Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 51

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

Ron Mitchell

G. Kyllo

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Fish and Seafood Amendment Act, 2017

S. Furstenau

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Kidney disease awareness and work of Paul and Diane

Duperron

S. Bond

Burnaby Local Hero Awards

A. Kang

Manufacturing industry

T. Wat

Contributions of volunteers

B. D’Eith

Watershed protection and Cowichan Watershed Board

S. Furstenau

Guru Nanak Gurpurab

R. Singh

Oral Questions

Government housing initiatives

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

D. Ashton

Foreign buyer data and speculation in real estate

industry

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Housing speculation tax

J. Yap

Hon. S. Robinson

Foreign buyer data and government housing initiatives

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Hon. J. Horgan

Massey Tunnel replacement project

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Petitions

Hon. K. Conroy

Tabling Documents

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report,

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Recommittal of Children and Family Development estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

M. Bernier

Hon. A. Dix

J. Isaacs

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess it’s past Premiers week. Earlier in the week I had the

opportunity to introduce someone who used to sit in this chair, and I get to

do it again today. Joining us in the gallery is the former member for North

Coast, the former minister of almost everything and the former — I think it

was the 33rd — Premier of British Columbia, Dan Miller. Would the House

please make him very, very welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I don’t think this has ever happened to me before. Coming from the

Kootenays, we don’t get to introduce very many people. Today I have five

people to introduce, so I’m quite excited.

The first person I’m going to introduce is Alex Atamanenko. He’s our

former MP. He’s our neighbour that just lives up the road from us. He’s a

great supporter and was an amazing MP. I think he’s really enjoying his

retirement right now. With Alex is his brother, George Atamanenko, another

great supporter of the party. He’s from Williams Lake. We’re really happy to

have them both here in the House with us today.

Also joining is Dr. Marcia Braundy. Marcia is a great supporter from

Winlaw. She’s also one of the first female journey carpenters in the

province of B.C. She’s a really great, lifelong supporter of women in the

trades. She was the creator of women in trades and technology for the

university sector and just a really amazing woman. I’m really pleased to

have her today.

Also in the gallery is our oldest granddaughter, Daira Batchelor. Some

of you might remember Daira. She was at the swearing in, as a newborn, of

her grandpa when he was sworn in. Then she terrorized many of us on this

side of the floor as she toddled around the Legislature when I was first

elected. Now here she is as a young woman of 17, and her granny is

introducing her in the House once again. It’s great to have her

here.

Last but not least — I think he’s one of my greatest supporters, and I

think I’m quite safe in saying he’s the only spouse that really understands

this job — is my husband, Ed. Please join me in welcoming them

all.

N. Letnick: In the House today, we have a great friend from Kelowna–Lake Country,

Geoff Ingram, who’s actually the son of two other great friends, Vivian and

Richard. Would the House please make Geoff feel very welcome.

M. Polak: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, I have the pleasure of

introducing Aletta Vanderheyden, who is senior consultant for communications

and public affairs with Fraser Health. As the MLA liaison to all community

MLA offices covered by Fraser Health, from Burnaby to Boston Bar, Aletta has

assisted in connecting families and individuals to supports and assistance,

where needed, for almost five years. She is devoted to the best possible

outcomes for all those for whom we request assistance and to patients across

the region. Would the House please make Aletta feel welcome.

B. D’Eith: I’d like to introduce some friends of mine: Melanie Van Dreck and her

parents, Andy and Roberta Shepherd. Welcome to the House. Melanie is a

volunteer in my community. I met her when she was a manager of our minor

hockey team, when I was coaching. She subsequently was a volunteer on my

campaign. I thank her very much. Of course, Andy makes the best apple pies

in Maple Ridge. If your church or your son-in-law tell you any different,

they can talk to me. Thank you very much and please welcome them.

J. Martin: Joining us in the gallery, all the way from California, are Tim

Croisdale and his wife, Carlene. I first became acquainted with Tim back

when he was a student of mine in the ’90s — or, as we refer to it on this

side of the House, that dark and dismal decade of doom. Tim is an associate

professor at Cal State in Sacramento. He’s currently on the lecture circuit

in British Columbia, speaking on criminal justice and mental health — all

the way from California. Please make them welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Kahlon: Climbing is now an Olympic sport at the Tokyo 2020 games. One of the

top training facilities is actually here, at the home of the Stelly’s

Stingers. Next year there will be a youth world championship happening. Two

athletes are here that will be competing next year. Coming to check out the

facilities are 16-year-old Jani Zoraj from Croatia and 15-year-old Futaba

Ito of Japan, who is currently the youth world climbing champion.

I hope they’ll have the same honour that the member for

Parksville-Qualicum and I have had. When you get to represent your country,

it’s quite a magical thing. I wish you luck in your endeavours.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to welcome George Atamanenko here today. He comes

from 150 Mile House, my riding, and he’s very, very involved in the history

of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. He’s been a great advocate for the museum, for

history, and he’s also a great supporter and great advocate in ensuring that

health care is well and needed and taken care of in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Welcome, George.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure today to introduce to members of this Legislature a

number of hard-working administrative staff from B.C. Parks who are joining

us from all over the province today. They’re executive assistants. They’re

senior administrative personnel. They provide a wide range of assistance to

the public, as well as to other staff and executives of the ministry, and

they make sure that B.C. Parks operations run smoothly. They are, for many

people in the public, the go-to people for answers.

We wouldn’t be able to function without devoted and professional staff

like these in every area of British Columbia. So I wanted to take a minute

to personally thank them on behalf of the ministry and the government for

their hard work. I’m sure every member of this House will join me in

thanking them. They’re Dianne Egan from Nelson, Christina Frank from

Nanaimo, Suzy Garcia from Smithers, Heather Marzoff from Kamloops, Beth

McGifford from Penticton, Jennifer Cardinal from Squamish, and Sarah Andrews

and Melissa Quin, who are both here from Victoria. I know the House will

join me in making them feel very, very welcome.

I have one more introduction, if I may. We are also joined by visitors

from the B.C. Lung Association today. They are big advocates for air quality

in this province. Some of their current priorities are reducing smoking,

eliminating secondhand smoke and educating people about radon gas and the

harm of wood-smoke pollution. They also happen, as the B.C. Lung

Association, to be headquartered in my constituency of

Vancouver-Fairview.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Scott McDonald, Wendy

Mitchell, Dr. Peter Paré, Mike Ellis, Dr. Menn Biagtan, Kelly Ablog-Morrant

and Christopher Lam.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s such a delight to be able to stand up in this House today and

welcome three people who are very central to my life. They add a lot of joy.

They inspire me. They give me reason to carry on doing what I do, whether I

was teaching, then as a Member of Parliament and now here in the

Legislature. Without their love and support, I could not carry on doing this

work.

First, on the fifth of January, my beautiful great-granddaughter Alya

joined us, and she added so much joy to all our lives. Then my granddaughter

Emily is here with us today too. I can tell you when Emily came in…. I

always thought having a child was delightful, but the birth of a grandchild

takes you to whole new heights. Emily is here today and, of course, my

daughter Keeran, who many, many years ago added a lot of joy. She’s our

first-born. She is very passionate and strong-willed and, as the member from

Nanaimo-Ladysmith knows, a very passionate advocate and quite

outspoken.

[10:15 a.m.]

I also want to acknowledge someone who is not here, and that is my

mother. My mother is 93. She is at home watching this on television. She’s

the first. Without her, we would not be here, and I can say, from my mother

to our beautiful Alya, that’s five generations of first-born

women.

Please help me welcome these great women in my life.

Hon. C. Trevena: I noticed coming into the gallery this morning was Ernest Alfred,

Hereditary Chief from the Lawit’sis First Nation. I apologize if I get the

pronunciation of the First Nation wrong. I saw him come in with someone

else. I apologize also because I didn’t actually recognize who he had come

in with.

He was here in the House yesterday and observed question period. He

told me yesterday that he’s an educator and, in many ways, found it quite

disturbing. When people asked questions, he anticipated that they’d want to

hear the answer and was distressed that they didn’t want to hear the

answer.

I hope the House will make Ernest very welcome, along with his

companion. And I hope the House will make sure that when we do get to

question period, the questions and answers can be heard.

Hon. B. Ralston: I have two sets of introductions this morning.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a former

constituent of mine, a retired Surrey firefighter who has made many

contributions to his community and continues to help the less fortunate.

