3 years or less, a trade

union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of

employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining may apply

to the board to be certified for the unit

(

a) during the seventh and eighth months in the

last year of the term of the collective agreement,

(

b) during the seventh and eighth months in each

subsequent year of any continuation of the collective

agreement.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (1.2), if a collective

agreement is in force and is for a term of more than 3 years, a

trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority

of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining may

apply to the board to be certified for the unit

(

a) during the seventh and eighth months in the

third year of the term of the collective agreement,

(

b) during the seventh and eighth months in each

subsequent year of the collective agreement or any continuation of

the collective agreement.

(1.2) If a collective agreement is in force, a

trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority

of employees primarily engaged in construction work in a unit

appropriate for collective bargaining may apply to the board to be

certified for the unit during July and August in each year of the

collective agreement or any continuation of the collective

agreement. ,

and

(1) Except in the case of construction,

(

a) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of

3 years or less, a trade union claiming to have as members in good

standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for

collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the

unit during the seventh and eighth months of the last year of the

collective agreement, and

(

b) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of

more than 3 years, a trade union claiming to have as members in good

standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for

collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the

unit during the seventh and eighth months of the third year of the

agreement and thereafter in the seventh and eighth months in each

year of the collective agreement or any continuation.

(

b) in by repealing

subsection (2) by striking out

“subsection (1)”

and substituting

“subsections (1) to (1.2)”. and

substituting the following:

(2) In the case of construction,

(

a) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of

3 years or less, a trade union claiming to have as members in good

standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for

collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the

unit in July and August of the last year of the collective

agreement, and

(

b) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of

more than 3 years, a trade union claiming to have as members in good

standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for

collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the

unit in July and August of the third year of the collective

agreement and thereafter in July and August of each year of the

collective agreement or any continuation. ,

and

(

c) by adding the following

subsections:

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), an application for

certification may not be made within 22 months of a previous

application under those subsections if the previous application

resulted in a decision by the board on the merits of the

application.

(4) Unless the board consents, a trade union is not

permitted to make an application under this

section during a strike

or lockout. ]

As well, hon. Chair, I have a number of comments I’d like to make

with respect to the amendment.

The Chair: Carry on.

On the amendment.

G. Kyllo: “Change in union representation,” or what’s commonly referred to

as raids, under

section 19, is extremely important. It doesn’t just

affect the construction trade.

[4:05 p.m.]

When we have a look at the need for fairness in treating workers

and having the same ability for workers in order to determine under

which union they may wish to associate, the ability for workers to

change unions is a fundamental democratic right that needs to be

protected. This right needs to be balanced with the principle of

stability, which the minister rightly notes as the primary motivation

for his proposed changes.

The government appointed a review panel that took into

consideration this balance. That panel, with no dissenting opinion, made

a recommendation back to government to move the raiding period — that

period in which workers have the ability to select another union — to

once every three years. The government outright deviated from the

panel’s recommendations in carving out the construction industry, where

they believe it is appropriate to have a raiding period each and every

year.

As my colleague the critic for Labour, the member for Chilliwack,

indicated, it is not the companies that are raided; it’s the workers

themselves. The companies, as the member for Chilliwack indicated, may

have ten, 15 or 20 different projects under construction at any given

time. You look at large companies, like Kiewit or Ledcor. The project is

not what actually gets raided; it is the company and its workers. When

the minister makes the argument with respect to the fact that projects

have a shorter duration, it is not the project which is raided. It’s

actually the company and the representation of those specific workers. I

think that’s a very important point that British Columbians should be

well aware of.

Referring back to the panel’s very language, a verbatim lift from

their report: “Raids are divisive and disruptive to employers, unions

and employees. In the public consultation process, there was

considerable support from unions and employers for reducing the

frequency of the open period for raids to correspond to other Canadian

jurisdictions. The annual open period in B.C. is the exception in

Canada.” These are remarks by the panel that provided recommendations to

government.

Now why would this government see fit to deviate from what every

jurisdiction has in play? Even more pointedly, why would this government

see fit to deviate from the unanimous recommendations of a panel that

they appointed?

The panel’s commentary goes on to say: “The development and

evolution of a productive bargaining relationship requires time. In the

case of a newly certified bargaining unit, the possibility of a raid

immediately after certification is problematic. In our view, the

frequency of open periods in other Canadian jurisdictions provides a

more balanced approach which recognizes the disruptive effects of

raids.” Again, it begs the question: why would this government believe

they know better than every other jurisdiction in Canada? Why would this

government believe that they know better than the expert review panel

that they selected?

There is thick irony in this discussion about employee choice. The

B.C. Federation of Labour unions, including the Building Trades unions,

will speak affirmatively about an employee’s right to choose.

Interestingly, they have all banded together to create what are known as

non-raid pacts. That is to say, if employees are experiencing poor

service with one of the B.C. Federation unions and ask another B.C.

Federation union to represent them, they will say, “No, work within your

existing union,” effectively denying employees a choice.

The only target of this legislation, then, is quite obvious: the

independent unions that do in fact give their members the ability to

choose. The B.C. Fed unions have donated millions of dollars to this

government over the years, and perhaps, this is where we are seeing some

indication of the motivation for this legislation.

Now, consider the impact of this legislation through the lens of

some examples. A school or hospital in B.C. is about to be built by a

contractor who has just recently been certified by a union. The

contractor negotiates a three-year collective agreement with its

signatory union in June of this year. It has a number of projects it is

building in the province. In early July, the incumbent union is

displaced through a raid.

[4:10 p.m.]

The new union applies to the labour board to have the collective

agreement terminated, via

section 27(1). The labour board terminates the

agreement in late July. By the end of October, 90 days later, the

agreement is terminated. The contractor has absolutely no certainty on

costing, the employees do not know what their future holds, and the

union is in a legal strike position. Is this the sort of instability

that government anticipated when they drafted this specific

legislation?

Another example. The first piece of Highway 1 expansion between

Kamloops and the Alberta border has been tendered. This work is subject

to the government’s project labour agreement program, the so-called

community benefits agreement. Now, let’s just assume for a moment that

the work commences this summer. If the workers on this project were to

choose to be represented by another union this July, are we to

understand that the effect of the legislation is that the new union

could apply to the labour board to have that agreement terminated, thus

ending the agreement between the B.C. Infrastructure Benefits Inc., the

Crown corporation, and its group of selected unions, the Allied

Infrastructure and Related Construction Council of B.C., some 90 days

later?

The government went to some lengths to create a monopoly for its

building trades union friends, and now they’re introducing legislation

that could see that entire model crumble, creating huge uncertainty for

the government, the affected employees, the contractors involved, and

likely leading to cost escalation. The NDP’s likely defence of an annual

open season in construction goes like this. Employees working on a

construction project that has a duration of, say, two years would not

get an opportunity to change unions over the course of that project if

open season frequency were to be three years in construction.

Again, keep in mind that the annual open period in B.C. is the

exception in Canada, according to the panel’s own report. And keep in

mind that the panel unanimously recommended an open period every three

years for all sectors, including construction.

Now, let’s be generous and put that aside for a moment. Even if we

were to explore the line of thinking the government is putting forward,

it is extremely difficult to suggest that employees’ freedom to choose

their union has been rightfully denied due to the fact that they might

not be positioned to change unions within that two-year period. This

group of employees would have already voted on an agreement and for

their new union.

Furthermore, a project is not subject to a raid. Rather, all

employees of a company are included in a raid. The vast majority of

construction companies doing work in this province have more than one

project in the province underway at any given time. It is also the rare

exception that a construction company parachutes into a province, does

one project in less than two years and leaves again. That is just not

the norm. This rationale for this proposed legislation is deeply flawed.

It’s being defended on the basis of addressing a problem that doesn’t

exist.

Hon. H. Bains: I ask to have this

section stood down for a period of time. We’ll

continue on with the rest of the sections, because I think we need to

review the amendment.

The Chair: That’s fine. Let’s move to

section

Section 6 is now stood

down, with the proposed amendment. The minister will review it, and

we’ll get back to

section 6 as a proposed amendment.

Now we’ll move to

section

Section 6 stood down.

section 7.

A. Olsen: I’d just like a five-minute recess, if possible,

please.