That’s Tim Bailey. He’s joined by Tara-Lynn Gray, who’s here for her first

experience of viewing how our parliamentary system works or, maybe,

sometimes doesn’t quite work all that well. Please join me in welcoming both

of them. No applause? [Applause.]

I’m also delighted to welcome here representatives of the vibrant,

dynamic and well-positioned-for-future-growth life sciences sector. Dr.

Leslie Esford, who is the president, and Nancy Harrison, chair of the board

of LifeSciences B.C., are here. They’re also joined by board members Scott

Phillips, Dr. Pieter Cullis and Ali Ardakani. Please join me in welcoming

them as well.

J. Rice: Today in the House, we have an important person to me, the rock in my

life. Will the House make my wife Andrea Wilmot feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I waited as long as I could. There are 55 grade 5 students here in the

precinct from Glenlyon Norfolk School in my riding. They will be here

shortly in the gallery. They’re accompanied by three teachers: Ms. Wallace,

Ms. Stark and Ms. Chisholm.

They’ll be very excited to hear the introduction of a bill, I hope,

that was actually instrumental to some people in the school who, for many

years, worked hard to try to raise awareness of the issue of shark fins in

British Columbia — the consumption thereof — and the plight of sharks

internationally.

In anticipation of them coming to the gallery, please make them feel

very welcome.

Tributes

RON MITCHELL

G. Kyllo: It’s with a heavy heart that I stand here today to share with all

of you some heartfelt words at the passing of my dear friend Ron

Mitchell on October 19 at the age of 77.

Ron is survived by his loving wife, Rose, his partner in business

and life for 55 years. Ron and Rose were inseparable and shared a love

for one another that so many could only hope to experience.

Ron was a free-enterpriser, an entrepreneur in every sense of the

word. In 1972, a small farming operation in the Fraser Valley would be

his first business venture. In 1977, Ron and Rose founded Mitchell Tires

in Richmond, establishing a legendary reputation for serving the farming

community in the Fraser Valley. Honesty and integrity proved to be the

hallmark of Mitchell Tires.

After selling Mitchell Tires in 1995, at a time when Ron and Rose

could have easily entered early retirement, Ron had bigger plans. I can

only imagine the excitement, drive and sense of adventure that Ron and

Rose must have felt in making the decision to move to the Shuswap,

establishing Spa Hills Farm, a chicken and cattle business on Yankee

Flats Road, with their two sons, Josh and Jake. As the years progressed,

so did their diversification and their business interests, with the

founding of Spa Hills Custom Ride Restoration and Spa Hills

Compost.

Ron was a key influencer within the Shuswap Vintage Car Club,

hosting the annual chicken run at his farm for over 20 years. Ron also

charioted me in every parade that I have attended in the Shuswap over

the past four years, in Rose’s 1964 Ford Galaxy convertible.

Ron’s love of family was truly legendary. I know that his family

are keenly aware of what an amazing life he helped to create for all of

them.

[10:20 a.m.]

To Rose, Josh and De-Anna, Jake and Candace, and to Hanna, Tye,

Caleb, Mariah, Leah and Isaac, please accept my heartfelt sympathies. I

know you can take comfort in knowing that your lives were so positively

impacted by such an amazing man.

Ron, I’ll miss you dearly and think of you often. Ron Mitchell, to

a life well lived.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — FISH AND SEAFOOD

AMENDMENT ACT,

S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Fish and Seafood Amendment

Act, 2017.

S. Furstenau: I move that a bill intituled the Fish and Seafood Amendment Act,

2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and now read a first time.

I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Fish and

Seafood Amendment Act, 2017. Sharks are critical to the health of ocean

ecosystems and marine biodiversity. Sadly, sharks are also particularly

susceptible to decline due to overfishing. They are slow to reach

reproductive maturity. They birth small litters and cannot rebuild their

populations quickly once they are overfished.

The practice of shark finning — where a shark is caught, its fins

cut off and the carcass dumped back into the water — causes tens of

millions of sharks to die a slow and painful death each year. Data from

federal and international agencies show a decline in shark populations

worldwide. British Columbia is a market for shark fin, and this demand

helps drive up the practice of shark finning. By impacting the demand

for shark fins, British Columbia can help ensure that sharks do not

become extinct as a result of this. To this end, this bill seeks to

restrict the possession and distribution of shark fins.

I’d like to note that today is the ten-year anniversary of the

U.S. release of the documentary Sharkwater , a film that brought

this serious issue to the world’s attention. I’m honoured to be

contributing to the efforts of Rob Stewart, who tragically lost his life

while pursuing his passion to protect sharks.

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

Motion approved.

S. Furstenau: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

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

Bill M207, Fish and Seafood Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KIDNEY DISEASE AWARENESS AND WORK

OF PAUL AND DIANE

DUPERRON

S. Bond: On Sunday, October 29, Bill and I joined many Prince George

residents who were determined to make every kilometre count at the tenth

annual Kidney Walk. We would not have been there if it weren’t for the

incredible work of two amazing people, Paul and Diane

Duperron.

Paul was diagnosed with a rare kidney disease in 1985, and his

condition deteriorated over the years. Paul and Diane started the Prince

George

chapter of the Kidney Foundation in 2006, the year before Paul

started dialysis and the long wait for a kidney transplant. Paul finally

got his match in 2011 but, sadly, had difficulty with his donor kidney

right from the beginning. In fact, it failed in 2014.

Today Paul is back on the list waiting for another kidney. Despite

the physical effects of dialysis, like lack of energy and tiredness,

Paul continues to be grateful. He has said: “I still consider myself

fortunate, since I’m among the healthier patients.”

Paul and Diane are the heart and soul of the Kidney Foundation in

Prince George. Diane is the president of the Prince George

chapter and

is a northern regional director of the B.C. and Yukon branch, while Paul

is a board member of the Prince George

chapter and the secretary of the

B.C. and Yukon branch. If that isn’t enough, they regularly deliver

cookies, visit with kidney patients at the dialysis clinic and provide

much-needed comfort and information.

Paul Duperron and many others like him would love to have a

transplant. Transplants are called a gift of life. Paul and Diane

believe that heroes aren’t born; they’re registered.

You, too, can save a life through organ donation. I want to

encourage you to check out the Kidney Foundation campaign: “Saving lives

through organ donation.” I know that Paul and Diane Duperron and

thousands of families like them would be very grateful if you

did.

[10:25 a.m.]

BURNABY LOCAL HERO AWARDS

A. Kang: It was Halloween this past Tuesday, and we saw many superheroes on

the street. But those are not the only superheroes that we have. We have

a few in Burnaby as well.

Since 1997, the city of Burnaby, a community made stronger by the

services of its citizens, identifies and recognizes its local heroes.

This year there were many individuals that were recognized. These

individuals, of diverse interests and backgrounds, give back to the

community in a wide variety of ways. The total number of local heroes,

including the people being recognized this year, now stands at

This year’s local heroes are Tazul Nisha Ali and Giovanna Lore,

who have dedicated themselves to helping others, especially seniors; Joe

Gallo, who is active in community donations and emergency preparedness;

Delmer Rens and Daniella Revitt, who have been helping our school

students succeed; and Bernie Richter, who played a pivotal role in

helping the Burnaby Association for South East Side, otherwise known as

BASES, open a thrift store for the public.

Honestly, a two-minute statement is far from enough to recognize

our heroes’ services and outstanding contributions to our community.

These heroes have done everything from preparing us for the winter to

visiting isolated seniors in their homes. Regardless of what our heroes

volunteer their time on, they always remember to bring their contagious

smiles.

Our schools, libraries, recreation centres and community agencies

also played an important role in helping spread the word of the Burnaby

Local Hero Award. It shows how connected our community is. For those who

took the time and initiative to put together nomination submissions this

year, your efforts are also a form of community service and continue to

inspire more people to give back to the community.

Raised in a family that strongly values community involvement and

volunteerism, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the

recipients of this year’s Burnaby Local Hero Award. Thank you so much.

Your contributions and services are what make Burnaby great. Your love

for the community, kindness and selflessness are what make our province,

B.C., great.

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

T. Wat: We have just wrapped up Manufacturing Month in B.C., a time to

celebrate this key sector of our economy.

As part of Manufacturing Month, it was my pleasure, as an MLA and

the Trade critic, to sit down with four representatives of the Canadian

manufacturing industry — Ed Beange, president of Hansen Industries in

Vancouver, which produces precision sheet metal and machined components;

Allen Spear, president of Humble Manufacturing in Burnaby, which also

fabricates precision sheet metal and building components; Rob McCurdy,

CEO of Pinnacle Renewable Energy, which was founded in Quesnel and is

now the longest established wood pallet producer in western Canada; and

Andrew Elliott, president and CEO of Foley’s Chocolate and Candies,

which manufactures delicious chocolate and candy treats for my own

riding of Richmond North Centre.

They represent the great diversity that is found in B.C.’s

manufacturing sector. I thank them for taking the time to speak with me

about some of the challenges they face and some of the opportunities

they see moving forward.

Manufacturing is the third-largest contributor to the provincial

economy, generating $45.8 billion in sales. More than 66 percent of our

province’s exports are manufactured goods, and the sector provides

well-paying, high-skilled employment opportunities to more than 170,000

people across British Columbia.

With all this in mind, I ask all members of the House to join me

in thanking B.C.’s manufacturers for their many positive contributions

to our economy, and a big thank you to the Canadian Manufacturers and

Exporters organization for raising awareness about their important

role.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

B. D’Eith: According to the 2017 Volunteer B.C. annual report, 1.5 million

B.C. volunteers contribute 114 million hours a year to build better

communities in British Columbia. Volunteerism is clearly a core

component to a healthy British Columbia.

It’s no different in my community of Maple Ridge–Mission. Maple

Ridge–Mission has a long history of volunteer work. Last year, for

example, the Mission Hospital auxiliary had 150 volunteers, who donated

31,000 volunteer hours. The Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Community Services

had 68 volunteers, who donated 6,200 hours of volunteer work.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mission Community Services had 7,100 hours and 50 active

volunteers, plus another 30 in the Christmas Bureau. In the arts, the

ACT Arts Centre had 180 volunteers, who gave 5,700 hours of volunteer

work. The Friends in Need Food Bank had 14,000 hours donated in Maple

Ridge. And in the RCMP community group, 100 volunteers donated 5,000

volunteer hours.

This is amazing, and this is just Maple Ridge and Mission. It’s

amazing with the volunteers. These are just some examples. There are

many more examples in my community and other communities. That’s what

it’s really about — building communities.

When I came to Maple Ridge 15 years ago, I didn’t really know

anybody. I volunteered to coach minor hockey, and I met other volunteers

like Mel Vendrack, who’s in the audience today. These people became

close family friends and helped me build relationships in the community.

So it really is important. In fact, no one in this House would be

sitting here without the amazing work that volunteers give us tirelessly

for what they believe in.

I would like the whole House, if we could, to take a moment to

thank the amazing volunteers in British Columbia who help to sustain our

communities.

WATERSHED PROTECTION

AND COWICHAN WATERSHED

BOARD

S. Furstenau: In B.C., we have two-tiered water. Victoria and Vancouver are in

the top tier. These two regions own their watersheds and control what

happens in them. These two regions have also proactively protected their

watersheds, recognizing the direct correlation between intact forests

and high-quality water.

But in many other parts of B.C., communities are struggling to

protect their community watersheds and, ultimately, their drinking

water. I hear from people all across the province who are concerned

about activities that put their water at risk — clearcut logging,

quarrying, mining, dumping, fracking. Yet we all know the importance of

clean, safe water. Every community and every person depends on water for

survival.

In the face of these challenges and recognizing the critical

importance of our water, communities have started to come together to

work on long-term protection. In the Cowichan Valley, we have the

Cowichan Watershed Board. The mandate of the board is to provide

leadership for sustainable water management. The 14-member Cowichan

Watershed Board is co-chaired by Chief Seymour of the Cowichan Tribes

and Chair Lefebure of the Cowichan Valley Regional District. This is one

step in the Cowichan Valley’s reconciliation journey: working together

to advocate for the well-being of the Cowichan watershed.

At a recent dinner in Vancouver, I was approached by two women

from Reconciliation Canada who told me that they see the Cowichan

Watershed Board and its co-governance model as a perfect initiative for

bringing communities together and moving us along the journey of

reconciliation. Cowichan has been identified by the Polis Project on

Ecological Governance as a candidate for a watershed governance pilot

project, in large part due to the work of the Cowichan Watershed Board

and many others who are committed to a healthy future for our watershed

and our community.

I am so impressed by the work of all these dedicated people, and

I’ve learned since moving to Cowichan that water brings us together and

keeps us connected. For this, I am truly grateful.

GURU NANAK GURPURAB

R. Singh: I want to greet all British Columbians with a happy Gurpurab on

the auspicious occasion of the birth anniversary of Sri Guru Nanak Ji,

the founder of Sikhism.

Guru Nanak was a great man who stood up against caste-based

oppression and created a new faith that challenged the orthodoxy and

dogma of the established religions. The new order that he established

was based on the principles of equality and sharing. He not only

questioned superstition but also encouraged people to indulge in

dialogue to acquire new knowledge.

As a traveller, he went as far as the Middle East from his

birthplace in India to spread the message of love and universal

brotherhood. Through his revolutionary poetry, he countered the

oppressors and enlightened ordinary folks about truth and equality. He

also denounced discrimination against women and the so-called

Untouchables in Indian society.

[10:35 a.m.]

He introduced progressive concepts like langar , the free

communal kitchen, to end social discrimination against the poor and

outcasts, and he had a huge following among workers and tillers. He gave

the message to treat the earth as mother and water as father and taught

everyone to share and to earn a livelihood through hard work.

Guru Nanak will always be a relevant figure while bigotry, social

inequalities, gender bias and the degradation of the environment

continue. We all need to learn from his philosophy to make this world a

better place.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HOUSING INITIATIVES

S. Sullivan: My question is about a campaign promise that was made —

specifically, the promise to build 114,000 new homes for British

Columbians over the next ten years. Now, if the government is serious

about this commitment, this would mean about 41,900 homes built in the

next three years. Tenders would have to have been issued and property

purchased.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. What property has been

sited to build these 41,900 new homes she and her government have

promised over the next three years?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud to say in this House that we have started

delivering on our campaign commitments. We’ve already made announcements

for 2,000 modular units of housing throughout this province, and 600 of

those will be in the member’s community of Vancouver. That community has

stepped up big time and made sure that we are starting to

deliver.

The previous government completely ignored the issue and suggested

that people just leave the community of Vancouver and go up to Fort St.

John. That’s not what we’re about. We are delivering on our

commitment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: Two thousand modular units is a far cry from the 41,900 new homes

she promised British Columbians. There does seem to be a theme in this

government of delay, of broken promises. There seems to be a lot of

reviews, a lot of: “We’ll do it in the future.”

The Premier said he had a plan to build 114,000 new homes. I have

not seen anything to indicate there ever was a plan. The budget…. As the

minister says, 2,000 modular homes — a far cry from what she’s promised.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says that we should budget

$250,000 per unit. Ten-years cost for 114,000 units — $28.5

billion.

Now she has indicated by her answer that the sites aren’t there.

The money is not there. Will the minister tell this House that she

cannot answer questions about land location and cost because she knows

this is yet another promise her government does not intend to

keep?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member opposite about all the public lands

that their government sold because they didn’t care to make sure that we

had opportunities to build housing for British Columbians. They didn’t

care to preserve public assets to make sure that we had

opportunities.

I’m here to tell everyone in the House that we are working

together in partnership with so many across our province who are

excited. At the UBCM, the communities were coming one after the other

after the other, making sure that they were at the table with

us.

The previous government preferred to tell local governments that

they had no role. Well, they are excited to be working with us, and we

look forward to delivering on our commitments.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a second

supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

S. Sullivan: I thank the minister for that response. I know it was not an

answer, but I do credit her with at least attempting.

This government would need $28.5 billion plus over the next ten

years to build the 114,000 units. On top of that, it would need $57

million a month or a total of $684 million a year. I have seen nothing

of any of that in this budget. I’ve seen 2,000 modular homes.

Again to the minister. I understand she doesn’t want to admit to

another broken promise, but people deserve answers. How can British

Columbians take her seriously when it is so blatantly obvious there is

no plan to build this promised housing?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it looks like there wasn’t even a question in there, but I’m

going to get up on my feet and remind this House…. I don’t think the

member really looked at the budget very carefully. We’ve also committed

$208 million for 1,700 units of affordable rental that, when the

Liberals were in government, they chose to ignore.

Our government has made serious commitments. We are delivering. I

want to point out again, because I don’t think the members opposite

understand what partnership looks like, that our commitment is to work

in partnership, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

D. Ashton: We all know how incredibly important affordable housing is to many

of our citizens. I was ecstatic when the government recently announced

$4.5 million in “new supportive housing” in Penticton. However, imagine

my surprise when I reviewed the news release and the past government’s

news release — this one from April — announcing the same project. It

seems this government….