The Chair: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Martin: Can the minister, in some detail, explain why we are proposing to

move the time period for a representation vote from ten to five business

days?

Hon. H. Bains: The panel was very clear. They are saying that we should bring

ourselves to the other jurisdictions in this particular area. They

believe that this is a time when there is quite a turmoil. When

employees decide to join a union, there’s uncertainty, so it’s felt that

the process should be faster and have a quick end to it. Many other

jurisdictions are five days to seven days, and we’re the only one at ten

days. They decided that that period should be shortened to five business

days. That’s why they recommended it. They were unanimous on this, by

the way. That’s why we accepted those recommendations.

J. Martin: Does the minister have a record — let’s say in the past two years

— of how many representation votes were impacted by improper

interference during the ten-day period, which warrants shortening

it?

Hon. H. Bains: I can tell you that the panel did very thorough research on this

thing. They didn’t talk about the last two years; they took the data

from between 1990 and 2007. They found that 254 unfair labour practices

complaints were filed with the board, of which 197 were against the

employer, 54 against the union and three against an

individual.

[4:20 p.m.]

Of the 197 complaints filed against the employer, 152 were found

to have been wholly or partially meritorious, and over 90 percent of the

complaints and findings of code breaches involved either unlawful

termination or communication during the organizing drive, or a

combination of the two.

They looked at the data. They looked at how disruptive it can be.

And there are examples. I think if you look at and listen to some of the

presentations that they received…. There is a certification process.

They cited an example of a person getting fired three times during the

one certification, despite the fact that the board ruled that that was

against the law, that they should hire him back. They would hire him

back, fire him again. Hire him back, fire him again.

So there are those types, but I’m talking about the extreme cases

here, right? Those are some of the things that hap­pened. I can tell you:

I was an organizer in my life, and I’ve seen that happen.

I think the idea here is that once the employee makes a decision

to join a union of their choice, then that process should be quick,

should be fair and should be without any interference from

anybody.

J. Martin: What consideration has been given to the potential impact this

would have on those rare cases of mail-in votes?

Hon. H. Bains: It’s again keeping with the same principle of having that process

go through in a speedy way so that there is certainty at the end of the

day. They feel that…. Clearly, the report suggested that mail ballot

votes are problematic, contribute to delay and should be only an

exception. There are times when you need mail ballots, so they’re giving

that opportunity, but it should be an exception rather than the

rule.

If both parties agree that the situation warrants mail ballots

because of remoteness and maybe different situations, then the board

will allow that. But I think for most of it, what we’re talking about is

to speed up the system both for the employer and employee and bring that

certainty so that they can move and on continue on with their

business.

J. Martin: Can the minister enlighten me on how these mail-in representation

votes are determined? Does it happen from the union only? An employer

only? Is it the board? How does this actually get determined?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, this is not a choice of either party. I think the language

is very clear: “The representation vote may be conducted by mail only if

(

a) the trade union and the employer agree, or (

b) the board is

satisfied exceptional circumstances exist requiring the vote to be

conducted by mail.”

G. Kyllo: With respect to the numbers that the minister provided with

respect to infractions that were undertaken, is the minister able to

share with us the time period in which those infractions occurred? The

minister referenced a number of infractions that took place, apparently

within the ten-day period. I’m just wondering if the minister can share

with us what percentage of those infractions happened on day 6, 7, 8, 9

or 10, or if there is just an assumption that by shortening the period,

somehow, miraculously, these infractions will go away.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Member, the panel didn’t go: “Day 1 it happened. Day 2 it

happened. Day 10 it happened.” What they found was that it does

happen.

Now the parties know they have ten days. Within those ten days,

they could choose whenever. They could do it the first day, the second

day or the eighth day. They could do that. Now, when you shorten it, you

shorten that period. You shorten that window for them to engage in

unfair labour practices. So that’s what the panel found out. That is

what they’re recommending. It was unanimous.

G. Kyllo: I think, as the minister has indicated, the infractions could

occur during any day. The timing, with respect to when the application

is actually made, is clearly in the hands of the union organizers. It is

not the company that chooses by which date the application is going to

come forward. So we see an imbalance of power here, where the union

organizers that are trying to move forward for unionization have the

power of determining whether they’re going to drop that application on a

Monday or a Tuesday or a Friday, or maybe right at the head or the start

of a large construction project.