Interjections.

D. Ashton: I’ll say it again. It seems this government is so challenged to

try to meet their impossible promise….

Interjections.

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

D. Ashton: It seems this government is so challenged to meet their impossible

promise, they are now counting units from the previous B.C. Liberal

government’s record housing investments as their own.

My question to the minister: could she please tell this House how

many units that were funded by the previous government have been

reannounced by her or her government?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s always a pleasure to get up on my feet and talk about

housing. The previous government refused to actually address

affordability. They would rather….

Interjections.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: Our government is committed to making sure that British Columbians

have the housing they need. We recognize that there has been a serious

gap because the previous government ignored it.

We are working together with all the partners that are interested

in working with us — the local governments that are putting up their

land because the previous government sold land. They preferred to sell

land so that it makes it more difficult for British Columbians. We’re

committed to making sure that there’s a range of housing, and that’s

exactly what we’re doing.

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

D. Ashton: To stay on track with their promise, this NDP government would

need to complete 41,900 units in the next three years. The budget seems

to only commit to 3,700, and it seems to include reannouncing projects

and rolling out projects that were done by a previous

government.

The minister has yet to explain how many tenders have gone out,

how many bids have been received, the per-unit cost budget and when

these units will actually be built. Again to the Minister of Housing,

what is the government’s plan for land acquisition, for construction and

for servicing these additional 41,900 units over the next three

years?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I know the member opposite understands this. It’s important

to have partnerships in order to make sure that we have housing that

British Columbians need and that they work hard for.

[10:45 a.m.]

I find it really fascinating that members on the other side of the

House think that government is going to and should…. We committed to

work in partnership. I want to explain that word “partnership.” That

means working with non-profits. That means working with co-ops. That

means working with….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m losing my voice, so I can’t shout.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. S. Robinson: I can’t shout anymore. I’m losing my voice.

That means working in partnership with the co-op sector, with the

private sector, with the non-profit sector, with a faith-based sector.

There are so many who are dying to work with a government that cares.

The federal government is here as well. So are local governments. I’m

very proud to work with all of those who are interested in making sure

that there’s housing for British Columbians.

FOREIGN BUYER DATA AND

SPECULATION IN REAL ESTATE

INDUSTRY

A. Weaver: Yesterday the government released property transfer tax data that

clearly demonstrates the rising impact that foreign speculators are

having on our housing market. Fully 5 percent of the homes in the

capital regional district and Metro Vancouver, 10 percent in Burnaby —

that’s a doubling in a year — and 11 percent in Richmond were purchased

by foreign buyers in September alone. And that’s not counting all the

transactions that were able to avoid paying property transfer tax and

foreign buyers tax through creative measures.

Across every single community in Metro Vancouver, the percentage

of transactions involving a foreign national is going up. These

transactions have now an outsized impact on the entire market,

contributing beyond their relative share to the price increases we’re

seeing in our province. It’s essential that this government take action

on the use of foreign money in our real estate sector, and this action

must start now.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when will

British Columbia start implementing policies that will ensure that our

limited housing stock is used first as homes for British Columbians, not

as a bank to account for foreign capital?

Hon. C. James: I’m proud to work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing. This is a tax issue, and I’m proud that we’re actually doing

work in the Ministry of Finance on tax issues to come up with a

comprehensive strategy that will address affordability in our

province.

I appreciate the member’s question because what’s clear from the

figures is that the previous government’s piecemeal approach did not

work. You’re continuing to see foreign investment increase. We need to

address the issues.

Right now, within my ministry, we’re actively examining all of the

existing and new ideas for housing tax measures, including a speculation

tax, including the foreign buyers tax. We’re rejecting the piecemeal

approach because we know we have to address housing affordability in a

long-term strategy. That’s what we’re focused on, and that’s what we’re

going to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

If I may, before you continue, Member, remind all members that we

have visitors in the gallery. I’m thinking it’s difficult for them to

hear, and I’m especially reminded we have a wonderful group of young

school students in the gallery.

A. Weaver: That was timely. That wonderful group are actually grade 5

students from Glenlyon Norfolk, a school in my riding. So welcome here,

enjoying question period.

I appreciate the Minister of Finance rising in response to my

question, but my question was to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing about what is being done today, not what is going to be done

hypothetically in February.

Look, the reality of the situation is this. The previous

government brought us back in summer to implement — in a timely, urgent

fashion — a foreign buyers tax. This was done despite the budget cycle,

which was not occurring for another six months. So I don’t buy the

minister’s argument.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’ve heard the government talk about speculation taxes. Yet

there’s been no action. We’ve heard them talk about vacancy taxes. No

action. We’ve heard them talk about Airbnb. No action. To be blunt, the

government is acting like deer caught in headlights. This is the single

biggest issue facing our province, and we are told week in and week out:

“Wait and see.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: I’ve got some cheerleaders on the opposite side today. It’s

good.

The former Housing critic made it clear that tackling foreign

speculation was the most important step that could be taken. There are

plenty of actions that could be taken now to close loopholes. Sure,

we’re tracking and collecting data and working with our federal

partners. All could be done outside of the budget process.

My question to Municipal Affairs and Housing is: why has the

government been silent on the foreign demand issues since taking over

government?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member. In fact, you can check off a couple of those

pieces. The work we’re doing with the federal government is already

done. We included information-sharing in September. Those are exactly

conversations that are going on. That’s a piece that’s happening

now.

You can also check off, Member, the issue of closing the

fixed-term loophole to be able to protect tenants from unfair landlords

who were looking at year leases. You can also check off investing in the

residential tenancy branch to protect tenants and support good

landlords.

I would remind the member, as well, that in fact the information

that came forward on the foreign buyers data showed very clearly that

one measure simply doesn’t work. A comprehensive approach is needed.

That is what we are looking at now to end speculation in the real estate

market. I look forward to the member’s ideas so that we can put a plan

together long term that is going to address affordability.

HOUSING SPECULATION TAX

J. Yap: The Minister of Housing has faced considerable criticism for

seeming to be incapable of answering the most basic questions on her

file. She has been asked when she plans to bring in the 2 percent

speculation tax the NDP promised in their platform. Of course, she

hasn’t had an answer. She never has an answer for any real questions. I

will ask again about the timelines for the implementation of the tax.

People need to know.

To the Minister of Housing, when will she put in place the 2

percent speculation tax her party ran on?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to take a moment to thank my colleague the Minister of

Finance, who has been very working diligently on analyzing the tax

information and the tax structures that we need to do in order to

address housing speculation. She’s doing a fine piece of

work.

I want to just point out what Jill Atkey, the director of research

and education for the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, said. She

said: “For a long time, we’ve had these stopgap measures within the

housing system, so we’re kind of plugging holes as they appear without

addressing the housing system as an actual system and coming up with a

plan to assure affordability for a broad range of household

types.”

That is exactly what we’re doing. We are working together, making

sure that we address all aspects of the housing crisis, which is very

different from what the previous government did, which was play

Whac-a-Mole.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a supplemental.

J. Yap: That sounded like a stopgap answer. It was her leader, now the

Premier, who introduced a bill to create a 2 percent speculation tax

last year. It was her colleague the Attorney General who regularly

boasted about easy solutions that could be implemented immediately.

Instead, we have a minister who won’t even commit…

Interjections.

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

Member, please continue.

J. Yap: …to actions they campaigned on.

Will the Minister of Housing explain whether or not she intends to

implement the exact plan they ran on, or is this simply another NDP

broken promise?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: So far today what we learned is that the B.C. Liberals don’t

understand “partnership” and that they don’t understand “comprehensive.”

That’s what we’re doing. We’re developing a comprehensive plan in

partnership, and that’s what we’re going to be delivering on. I look

forward to the members opposite supporting our plan in the times going

forward.

I want to again thank the Minister of Finance for her hard work in

making sure that we stop playing Whac-a-Mole and have a comprehensive

plan going forward around tax structures that needs to happen in order

to deal with speculation.

FOREIGN BUYER DATA AND

GOVERNMENT HOUSING

INITIATIVES

A. Wilkinson: So far, from the Minister of Housing, we’ve heard that there’s

going to be a comprehensive, holistic plan to develop partnerships to

build a plan for a plan. Let’s get specific. Until this government was

sworn in, there was a regular disclosure of the number of foreign buyers

purchasing real estate in the British Columbia market. That stopped when

members of this government were sworn in. Looking at the record, no less

than the Attorney General said that those data were

meaningless.