There is certainly opportunity that comes with the timing by which

that application is submitted. It is not an application that is

negotiated between the union organizers and the company. So we see

clearly where the union organizers have the privilege and the

opportunity to determine the timing of when that application is

submitted. In order to jam the time frame by which the company has an

opportunity to respond and to communicate with its employees, the

current ten-day period, from the minister’s own admission, has not been

able to identify why a shortened period would actually reduce the number

of infractions.

The infractions may occur over a shorter period of time. But there

is nothing that is stating that by the reducing the period of time by

which the company has an opportunity to engage and to speak to its

workers with respect to the impacts and implications of unionization….

There is nothing that the minister has shared with us that shows that

reducing that time will in any way, shape or form reduce the frequency

or the number of infractions.

When we’re looking for balance, when you have the clear

opportunity, the privilege of the union organizers to determine the date

by which they actually make their application…. I think that by further

restricting the time by which an employer has an opportunity to converse

with their workers and to talk about the implications — maybe positive,

maybe negative….. But by reducing that time, I think further

restrictions reduce the opportunity for employers to engage with their

workers.

Again, if the minister has any data…. The minister did indicate

that he has data to support the decision. Is the minister able to share

with us the frequency by which the infractions occurred, whether they

were predominantly within the first five days or on days 6, 7, 8, 9 and

10?

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s look at what the panel said after listening to stakeholders.

It’s not about the member; it’s not about me. It’s not me, as was done

by the previous government, who sat behind a desk and rewrote the labour

code without any consultation in 2002.

We took a different route. We went around. As a result of that

consultation that the panel took…. They did their own research, looked

at other jurisdictions and came back with the recommendations —

unanimously, I might add. This is what they said: “The shorter time

within which a vote must be taken will be more consistent with other

Canadian jurisdictions, will limit the opportunity for improper employer

interference and will permit sufficient time to arrange the vote.” They

mention which jurisdictions and how many days.

[4:30 p.m.]

Then they went on to say this. The panel stated: “The exercise of

employee choice through certification votes must be protected by

shortening the time frame for votes, ensuring the expeditious and

efficient processing of certification applications and unfair labour

practice complaints, together with expansion of the board’s remedial

authority. If these enhanced measures are not effective, then there will

be a compelling argument for a card check system.”

This is how serious they were — looking at what happens during

those ten days. It is disruptive, no doubt. It is divisive, no doubt.

That’s why they’re saying, “Let’s give them a shorter time to break the

law” — those who have done in the past and those in the future who come

in that situation. And employees will know whether they have a union or

not. The employer will know whether they have a union or not in a short

period of time — expeditiously so that they can get on with their

businesses.

That’s what the panel heard and their own research showed, looking

at other jurisdictions. They suggested this is the right thing to do,

and I’m complying with their recommendation.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL M209 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2019

Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed

unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 30, the

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, and in the Douglas Fir Room, I call

committee stage on Bill 19, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act.

[4:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:43 p.m.

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order on Bill 30, Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019. We can take a five-minute

recess.

The committee recessed from 4:44 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

section 7 (continued) .

J. Martin: Just one final inquiry on

section 7, if I may. Can the minister

cite the jurisdictions in Canada that have a five business day period

for certification?

Hon. H. Bains: Ontario has five days.

Section 7 approved.

Hon. H. Bains: Madam Chair, I suggest that

section 8 stand down, because the

parties have not had an opportunity to look at this yet. We’ll continue

on, but

section 8 stand down.

[4:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Is it agreed that

section 8 will be stood down?

Section 8 stood down.

section 9.

J. Martin: With respect to the time period changing from ten days to five

business days, there’s also the issue of the representation vote for

revoking of bargaining rights. That’s also being changed from ten to

five days. Can the minister elaborate on what’s behind this?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, it is the same rule when you are applying to acquire

certification. You know, the panel recommended five days, but the same

applies if employees choose to be certified. The application is made

that the vote should take place, just as the certification process,

within five days.