Well, now we find that under pressure, the Minister of Housing was

found to say last week about these data releases: “I don’t know. I

hadn’t thought about that just yet.” Let’s hear that answer again about

the housing crisis in British Columbia. “I don’t know. I hadn’t thought

about that just yet,” she said. Now we find the data are suddenly being

posted again.

Will this minister stand up in the House and say that these data

will be published on a timely and regular basis so that British

Columbians can know what’s going on in the housing market? Please give

us an answer. Please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will at least start to hear the answer.

Hon. C. James: I’d just like to correct the member across the way. The foreign

buyers data actually comes out of the Ministry of Finance. That’s where

the information comes from. Staff in the ministry were looking at

three-month data. We decided we wanted it to come out monthly. The data

is out, and yes, it will be out every month.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s clear that a very small subset of cabinet is authorized

to give real answers, so I’m glad we finally got one.

Speaking of answers, here’s what the Premier had to say on

September 7 about housing: “We’re coming up on challenges that the

solutions we had hoped to implement are not as easy to do as we had

first hoped.” Now, the Minister of Housing may find there is a pretty

easy answer to her modular housing problem, because there are about 200

construction trailers sitting in the middle of the Terrace airport

because they’re cancelling projects all over this province.

This government has presented no plan whatsoever to work with the

private sector to increase the supply of housing, when everyone

knows…

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: …the private sector is the part that builds the housing in our

economy.

Can the minister…? Perhaps the minister will be allowed to answer

a question, Mr. Premier. Oh, he’s jumping to his feet already. Can the

minister, appointed by the Premier, explain why she has effectively

excluded the private sector from her consultations on

housing?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s good to be back in the House. I had other business yesterday

in Vancouver, and I’ve found that the quality of the questions has not

improved in my absence.

I’ve been trying to take inventory…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …on what keeps the opposition busy these days, and it seems it’s

following the headlines. I would have thought that the headline on

today’s papers, “B.C. Liberals Bungle Site C, Put Ratepayers in Shock,”

might have been the line of questioning they would have followed today.

I would have thought that a modest amount of humility from that side of

the House would have acknowledged that the housing crisis that we

inherited was a result of their inaction. I would have

thought…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that the B.C. Liberal opposition would have got comfortable in

their role and would have been constructive in their questioning, but

alas, we have to await constructive questions from the members from the

Green caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we continue, I’m reminded that the youngsters from

an elementary school left quickly. I’m hoping we’re not going to see

more visitors from the gallery leave.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

J. Sturdy: Earlier this week the Minister of Transportation was asked, on

multiple occasions, to provide an update on her review of the George

Massey Tunnel replacement project. Not only was she unwilling — or,

perhaps, unable — to answer the basic questions, but she was then

contradicted by her own staff when they disclosed that a consultant had

already been engaged and had begun work. Furthermore, we’re now told

that the ministry had identified some two dozen people, or companies,

and begun work with multiple agencies and groups. The minister chose not

to share any of these important details with the House.

To the minister, it seems that she either has, at best, a tenuous

grasp on what is happening in her ministry or purposefully chose to

withhold information from this House. Can the minister please confirm

that she instructed her staff to find a fix to a problem that she

herself created in question period by not being up to date on a file

that is critical to the lives and families of 80,000 daily

commuters?

Hon. C. Trevena: I find it risible that the critic for my file says that we’re

trying to fix things. What we’re trying to do is fix the mess that the

opposition left us after they were in government. If the B.C. Liberals

and the Premier of the former government, Christy Clark, hadn’t been so

driven to have a vanity project….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you might take your seat for a moment.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that side of the House, when they were in government, hadn’t

been so driven to rush into a project without doing a fundamental

technical review of all the issues, we would not be in this

place.

We now have an expert who is looking at the technical problems. We

are working, as the Minister of Housing said, in partnership with the

local governments to make sure we get the best response for the people

of B.C.

[11:05 a.m.]

We want to ensure that our infrastructure is done in the best way

possible. We acknowledge that there is a problem on the Highway 99

corridor. What we want to do is get a result that will really help the

people of B.C. and make sure that families can travel safely, can get

home and not be dealing with the constant problems left over by that

side of the House when they were government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, I thank the minister for the response, if not an answer. I

can assure the minister that no one is questioning the ability or

competence of her ministry staff. However, it wouldn’t surprise her to

know, I’m sure, that we find her grasp of this important file very much

in question.

The Ministry of Transportation has, for over five years, conducted

extensive due diligence on this project. There are over 1,000 pages of

materials that are publicly available and posted on the ministry website

alone.

My question to the minister is: did she at least review the

information on the ministry’s own website before deciding to undertake

this decidedly unnecessary review?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think that nobody questions the need for this review. This is

something that is fundamental to make sure that, when we are spending

billions of dollars of public money, we get it right. We know that there

was much disagreement with that side of the House when their government

approached this project. Apart from one mayor, there was absolute

concern.

Even that mayor…. I have to say that Mayor Jackson, the mayor of

Delta, has written to me saying: “Delta council is very supportive of

the provincial government’s decision to undertake an independent review

of this project. We appreciate it’s important to ensure any decision on

the future of the crossing is based on the best available

information.”

That’s what we’re doing. We’re getting the best available

information to make sure we get the right decision.

[End of question period.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a petition from 420 residents of west Arrow Park asking for

24-hour ferry service to their community.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Office of the

Conflict of Interest Commissioner for 2016.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 13, Pooled Registered

Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017.

Before I go to the estimates in the little House, I would like to inform

the House that yesterday…. We have an agreement with the opposition on the end

time for the Ministry of Children and Families, which was an additional two

hours today. I don’t know how it happened. The opposition doesn’t know how it

happened. Apparently, the wrong motion was moved yesterday, and the estimates

were adjourned.

Motions Without Notice

RECOMMITTAL OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

ESTIMATES

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That the report of the Committee of Supply

Section A presented to

the Legislative Assembly on November 1, 2017 regarding Vote 18, Ministry

of Children and Family Development, be declared null and void and that

Vote 18 be recommitted forthwith.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry

of Children and Family Development.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — POOLED REGISTERED

PENSION PLANS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

Hon. C. James: On the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017. I’d

just like to introduce the staff who are here with me today: Aurora

Beraldin, who is a policy and legislative analyst, and Cynthia

Callahan-Maureen, financial and corporate services sector policy

branch.

I thank them for being here, and I look forward to the

questions.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Bond: As we said yesterday, the opposition thinks that the amendments

being suggested are practical. As the minister herself pointed out,

there are some savings. As she reminded us, every penny counts. We

certainly understand that need for pennies, if not a whole lot bigger

denominations.

I think that for

section 3, the amendment, if the minister could

just walk through it so that people understand that we’re eliminating

some duplication. But I think it is important because this is an

important tool for employers and employees, an important step in terms

of their retirement savings.

Information will continue to flow, but perhaps the minister could

just outline what the changes are, what we’re moving from and where the

information will be so that people can simply be reassured that the

information is available, and it’s simply avoiding

duplication.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the comments. I agree. I think it’s

important to outline why these changes are being made and the fact that

the public will still have full access. That’s the most important

piece.

The current requirement in this

section and in this bill is for

the minister to publish all multilateral agreements and amendments to

those agreements in the gazette. There is a cost to that, as the member

has said. It’s not massive, but every penny does count. The agreements

right now are also published on the Internet, so people have an

opportunity to be able to access them.

What this

section does is basically take away the duplication. It

removes the requirement to publish all multilateral registered pension

plan agreements and amendments to the ministry gazette, saving those

publication costs. But the act will ensure that the public is notified

of any agreements or any changes to agreements, including access to the

multilateral agreements and the amendments on the Internet.

[11:15 a.m.]

They will be fully accessible to the public. They are now. Right

now we’re doing a duplication. So this will take away the duplication,

but full access will still be available.

S. Bond: Just out of curiosity, how often are those kinds of amendments

made or agreements entered into? Is it a frequent thing? Does it happen

on a more rare occasion? Just so we have a sense of the magnitude of the

need to report out.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. There was an amendment made in March.

Often the amendments happen when other provinces join. That’s really the

change that occurs most often.

But there may be amendments that happen. There was an amendment in

March by Ontario, so there was a requirement to publish then. There’s

one coming up in November when Manitoba joins. That’ll probably be the

end of November when Manitoba joins. And then there are still three

other provinces that haven’t joined, so they may be provinces that would

come on. Those would be other opportunities for changes to the

agreement.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for that answer. I was going

to ask…. She anticipated my next question, which was: how many other

provinces…? It is an important evolution of people being able to look at

an avenue for retirement options for them.

Again, I thank the minister. I thank her staff. I think that

oftentimes we have debates about big things in this House, but it’s

often the smaller things that make a difference and an improvement in

the way that programs operate.

With that, I have no further questions.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:20 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — POOLED REGISTERED

PENSION PLANS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. C. Trevena: Committee stage of Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:23 a.m.

section 1.

M. Bernier: Again, just to reiterate what we talked about yesterday when we

were doing second reading, this is a bill, obviously, that our side also

supports. It’s something that we were actually looking at bringing in

and working on for the last couple years with the nurse practitioners in

the province.

section 1, just one quick question on the selection. I see

under (

e) that the first board is to be appointed. I’m just curious on

how that appointment process is going to work. Are there going to be any

elections that will take place at all? Completely at the discretion of

the minister is what I can see.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Essentially, the first board I appoint. What we’re trying to do is

allow for staggered elections, which makes it easier to maintain a full

board over time. We’ll get to some of those provisions later, but that’s

the intent, and that will then allow for elections.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

The Chair:

Section 7.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

section 8.

M. Bernier: We just talked about, through the repealing

section and

substituting and so on, in

section 2 of this one by order…. I’m just

curious now, when we get into this

section here, the process of the

minister with his staff — the recommendations around who’s going to

populate the board — in conjunction, obviously, with working with the

nurses, nurse practitioners. So if the minister can explain what his

thought process is around how he’s going to appoint those.

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to introduce Dr. David Byres. I’ve got to get the title

right; this is important. He’s assistant deputy minister, but this is

better: chief nursing executive of the province. And Brian Westgate —

he’s the expert on the legislation. David is an expert too, but he’s

also got a really good title, which I really like.

Right now the three colleges are working to put together a package

of people who have excellent skills in regulations. The original

appointment rests with me, but I’ll be certainly doing it based on the

work of the three colleges to put together a board to deal with this

initial period, when there’ll be a lot of work to do.

M. Bernier: In this section, as well — and the minister alluded to the fact of

staggered terms…. I understand completely the process of why he would

want to that. I didn’t see in here — and can the minister explain,

maybe, if it is — what those terms would look like. Are we talking

staggered one and two year, two and four year? What’s the thought

process on that?

Hon. A. Dix: We’re looking at some two, some three and some four. But remember,

the initial board, ultimately, would be replaced after the elections.

The intent is to have some for terms of two, some for terms of three and

some for terms of four, initially, so that the staggering occurs. Then

it becomes easier after that. We’ll formalize it after that. Once the

two are up, they might get three or four, and then the staggering will

continue over time.

M. Bernier: A question that was given to me to ask of the minister on this:

are they going to be completely paid or volunteer board

members?

Hon. A. Dix: Board members receive a stipend, a small amount, to be members of

the board, and then expenses for the work that they do. But these are

volunteer positions, fundamentally, and the stipend is small.

I’d be happy to share with the member — I don’t have it here — the

stipends for the boards of the different health colleges around

B.C.

[11:30 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Still on

section 8, (f)(5) at the very end of this section. I’m

just wondering if the minister can explain this

section a little bit,

because we’re repealing and changing the wording here. A substitution

allows somebody that might be on the board, if they’re continuing work

on a project, I understand…. It looks like this. Even if they resign or

have been removed from the board, if they’re on a specific project, they

can continue on, on the board for that project, even though they’re

not….

I’m just wanting some clarification from the minister. What kind

of situation…? What would be the benefit? I understand continuity, but

if somebody’s resigning, should they not be replaced now? It seems

contrary, almost, to what we’re doing.

Hon. A. Dix: What this refers to are cases…. The college board may have a

hearing or a case that they’ve heard all the evidence for. This allows

them to continue to act on that case until their work on it is fully

discharged. Otherwise, you would have people who might leave a board but

have heard a case, and you’d want them to continue on to the end of that

case, so you wouldn’t be replacing them with someone new.

The purpose is really to ensure justice in particular cases and to

ensure that there’s continuity in board decisions. Sometimes the

decisions of people leaving the board are out of sync with cases and

hearings that come before the college.

M. Bernier: My only concern with that…. I appreciate, again, that there’s a

lot of work put in. As we were saying, it’s a bit of a thankless job

when we’re on these boards, because there’s a lot of work that takes

place, and people are giving a lot of their time. So I don’t want to

make it sound like I’m criticizing that at all.

But one of my concerns would be…. Is the minister looking — or is

it through the board, through policy, would they be looking — at a time

limit, though? Sometimes you could be having a case being heard or an

issue that could actually take, maybe, a year or two. In this, we’re not

talking a couple of weeks or months here. This could be something that

could continue on. So is there a time limit consideration? How do you

actually find an end date for that issue?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for his question. We’re in an unusual period,

because we’re reducing from three boards to one. At the three colleges,

there are now hearings and processes going forward, and we don’t want to

simply abandon those processes.

In this process, as we move to a new board, we have the new

organization continue on. This would be used, especially now. It might

be used in other circumstances — not that much likely. But there will be

a number of instances now where people who wouldn’t be on the new board

— because, by definition, there are fewer members on that — would want

to continue to finish the work they had done on the existing nursing

colleges, particularly on cases or complaints that have been brought

forward.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Bernier: This

section here.... Obviously, the minister and I can smirk over

this — questions around having a public administrator. I’m just curious

if the minister, through the consideration through this board…. When

would he see the actual need to actually have an administrator come in

to replace the board?

[11:35 a.m.]

The Chair: Members, while we’re waiting for the minister to provide an

answer for the next section, I have to repeat

section 7. I don’t

think it was clear.

Section 7 approved.

section 9 (continued) .

Hon. A. Dix: I think what we’re talking about, really, is a public interest

test. Right now, there are ways to get at this problem if we want to do

it — issuing directives, having reviews or adding more members to the

board until you change the composition of the board.

The feeling is that this provision, which is in place in some

other provinces, is a simple solution in a very unlikely event. I

couldn’t really…. It’s hard to imagine circumstances, given the quality

of the people who’ve served over decades on these boards, where that

would occur. But if that occurred, you’d want a way to deal with the

problem simply and expeditiously so that you can get back to the regular

actions of the board.

We don’t have this provision now, so it becomes very complicated

to deal with the problem where a board or a college might not be acting

in the public interest. It might be acting in the interests of the

profession rather than the public interest. I wouldn’t expect that to

happen. I hope it would never happen. I wouldn’t expect it would happen

in my stay in this job, although the former….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: No, because — and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena will

appreciate this — we have an outstanding deputy minister in Health. As a

former deputy minister, he knows…. He served with Mr. Brown, and we have

a very high standard of people in the Ministry of Health who work with

the colleges every day, including Dr. Byres.

So part of this is the ongoing work we do together. Part of it

truly is the commitment of professions to their work and their efforts —

in this case, nursing professions, but all professions. I wouldn’t

expect to ever use this, but this facilitates that in case there’s a

need.

M. Bernier: I do agree and applaud the minister for having this in here. It’s

one of those situations you want to make sure is covered off, that you

hope you never have to use. I understand and hope that it would be under

extraordinary circumstances that it would be needed, which we also hope

would also never actually happen in this situation. We have everybody

amalgamating not only under good faith, but for good reason — to move

things forward.

But in this

section here, what I don’t see is…. I’m curious,

because it would give the authority to the minister to appoint a special

adviser, basically a public administrator, in that unlikely situation.

But I don’t see a timeline put in. That leaves it pretty open-ended for

the minister in the unfortunate situation it was needed. So I’m curious

if the minister had thought about that — if it should actually have a

timeline in there, even though we hope we never have to use

it.

Hon. A. Dix: The member may have a different view, but I think putting a set

time limit in the law is not a flexible way of going about it. There may

be cases where what’s required is a month. In a transition, there may be

cases where is it takes longer. As the member will know, these are

unbelievably difficult decisions. I know that when he was the Minister

of Education, he went through them.

Well, we disagreed about some of those decisions. I understand how

seriously he took them and seriously took the issue of how long it would

be, I’m sure, and what that means for boards and communities and so on,

in Education. This is true here.

I think there would be an enormous desire to be the least time

possible. But setting a time would be a bit of a constraint on the

process. I think there should be the flexibility that would come with

consultation with the profession, of having it for a period set at the

time that the decision is made to appoint — in the unlikely event that a

decision is made to appoint an administrator.