J. Martin: In a similar vein as when we were discussing the similar issue

earlier, is the minister able to, as he did before, give us some

indication of how frequently this has happened in the last two years, or

over the time period — I think 1990 to 2004 — that he used

previously?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, this is about standardizing and creating a balance. They

felt that if the employees decided to join the union, then they made

rules that the ten days should be reduced to five business days. The

same thing if the members decide to decertify. They believe the same

standard should apply. Therefore, the vote will take place within five

business days if the employees apply for decertification.

J. Martin: Is this an anomaly, or is this consistent practice in

Canada?

Hon. H. Bains: I imagine the other jurisdictions have a similar position to

acquire or revoke union membership. The same standard, the same timeline

applies. So if they have five days to apply for certification, there are

five days for decertification. Others may have seven days for

certification, and then I imagine that there will be seven days for

decertification as well.

J. Martin: By extending the period during which an application for revocation

of bargaining rights, following the certification of a union, or a

refusal to cancel the certification by the board — changing it from ten

months to 12 months…. What’s the rationale? Is this the practice in

other jurisdictions?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the panel felt, and they listened…. They believe that the

following decertification vote…. The 12 months is a much more reasonable

time for the union and employees to establish that relationship and

bargain with the employer. So that’s why they believe ten months should

be changed to 12 months — to give them a couple extra months.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

J. Martin: So to

section 10. With the addition of subsection (0.1) to

section

35 of the code…. It allows for prescribed services. Which services,

sectors or industries are being considered for inclusion in this

prescribed list?

Hon. H. Bains: That will be decided. It means it gives the minister an

opportunity in the future if — because of the changing nature of the

work, the changing nature of our economy — the ones that are listed here

above…. If there is an industry or a group of workers who is not covered

by this in the future and they made submissions and the parties felt

that that should also be included in a successorship, that would give us

the power to listen, and we could add through OIC to this

group.

J. Martin: I’m just wondering a little more how this process actually would

take place — other sectors and industries being added to the list. It

could be complaint-driven. It could be consultation-driven. I guess it

could be based on data from the employment standards branch. Maybe it’s

based on breaches of the standards act.

Is this going to cover publicly funded services, or will privately

funded services be included?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, you know the same process will follow as we’ve seen in the

last number of years. There were a number of different

situations.

The health care sector was one area and janitorial was another

area, where you heard, time and again, of situations where workers would

join a union. The new contractor comes in, and then those same workers

provide the same service sometimes using the same equipment, sometimes

providing service to the same people, working at the same place. They

were required to reapply for their jobs many times. Well, not many

times.

[5:00 p.m.]

Their collective agreement was not recognized so they had to

recertify, reapply for their jobs. We heard that time and again. I’m

sure the members on the other side heard those stories as well. That’s

what the panel heard, and the panel recommended that those should be

included for successorship.

The same could apply going forward. The panel actually came back

with this recommendation that we should watch what’s going on out there

because the work is changing. Therefore, when we see there’s an area or

a group of workers…. It’s a developing…. They’re facing the same

situation as the other area that we’re trying to cover here. Then we

would have the power, at that time, through consultation, of course, and

we could make changes and add them for successorship protection as

well.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

J. Martin: What other jurisdictions have the same proposed 12-month period

during which an employer is not to increase or decrease the pay of an

employee or alter any other term or condition of employment while a new

collective agreement is being bargained?

Hon. H. Bains: I’ll just read this to you:

“All Canadian jurisdictions have statutory freeze provisions with a

range of time frames. Ontario, Canada and Quebec impose a freeze from

the date of an application for certification until strike/lockout or a

first collective agreement has been concluded. In Nova Scotia, a freeze

is imposed from the date notice to commence collective bargaining is

provided until a collective agreement is concluded or seven days

following a report of a conciliation officer. Saskatchewan imposes a

freeze from the date of an application for certification until

collective bargaining has occurred. Alberta and Manitoba impose a freeze

for 90 days following the granting of a certification.”

All the different jurisdictions have all different time frames,

but they all have this position that there should be a freeze on wages

and working conditions following when the certification is granted.

Again, it is to respect the process of certification and free collective

bargaining.

J. Martin: The Labour Relations Code Review Panel cited a 1998 recommendation

that “the freeze period reflect the average amount of time required to

negotiate a first