M. Bernier: The minister and I agree on that. The minister needs to have that

flexibility in those circumstances, which you hope you’ll never have to

use.

At the very end, though, on this

section here, I’m just wondering

if the minister could explain — when it talks about expenses being

remitted back, or basically the government being paid back for any

expenses incurred if an administrator comes in. Again, I know we’re

talking about hypotheticals that we hope would never happen, but what

costs would actually be incurred that we’d expect the college to then

reimburse the government on?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Essentially to pay the administrator and any costs arising from

that — if the administrator felt, for example, that they needed more

help in that matter. So we’d be appointing the administrator, but it’s

the college’s responsibility, and that would be a debt that the college

would owe to the government in that unlikely circumstance.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

J. Isaacs: For

section 25.02(1)(

a) and (b), it reads: “The minister may

determine whether 2 or more colleges should be amalgamated under this

Part (

a) on request by a college or on the minister’s own initiative,

and (

b) with or without an investigation.”

Could the minister just explain a situation or an example of where

the minister’s own initiative would take place, as opposed to colleges

coming forward to do that, and just explain what “with or without an

investigation” means?

Hon. A. Dix: This allows, in fact, for the Minister of Health to amalgamate

boards even if there isn’t unanimous consent. I’ll just give a

circumstance. Say there was a desire to amalgamate three colleges — I

won’t give specific examples, because that will cause a disruption; we

don’t have any plans right now — and two colleges were in favour, but

the third was not cooperating. This would give the minister the

authority to amalgamate those colleges under those

circumstances.

In a general sense — and this isn’t new — health colleges, of

course, cost money in the system, not often directly to government, but

there is a desire, I think, for the public and everyone else, not to

significantly increase the number but rather, if it is appropriate and

it works for the professions, to start to reduce that number. This is an

example of that, which makes a lot of sense. And there may well be

others.

This gives the minister the ability to do it under those

circumstances. And it also gives him the power to do it either directly

or subsequent to a review that’s done.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

J. Isaacs: Just a quick clarification on language on

section 12. It says:

“(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out ‘a quality assurance committee

and a person acting on its behalf’ and substituting ‘that committee and

a person acting on that committee’s behalf….’” That sounds reasonable.

But then, when we go to

section 12(b), “and substituting the following,”

it goes back to the language of: “Despite subsection (1), a quality

assurance committee….”

I’m just wondering if quality assurance is a completely different

committee — from the committee — if they’re distinctly different, if

they do distinctly different things and if that language is the proper

language for the meaning of it?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I don’t know if the member liked grammar in school or not. I know

the member for Vancouver-Quilchena did, and I’m looking forward to the

debate on corrections of legislation. That’ll be excellent.

What we’re doing here is referring back to the existing act. This

is a change there. And in the sentence that’s being referred to here,

that’s being changed, “quality assurance committee” is referred to

twice. So they’re removing the first reference to “quality assurance

committee” and then referring to it as “that committee.” So we’re not

removing it in one subsection and changing it in the other.

Then the second section, as the member knows and as we have

discussed before, is the

section which allows people acting on behalf of

a committee as a result of an investigation, who learn something that

should go to a public health officer — it gives them the clear right and

obligation to deliver that information to a public health

officer.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for the answer over there.

Just a quick question on 15(e), where we’re talking about “one

person nominated by the board for the college responsible for carrying

out the objects of the Health Professions Act in respect of the

health profession of nursing.”

Just wanted to know what was included in nursing, if it includes,

in fact, nurse practitioners and care aides.

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The answer is nurse practitioners, yes; care aides, no. Care aides

are in another regulatory process.

Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

Hon. A. Dix: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name on the

order paper.

SECTION 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Commencement

21 This Act comes into force by

regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. on the

date of Royal Assent. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Dix: The purpose of this amendment is to bring this legislation into

force by royal assent. This is actually a debate we sometimes have in

the House at committee stage, about the regulatory process, how long it

might take and when legislation comes into place. There’s sometimes

legislation…. I think of provisions of the Medicare Protection Act that

had been waiting to be proclaimed for decades. In other cases, there’s

good sense to have a regulatory process afterwards.

In this case, there’s a real desire by the nursing colleges, by

everyone, to get on with it. There’s no real purpose to waiting to bring

it into force by a cabinet OIC. So when we pass the bill, if that

happens, and we get royal assent on the bill collectively, then the bill

will come into force with royal assent. That’s the purpose of the

amendment.

A. Weaver: Just a point on the amendment. I do appreciate and, obviously,

support the amendment as proposed by the minister.

My concern, of course, is that in due process normally, we’re

going to be seeking royal assent today on a bill. When a bill is amended

at committee stage, it’s normal to see it printed before third reading.

We’re going to be having to seek unanimous approval, and I think that

this practice should be avoided because it actually subverts the

democratic process to give people time to view, in writing, the printed

version of amendments.

Obviously, today I will support this, but in the future I would

ask government to give us the time required by our standing orders to

actually see a printed version of the bill after committee

stage.

The Chair: Member, for your information, the amendment is on the order

paper, so it was given to the members.

A. Weaver: I understand, hon. Chair, but we will be asked to go to third

reading immediately after committee. My understanding of the standing

orders is that we are entitled, as members, to see a printed version of

the bill that includes the actual amendment — prior to third reading, if

so desired. My concern is that we’re not actually going to see a printed

version of the bill.

On this case, it’s not a big deal, but it’s become practice in

this Legislature to immediately go from committee to third reading right

afterwards, even if amendments are there. I just would hope that in the

future this practice would no longer be used as a given. It does subvert

our attempts…. At third reading, we could stand and speak further once a

bill has been amended, if we saw such an amendment to actually have some

effects that we didn’t see without it printed, actually, in the

bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I’ve duly noted your comments.

Hon. A. Dix: Of course, I agree with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

That’s why there’s a choice, in this case — whether to move to third

reading or to wait a day and allow that to happen. That choice isn’t my

choice. It’s not even the choice of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena,

although he’s very distinguished. It’s the choice of members of the

Legislature.

The question has always been, and continues to be, to ask for

third reading by leave. If the member, or any member of the House,

decides that they don’t want to proceed immediately to third reading,

it’s absolutely their right to deny leave.

We’ll try that today, and we’ll see, in this case. The change is

modest and, I think, in the interest of the Legislature. In fact, it

gives the Legislature a little bit of power over the cabinet, in a very

minuscule way. We’ll see what happens. But if the member decides not to

provide leave, that’s absolutely appropriate, and we’ll do third

reading, as I say, at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Chair, I move that Bill 10 be reported complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete

with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, this is a moment of drama in this House. This rarely happens

at this time. So I would say, and I say this with great respect to

members of the House, by leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017, read a third time

and passed.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:18 a.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,595,922,000

(continued) .

L. Throness: I want to ask a few questions about the Columbia Power

Corporation. The Columbia Power Corporation built four major projects on

the Columbia River in the 1990s, a few others in more recent years. But

their mandate seems to me to be running out. They’re down from dams to

boat launches, I noticed on their website.

Their reason for being seems to be evaporating, and the CPC seems

to manage existing assets contracting out the operational side of most

of the work to Fortis, which means that the corporation isn’t doing much

at all. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me with respect to what the

corporation is doing now in terms of ongoing, substantive

work.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I would like to start with some statements here. As always, I’d

like to acknowledge that we are here on the traditional territory of the

Lekwungen-speaking people, including the Songhees and the Esquimalt

First Nations.

I’d like to start by introducing the executive team who support me

on all things Columbia, as we like call it. I’m joined today by Les

MacLaren, the assistant deputy minister, and Kathy Eichenberger, the

executive director for the Columbia River treaty review. I’d like to

explain these unusual circumstance. They are both from the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

We actually have a memorandum of understanding between our two

ministries so that the team from the Energy Ministry that have been

working on the treaty and have provided oversight for the Columbia Basin

Trust and Columbia Power Corporation can continue to support me, rather

than trying to re-create expertise in the Ministry of Children and

Family.

I want to point out that I’m really happy to be the minister for,

as we’ve been calling it, all things Columbia, because it’s incredibly

important to the region and the constituency I represent and the entire

Kootenay region, the Columbia region.

As the member has talked about, there are three entities

underneath that title. It’s the Columbia Basin Trust, the Columbia Power

Corporation and the Columbia River treaty. I’m working with my team here

from the Ministry of Energy to ensure that we get the best answers for

you.

With that, I’ll answer your question. Just to clarify with the

member, Columbia Power Corporation purchased and upgraded the Brilliant

dam. They constructed Arrow Lakes generating station at Keenleyside dam.

They also constructed Brilliant expansion, part of Brilliant dam. They

constructed Waneta expansion. They undertook that construction which was

finished in 2015.

All four of those projects actually completed the original mandate

of the Columbia Power Corporation. In 2015 and 2016, the corporation

looked at a number of different options, projects that could be done

within the Columbia Basin.

One of them they looked at was Elko. They put a lot of energy into

figuring out if that was one that was going to be done, and then it was

decided…. B.C. Hydro decided, because B.C. Hydro owns the Elko dam over

in the East Kootenays, that that wasn’t necessary to be done at this

time, so that project didn’t go ahead.

[11:25 a.m.]

Their mandate now is to oversee the operations of the existing

assets they have, the assets from the projects they’ve completed. Those

assets are an incredible benefit to the people of the basin, as well as

to the province. They bring significant assets to the province, which is

a benefit to the people of the entire province as well as to the

residents of the basin. Those are assets that are invested back into the

Columbia Basin Trust and are utilized within the region for numerous

projects, which we probably don’t have time to talk about today. So at

the time, that is the mandate of the Columbia Power

Corporation.

L. Throness: I’m not arguing that good work was not done in the past, but we

are talking about the past. The CPC is now down to doing things like

building boat launches and managing things that it actually contracts

out to Fortis.

I want to draw attention to the minister’s mandate letter. I have

seen mandate letters in federal and provincial governments, and I have

never seen a mandate letter such as the one signed by the minister to

CPC. Besides mandating regular meetings with the minister, there is no

mandate in the letter. I’m wondering why the minister did not include a

mandate in the letter for CPC. What is it supposed to do?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to point out that this was an intermandate letter and that

the corporation is continuing to follow the strategic direction set

out.

There are a number of things within the strategic direction to

enhance Columbia Power’s asset management process and management systems

to ensure long-term profitability, which is a huge issue in the basin,

to ensure the successful finalizing of the building of Waneta expansion,

as well as to work with the province and Columbia Basin Trust to explore

structural options to further enhance value to both the province and

basin residents while mitigating risk. Those are ongoing, as part of

their strategic direction.

I want to point out some of the other things that Columbia Power

Corp does. They have an ongoing engagement with First Nations in our

region. We have a very interesting situation. I think I’m the only rural

constituency in the province that does not have an established

reservation in our constituency. There are a number of bands and nations

that the Columbia Power Corp works with, who are all involved in the

region. I think it’s really important the work that’s done by the

corporation.

[11:30 a.m.]

You mentioned the boat launches, like that was almost derogatory.

In fact, those boat launches are incredibly important. They were work

undertaken by the Columbia Power Corporation for B.C. Hydro. They were

done because of the devastation that was caused to the valley in the

’60s when the original Keenleyside dam was built. There was no

consideration, other than power generation and flood control, to the

people of the valley. It was an issue that the people of the valley had

been asking about for many, many years.

It was finally undertaken through the good work of the people at

the Columbia Power Corporation, with the blessing of B.C. Hydro, to

ensure that these boat launches were built, and not only for recreation

but for fishing and for access to the lake and the river.

They’ve been incredibly important. The people of the region are

very, very happy that they’re there and very grateful to the work that

the Columbia Power Corporation does in the region to ensure that there’s

some retribution for what happened to the region and valley during the

’60s when the dam was built.

L. Throness: The building of boat launches and engaging with First Nations are

certainly important functions, but they are more social functions. They

have nothing to do with generating electrical power, which was what the

initial mandate of the CPC was. So everything that the minister is

saying is simply underscoring the reality that their mandate is

disappearing.

I want to know if the minister could provide the annual cost of

operating CPC and how many staff they employ.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to reiterate with the member, the mandate is complete. I also

want to add that the ongoing engagement with First Nations, which the

member referred to as social licence, is very much a part of…. For

today’s power companies, to be a responsible power corporation, to be a

responsible company, you do need to engage and have discussions with

First Nations.

A number of those First Nations also lost the ability to access

land, to access fish, to access their way of life when it was flooded,

and especially in the northern part of the basin. So it’s very much a

part of a good, responsible corporation to ensure that they are engaging

with First Nations.

Right now the operating expenses for the Columbia Power Corp are

$5.5 million. It was $17 million, but we generate $11 million in

interest from the work that’s done with the dams. There are

approximately 25 FTEs.

L. Throness: I wonder if now the minister could tell us what the operating cost

and staff complement of the Columbia Basin Trust is.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The expenditure is $7.2 million for the Columbia Basin Trust.

There are 53 FTEs. I just want to correct one from the last question.

There are 13 actual FTEs at Columbia Power Corporation, and then there

are ten FTEs where they are sharing resources to both Columbia Power

Corporation and Columbia Basin Trust. The two entities are housed in the

same building in Castlegar for economy benefits. They share resources.

They share ten FTEs.

L. Throness: The minister, of course, is responsible for the efficiency of

government operations, and that’s an important thing. The Columbia Basin

Trust is more of a social body that performs more of a social function.

More and more of the Columbia Power Corporation’s functions are social,

as the minister has described.

I’m wondering if there would be an efficiency gain if some of the

functions of Columbia Power Corporation were to be merged with the

Columbia Basin Trust, as she already says is happening in some physical

way. Given that they share office space, why wouldn’t they share

administration costs in order to push down those administration costs

and perhaps merge some of those jobs to accomplish the same thing at a

savings to the taxpayer?

Hon. K. Conroy: Right now the Columbia Power Corporation is working with the

province and the Columbia Basin Trust to explore structural options to

things that would further enhance both the province and the basin. Those

are discussions that are ongoing right now. It’s something that is being

looked at.

L. Throness: I just have one more question. It’s more of a political question

for the minister to answer.

With relation to appointments to the Columbia Basin Trust, the

idea of the former government was to keep the CBT non-partisan, was not

to appoint MLAs or former MLAs or constituency assistants to the board

and, during its period of 16 years, did not do so. The first thing the

NDP did was to allow the appointments of two very good business people

to lapse and to appoint Corky Evans, who is a former NDP Agriculture

Minister.

Why would this minister subject the trust to such blatant partisan

meddling? Is that what we can expect more of going forward from this

minister?

Hon. K. Conroy: Oh, thank you. I’m happy to answer this question. I just want to

correct something for the member, which you might not know.

[11:40 a.m.]

When the trust was originally created, back in the ’90s, the

legislation was such that the five MLAs from the basin all had a seat on

the board, at the table. In 2004, I believe it was, for whatever reason,

in the former government’s wisdom, they decided to remove that option

from the board. In the ’90s, if the MLA couldn’t sit at the board —

which was quite often; they were busy and couldn’t — they had the

ability to appoint a person themselves to sit to represent them at the

board.

For whatever reason, the former government decided that they

didn’t want to carry on with that. I don’t know if it was because there

were two opposition MLAs at the time or potentially could be in the

future — but for whatever reason. We won’t surmise on that today because

no one’s here to say why they did that.

I looked at the board of the trust, and I sat down and met with

the CEO of the trust, the board chair of the trust and other members of

the trust to talk about what they need for board members. I think it’s

really important when you are appointing people to boards that you bring

in people that have the experience, expertise and understanding so that

a board can continue to function.

At the time, there was a need for someone who had experience with

and understood the Columbia Basin Trust, who had an institutional

knowledge of what the trust was about, where the trust had come from and

where the trust was going. When it was suggested to me that Corky Evans

might be a good person to sit on the board, I wholeheartedly endorsed

that because Corky has all those things. He brings all those points to

the table.

He has a passion for the trust. He understands the basin. He knows

what the basin needs from years past, but he also is a real visionary.

He can look to the future and say: “This is what the Columbia Basin

Trust needs.” I was more than happy to agree with the people that I was

meeting with, with the Columbia Basin Trust, to say yes, that Corky

Evans is indeed a very good representative for the board.

At the same time, I also appointed David Raven, the former mayor

of Revelstoke — a very good friend of the former government, I might add

— who also has a real passion for the trust, is very committed to the

basin and understands the needs of the people of the region.

I think it’s really important to point out that neither

appointment was made in a political way. They were made in the best

interest of the Columbia Basin Trust. They were made in the best

interest of the basin, and I think it’s really important to put that on

the record. I know that the trust is going to benefit wholeheartedly by

both of these people that I’ve appointed to the board.

L. Throness: I think this is more about rewarding old political friends than

about competence, and it’s a disappointment to the opposition. However,

I think my time is done, and I think we have to report progress and seek

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada