Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 125

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Journey to Freedom Day and Vietnamese

Canadians

A. Wilkinson

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

Journey to Freedom Day and Vietnamese

Canadians

Hon. A. Dix

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Public Interest Disclosure Act

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 27 — Pill Press and Related Equipment Control

Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill M214 — Election Amendment Act, 2018

P. Milobar

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Gender violence and vigil for Asifa Bano

R. Singh

International Guide Dog Day

L. Reid

Wildfire recovery and role of Canadian Red

Cross

J. Rice

Marc-André Leclerc

L. Throness

Black Settler Heritage Day

L. Krog

Creative Industries Week

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Real estate speculation tax

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Hon. J. Horgan

B. Stewart

Resource industries and technology sector

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Real estate speculation tax

L. Throness

Hon. C. James

Budget revenue projections and real estate speculation

tax

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

Real estate speculation tax

R. Sultan

Hon. C. James

Tourism industry and municipal and regional district

tax program

N. Letnick

Hon. C. James

Youth overdose deaths and Safe Care Act

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a

Representative for Children and Youth

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Police

Complaint Commissioner

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Petitions

B. Stewart

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Class Proceedings Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Weaver

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Stilwell

S. Cadieux

M. Hunt

D. Barnett

C. Oakes

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2018

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: When I thought about what I would say…. It’s really hard to introduce one

of the most important people in your life. I was 16. I was homeless. I had a

backpack. I landed on the steps of my Auntie Gerry’s house in Ladysmith, and I

never knew where Ladysmith was.

She took me in. She made me go to school. She came to my rugby games. She’s

here in this chamber. I’m so proud of everything that she has done in my

life.

We talk about that a lot. All of the members — we didn’t make it here on

our own. So will the House please welcome my Auntie Gerry Busch and our family

friends Patricia Yonan and Ron Mason.

L. Reid: I have four incredibly important guests today representing the B.C. and

Alberta Guide Dogs. We have Samantha Jagt, puppy training supervisor for Vancouver

Island; Cory, who’s in the gallery — oh, he’s looking down at us; and Sonja

Seyfort, puppy trainer. Her dog is Piper. I’d ask the House to please make them

welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s my honour, first of all, to introduce on the floor of the Legislature

a distinguished guest from Ottawa, Sen. Thanh Hai Ngo, who is here as part of our

Journey to Freedom recognition day today. I want everyone in the House to wish

Senator Ngo welcome.

As well, some 15 Vietnamese-Canadian groups are joining us here today. I’m

not going to introduce everybody in the audience today, but I am going to list off

the groups, all of which play a significant role in the Vietnamese-Canadian

community: the Vietnamese-Canadian Community in Greater Vancouver; the Little

Saigon Vancouver Foundation; the Free Vietnamese Association in B.C.; the

Vietnamese Canadian Seniors Society of Greater Vancouver; the UN Army Volunteer

Reserve Brigade; the Mekong Delta Fellowship Society; the Vietnamese Cultural

Heritage Association — my colleague from Surrey-Whalley will know that Hop Phan

from the association is a constituent of his, and I see him nodding there,

signalling assent; the Vietnamese Women’s Society in Greater Vancouver; the

Vietnamese Veterans Association in B.C.; the Vietnamese Air Force Association; the

Vietnamese Heritage Association; Lac Viet Radio; Thoi Bao; VietBC Radio; and the

Yellow National Viet Nam Flag Conservation Association.

We had a very moving ceremony today. I ask everyone in the House to bid all

of our guests welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two guests who are in the House

today from AnxietyBC — Judith Law, the executive director, and Dr. Kyle Burns, a

board director. I hope the whole House will join me in welcoming them but also

thanking them, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, for the important

work that they do for the people of British Columbia every single day.

Statements

JOURNEY TO FREEDOM DAY

AND VIETNAMESE

CANADIANS

A. Wilkinson: I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Vietnamese community to

the Legislature and to amplify the comments of the Minister of

Health.

I had the extraordinary experience as a medical student in the late

1970s, in a distant, cold and barren place called Edmonton, of greeting

Vietnamese refugees who had come to Canada and made their first appearance for

health care — sometimes the first appearance of their entire lives — at the

hospital system in Edmonton where I was a student.

I then saw them again in the early ’80s, in my later medical student

days, and then again in 1993 at another clinic that I was involved in, where

one of the nurses actually was from rural Alberta. She had been working as a

missionary child in Vietnam and spoke fluent Vietnamese. So we had the

wonderful experience of recent Vietnamese arrivals coming in for medical care —

sometimes with chronic diseases unaddressed, sometimes with tropical illnesses

undiagnosed — and she would burst into fluent Vietnamese. The smiles would grow

across all of our faces.

We want to welcome the Vietnamese community here to British Columbia, of

course. This is a group of people with extraordinary dedication, resilience,

skill and a strong entrepreneurial spirit, who are inclined to set themselves

up in small business and look for the kind of success in their children that

they were sometimes kept away from because of the changes they went through in

their extraordinary lives. This is a once-in-a-lifetime transition from

destitution under a Communist regime, being driven out by boat to refugee camps

in the Philippines and Hong Kong, and their arrival in Canada. We have to do

our level best to make sure that people of that spirit are always welcome

here.

Thank you to the Minister of Health for welcoming the Vietnamese

community. Thank you for being here and very best wishes.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have two school groups in the chambers today. One is touring, and one

will be up watching question period. They are from Archbishop Carney Secondary.

There are 36 grade 11 students with teacher Mrs. Brygida Reis. The other group is

34 grade 11 students, and Mrs. Brygida is their teacher. Would the House please

make them most welcome.

L. Krog: The Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce is richer; my constituent is poorer. But

I’m incredibly honoured to welcome someone who’d pay to have lunch with me — one

of my constituents, Carmel Slusarenko. Would the House please make her

welcome.

R. Glumac: I’d like to introduce my friend Ivan Allen, who is visiting the Legislature

today for the first time. We worked together in the tech sector, and he helped me

out on my campaign. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

D. Routley: I have two introductions. First, I would like to introduce the people who

were introduced by my colleague, the Minister of…. Tatricia Yonan and Ron Mason

are accompanying Gerry Busch. Gerry Busch is the aunt who took in my colleague,

who so eloquently described how important that step was in her life.

I would like to thank Gerry for her volunteer work on our campaign. I also

would like to share with all of the members who, perhaps, weren’t here when her

niece was brought into this House. That was one of the most moving days that I

think any of us have experienced, with the First Nations drumming and dancing —

the sound echoing through this chamber. Another first in the B.C. Legislature: the

first, First Nations woman elected to this place. Down in the Hall of Honour, we

see the pictures of so many other firsts — and throughout this

building.

As diversity flourishes in British Columbia, so does it flourish in the

B.C. Legislature in the most moving ways that we saw reflected here today — and

that wonderful day that many members here experienced but some didn’t.

I just have to say that this is one of the most moving things that we can

possibly experience as we exercise the diversity of the province. So thank you to

Gerry.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Joining us in the gallery today is Anne Topp. Anne is a constituent of mine

in Saanich South, and she’s the former manager of community planning in Saanich.

We had a lovely lunch where we discussed the maps from the agricultural land

reserve, the original maps. Anne also worked with the Agricultural Land Commission

in the 1970s and worked with some of those maps. We talked about how important

those maps are in our history and how they should be preserved.

D. Routley: I have another introduction to make, and I promise not to forget her name.

She’s my daughter. She’s not here yet. She’ll be joining us in the chamber a bit

later. It’s harder to get an appointment with my daughter than it is with the

Premier.

She’s a young, budding chef at a five-star restaurant, the Sooke Harbour

House, and she’s just about to complete her apprenticeship there. I’m so very

proud of Maddie. I was a stay-at-home dad with her from three weeks old to six

years old, and those were the very best days of my life, without exception. I

absolutely loved those days.

When she was nine, her birthday wish was that I would take her to B.C.

Place to the cooking show there, so I did. She brought her little notebook and

made notes from all the celebrity chefs and got autographs. Then she said: “I want

to be a chef.” I thought: “Well, working in a commercial kitchen will cure her of

that desire.” It didn’t, and she’s flourishing.

I’d like to celebrate the success of Madeline Routley and ask the House to

help me celebrate her.

Ministerial Statements

JOURNEY TO FREEDOM DAY

AND VIETNAMESE

CANADIANS

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

The 30th of April is observed by many of the Vietnamese diaspora around

the world as a day of remembrance. The Journey to Freedom Day Act was passed by

the Canadian Parliament in 2015, marking it as a national day of commemoration.

The bill was sponsored by Senator Ngo, who is sitting with us in the House

today.

According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,

deteriorating living conditions and human rights abuses suffered by individuals

after the fall of Saigon contributed to an exodus of approximately 840,000

Vietnamese people to neighbouring countries in search of safety and freedom. It

has been reported by the UN that at least 250,000 Vietnamese people lost their

lives en route by drowning, illness, starvation, violence, kidnapping and

piracy.

I am moved by the members of this resilient community of Vietnamese boat

people and their families, who join us today to mark a key moment in Canada’s

and British Columbia’s history. For the first time today, the government of

British Columbia hosted a commemorative event at the Legislative Assembly to

honour the perilous journey that millions undertook at the end of the Vietnam

War and the acceptance of 60,000 Vietnamese refugees into Canada — the majority

by community groups, churches and other organizations — and the incredible

spirit of resilience and the contributions that Vietnamese-Canadian people have

made to their communities.

April 30 is also Ancestors Day in Vietnamese culture, a civilization

that has been around for 4,897 years. The 43 years since the fall of Saigon is

a long time in our lifetimes but merely a drop in the history of Vietnam. It is

essential that all governments understand that our time here is short and that

what we do with it, especially with respect to the rights of the powerless,

will say much about how we are remembered.

I look forward — and I know members of the House and the government do —

to joining with the Vietnamese community every year to recognize their journey

to freedom each year on or around April 30.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — PUBLIC INTEREST

DISCLOSURE

ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Public Interest Disclosure Act.

[1:50 p.m.]

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

I’m pleased to introduce the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This bill

will encourage employees to report serious wrongdoing by protecting them from

reprisals associated with such reporting. Government agreed to introduce public

interest disclosure, also known as whistle-blower legislation, as part of

accepting the recommendations of the Ombudsperson’s report into the 2012

Ministry of Health employment terminations, the Misfire

report.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act is based on a review of the best

practices from around the world. Ministry of Attorney General staff have

consulted extensively with the Office of the Ombudsperson while drafting this

act. Some key aspects of this act include the ability for employees to report

wrongdoing, either internally or externally, to the Ombudsperson and a positive

obligation on government to advise employees of the protections provided under

this act and how they can report serious wrongdoing.

Employees may disclose to the Ombudsperson information that would

otherwise be protected by cabinet privilege. Employees may disclose to a

designated officer or the Ombudsperson information subject to confidentiality

under another statute. However, a discloser cannot share this information

publicly.

Anonymous disclosure is permitted. There is a prescribed process for

public disclosure in very limited circumstances. The act protects disclosers

from reprisal and allows the Ombudsperson to make recommendations about how to

remedy a reprisal. Annual reporting by government and the Office of the

Ombudsman will ensure accountability to the public.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation does not create a positive

obligation on anyone to disclose serious wrongdoing. Rather, it provides

protections to individuals who disclose serious wrongdoing to the Ombudsperson

or designated officers within government in accordance with this act. Moreover,

the act specifically ensures that it does not take away any existing

protections provided to people who disclose wrongdoing under other

legislation.

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

Motion approved.

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

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Public Interest Disclosure Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED

EQUIPMENT CONTROL

ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pill Press and Related Equipment Control

Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 27, the Pill Press and Related Equipment

Control Act. The proposed Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act is part

of a suite of public safety initiatives we are working on to address some of

the issues of the opioid crisis, which resulted in 1,446 deaths in

This legislation is intended to help interdict the illicit supply of

counterfeit pills by limiting who can lawfully own a pill press or other like

equipment. This follows on the private member’s bill that we introduced a

number of years ago and also that the federal government introduced at the

national level. Law enforcement authorities have identified some significant

loopholes in the federal legislation which this piece of legislation that we

are tabling today will plug.

I move that the Speaker puts the motion.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, introduced, read a

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M214 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act,

P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act, 2018, of which

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

for the first time.

This bill is in keeping with the spirit of legislation introduced first

in the summer and then again in the fall which was meant to ensure that there

is no undue influence or perceived undue influence from corporate and union

entities on our provincial political parties.

This bill prohibits any political party that is receiving public tax

dollars for per-vote subsidies or public tax dollars for election reimbursement

costs from having positions reserved for union or corporate entities on

party-elected or -appointed committees or boards. This prohibition will ensure

that entities that are banned from donating money to political parties will not

have undue influence through guaranteed positions of power or decision-making

roles.

[1:55 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

P. Milobar: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M214, Election Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GENDER VIOLENCE

AND VIGIL FOR ASIFA

BANO

R. Singh: Statistics show that gender violence is one of the most common forms of

human rights violations in the world, often occurring during times of crisis

and conflict. Today I want to talk about one such event. The victim in this

case, eight-year-old Asifa Bano, was raped and murdered in the Indian province

of Jammu and Kashmir by religious bigots. As is often the case with gendered

violence, the perpetrators used this young child’s body as a weapon, with the

aim of intimidating her community.

Being a mother of a ten-year-old daughter, I’m completely shocked. So

are my constituents. On Thursday, April 19, hundreds of people attended a vigil

for Asifa, organized by Global Girl Power at Holland Park, in Surrey. The Mamta

Foundation, an organization that tries to help abandoned girls in India,

displayed posters of Asifa during the Vaisakhi parade in Surrey last Saturday.

On Monday, April 3, Alameen Post also organized an event for

Asifa.

It’s time we all stand up against gender violence. Canada has its long

history of violence and abuse, particularly as it pertains to Indigenous women

and children. As Canadians, we have a moral responsibility to deter that

violence and continue to invest in truth and reconciliation efforts. This is a

challenging conversation but one that needs to happen in order to put an end to

this type of injustice. We also need to encourage other nations to do the same

and rally together to find justice for Asifa.

INTERNATIONAL GUIDE DOG DAY

L. Reid: I’m dedicating my remarks today to Cory and Piper in the

gallery.

Today, April 25, is International Guide Dog Day. We recognize this day

because of the difference guide dogs make to those who are blind or visually

impaired.

Highly trained guide dogs provide independent, safe mobility. Under the

direction of their handler, these phenomenal dogs safely guide their partner on

a daily basis around obstacles; through busy traffic intersections; up and down

stairs, escalators and elevators; through doors; and on public transit. Guide

dogs assist blind and visually impaired citizens to fully participate, on their

own terms, in their own communities and further afield.

Internationally there are 94 charitable member organizations of the

International Guide Dog Federation, supporting 21,000 working guide dog teams.

We are fortunate in British Columbia to have one of these members — the British

Columbia Guide Dogs, established in 1996.

Today on International Guide Dog Day, we recognize the professional

staff, dedicated volunteers and, of course, guide dogs and the difference they

all make to blind and visually impaired guide dog users in British

Columbia.

B.C. and Alberta Guide Dogs is a fully accredited member of the

International Guide Dog Federation, Assistance Dogs International since 2008

and the Canadian Association of Guide and Assistance Dog Schools since 2004.

They provide guide dogs to blind and visually impaired individuals 14 years and

older and autism support dogs for children with profound autism, ages three to

ten years.

Our dogs give the partners increased safety, independence and

confidence. Clients pay a symbolic $1 for the dog and training in lifelong care

and aftercare. However, it takes two years and costs us $35,000 to breed, raise

and train a guide dog for an autism support dog.

We were founded in 1996 and then expanded into Alberta in 2002. Autism

Support Dogs was founded in 2008 to provide professionally trained guide dogs

to residents of British Columbia and Alberta.

We hope to see you all on May 12 for the Ties and Tails event. If you

can offer any assistance to B.C. and Alberta Guide Dogs, please give us a call

at 604-940-4504.

WILDFIRE RECOVERY AND

ROLE OF CANADIAN RED

CROSS

J. Rice: For more than 20 years, Al, 86, had built his life in the community of

Boston Flats, a mobile home park outside of Ashcroft. He spent his days

visiting with neighbours and restoring antique furniture in his backyard shop.

However, the life he knew changed in an instant after a wildfire destroyed

nearly all 49 homes in the park last summer.

“I lost everything — my house, my shop, my tools, everything,” Al says.

“In that moment, I really couldn’t see a future.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Al was several hours away from Boston Flats when he heard about the

evacuation order. Instead of returning home, he found himself at an emergency

reception centre in Kamloops, where emergency support services and the Red

Cross were helping evacuees with a place to sleep, food and comfort.

“The Red Cross gave me everything I needed in that moment,” he recalls.

“The light at the end of the tunnel will stay on thanks to the good people who

have helped.”

Some British Columbians are still reeling and communities are still

recovering from the devastating effects of last summer’s extraordinary flood

and wildfire season.

As we prepare for the spring snowpack melt and the wildfire risk that

follows, it’s important to recognize the critical role our public safety

partners play in these events. The Canadian Red Cross is one such partner. As

an auxiliary to government, the Red Cross stood shoulder to shoulder with

emergency management B.C., along with community partners and first responders,

to support British Columbians during the devastating floods and fires of last

season. Over the last year, the Red Cross has provided more than 5,000 people

with emotional supports, connected more than 1,000 families with community

mental health services and conducted more than 160 outreach visits to rural and

Indigenous communities.

Disasters can strike any time, any where. Together with the Red Cross

and our other public safety partners, we are committed to helping British

Columbians affected by emergencies and disasters. You can visit redcross.ca if

you want to get involved.

MARC-ANDRÉ LECLERC

L. Throness: I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable mountaineer who made an indelible

mark on the world before he was taken away too early at the age of

Marc-André Leclerc grew up in Agassiz, in my riding. From childhood, he

displayed a passion and ability to climb. For him, the mental and physical

challenge of a vertical rock face in blasting snow and cold was irresistible,

and he approached it with great energy, heedless of danger. For example, he

scaled three different routes to the top of Mount Slesse, near Chilliwack — one

of the most difficult peaks in Canada — without ropes, in a single

day.

He loved to climb alone in places where there was no room for error. At

21, he soloed the grand wall of the Stawamus Chief in Squamish in a record 58

minutes. The Globe and Mail called him “one of the most daring and

skilful mountain climbers that Canada has ever produced.” He quickly became a

full-time, sponsored climber and ascended hundreds of peaks all over the world,

including the forbidding Patagonian spires of Argentina, and became world

famous for it.

Almost as notable as his skill, courage and stamina was the impact of

his personality. He was a generous, humble and unassuming man, celebrating the

successes of others as much as his own. He loved to speak Spanish. He loved

animals. He cherished time spent with his girlfriend, an amazing fellow

climber, Brette Harrington.

Marc-André posted his last photograph after summiting a new route up the

north wall of the main tower of the seven Mendenhall Towers near Juno, Alaska,

in the dead of winter. He and his partner were caught in bad weather. Although

their climbing ropes were found just a few weeks ago, they lie in state in the

alpine environment that Marc-André loved. But his exploits will live on to

become the stuff of Canadian legend.

The condolences of this House go to Brette Harrington; his father,

Serge; his mother, Michelle Kuipers; his sister, Brigid-Anne Dunning; and his

brother, Elijah.

BLACK SETTLER HERITAGE DAY

L. Krog: Thanks to the hard work of a distinguished British Columbian, my

constituent Paul Winn, and the signature of another distinguished British

Columbian who just recently retired, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor Judith

Guichon, today is proclaimed Black Settler Heritage Day in British Columbia —

April 25. It marks the 160th anniversary of the arrival of the first black

settlers in British Columbia.

Many British Columbians know that our governor Sir James Douglas was the

product of a marriage of a Scottish male and a black female, which gives

British Columbia a unique place in history. Governor Douglas, being concerned

about the possibility of an American takeover, dispatched Capt. Jeremiah Nagle,

on the good ship Commodore , to go to San Francisco.

[2:05 p.m.]

On April 14, 1858, the black community gathered in Zion Church to listen

to the good captain, whose orders from Governor Douglas were to persuade black

Americans to come north and help colonize the British territories in British

Columbia. That meeting concluded with a decision to send 35 members of that

community north with Captain Nagle, on the Commodore , to have a look

at Victoria.

What they saw was a bit of a promised land. They saw a place where

blacks would enjoy the same rights as whites. They also saw cheap land. The

irony here is not lost on this chamber. The land was cheap because it had been

taken from another exploited peoples, the Indigenous peoples of this province.

Nevertheless, 800 signed up and headed north eventually, thus establishing a

significant black community in British Columbia, many of whom ended up living

on Saltspring Island, some of whom became leading citizens in the city of

Victoria.

I commend to any members who are interested to read a book called Go

Do Some Great Thing: The Black Pioneers of British Columbia , written by

Crawford Kilian. I first read it 40 years ago. It’s still a wonderful history.

Today we recognize another fascinating aspect of British Columbia’s history in

the arrival of blacks in B.C.

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

R. Sultan: It’s Creative Industries Week — 90,000 persons generating about $5

billion of GDP, a major economic driver. What is it exactly? Well, about

two-thirds of our creative sector is film, employing 60,000. Let me repeat that

number: employing 60,000. We are now North America’s third-ranked motion

picture hub, and our visual effects cluster is the world’s largest.

Next is interactive and digital media, with 16,000 persons working in

more than 500 companies on cutting-edge augmented reality and virtual reality.

About one-quarter the size of film, it grew about 20 percent since

Next is music. We are the third-ranked production centre in Canada, with

almost 1,200 performing artists and 6,400 musicians, singers and conductors

tied into 282 companies and 160 recording studios. Who would have known

it?

The fourth leg of our creative industry is book publishing and magazines

— 3,000 employees and employment growth of 4 percent since 2016. We have famous

writers, such as Douglas Coupland — writer, artist, social commentator, author

of Generation X and somebody you might bump into down at Ambleside

Beach.

Four creative sectors, significant in our economy, vital in our being,

important, all of them growing, partly because we help them. We hope the

government continues to nurture them as we have in the past.

Oral Questions

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

A. Wilkinson: We’re seeing the fruits of the Premier’s aggressive tax increases.

British Columbia is becoming an uncertain place to do business.

Under pressure from the official opposition and communities, the Finance

Minister backed off some of her speculation tax and reduced the scope of it,

the amount of it and the geography. But now we see the results.

A partial list. LedMac has postponed $250 million in development in

Kelowna. Macdonald Development has decided that it will cancel 600 homes in

Langford and another project in Kelowna, for a total of $500 million. And $200

million in projects in Victoria and New Westminster are being cancelled or

delayed by Belmont Properties. That includes 260 rental units here in Victoria.

Finally, Westcorp has put a project worth $230 million at risk in

Kelowna.

That’s over $1 billion of shrinkage in the British Columbia economy in

less than nine weeks, all because of the Finance Minister’s aggressive tax

agenda and the Premier’s inability to admit an error and back off on the

speculation tax. In the face of this embarrassment, will the Premier instruct

his cabinet and his Finance Minister to exempt communities asking to be

relieved of this excessive tax burden?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I have to start with why we’re

in this situation in the first place. We’re in this situation because we have a

housing crisis and because the other side refused to address it for years and

years and years. And what is the result? The result is families can’t find

places to live in the communities that they work in, whether we’re talking

about teachers or firefighters, whether we’re talking about city workers or

nurses.

These are individuals who have been struggling to find affordable

housing who aren’t able to find it. We have not only a responsibility. We have

an obligation to the people of British Columbia to address the biggest issue

facing them, which is the housing crisis. We are acting, and we are going to

continue to act on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is a defining moment for this government — when the Finance

Minister stands up and says she is working on her affordability agenda to

create more housing. The total is 1,110 housing units cancelled, that will not

proceed. So the Finance Minister has just made a bit of a fool of

herself.

When will the Finance Minister admit that this tax has been a failure?

The communities asking for exemption, including Kelowna, West Kelowna, Sooke,

Nanaimo, Saanich and even the Premier’s own community of Langford…. When will

she listen to them and exempt them from this tax before more jobs are destroyed

and more housing units disappear?

Hon. C. James: I will tell the member on the other side and all the members on the

other side that I am always proud to stand up for British Columbians and

address the worst crisis they are facing.

We went through an election campaign where the biggest issue raised was

housing affordability. This side of the House said we were going to stand up

for British Columbians. We said we were going to begin to address that crisis,

and that’s exactly what we are doing.

Now, I recognize that there are people who have benefited from the

speculation in the market. I recognize that there are people who don’t want

things to change because they have done very well. But we are standing up for

the families of British Columbia, the businesses of British Columbia, the

people who have been struggling with affordable housing, with recruiting and

retaining employees, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s becoming clear that this Finance Minister is happy to continue

blundering around in the marketplace, destroying jobs and wiping out housing

units because of her commitment to the speculation tax.

The Premier said on April 5: “I think a mature and responsible

government looks around. They implement policy, and they gauge what the

consequences of those policies are.” Well, Premier, the consequences are: over

1,000 housing units are disappearing, over $1 billion of shrinkage in the

economy because of the pigheaded approach of the Finance Minister in insisting

on proceeding with a tax that doesn’t work. She shrunk it once. When will she

shrink it to be completely disappeared?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think if the Leader of the Opposition is introducing himself to

British Columbians, he’s on the wrong track by name-calling and drawing into

question the integrity of the people anywhere on this side of the House or on

that side of the House.

I will say this. The member talked about taxation. Well, we have

eliminated half of the MSP premium increases that that government brought in

over 16 years. We’re doing away with the PST on electricity for large companies

and modest-sized companies so they can get a bit of a break after 70 percent

hydro rate increases on the watch of the government on the other side. We’re

taking steps in this House to make sure that ICBC costs don’t run completely

out of control, which is what they would have done if they had been elected on

May 9. Thank goodness they weren’t.

B. Stewart: Even Tom Davidoff, the academic architect of this tax, thinks the

government should “just let municipalities opt in or out.”

[2:15 p.m.]

I have a letter from a local Kelowna design company that reads: “In the

last two months, I have had 12 clients cease their plans. This equates to an

estimated $20 million to $25 million out of my small firm in construction, in

jobs, etc.”

To the minister, will she grant an exemption to the communities that are

demanding out of her tax?

Hon. C. James: We introduced the principles of this tax in the budget in February. We

took the opportunity to listen to British Columbians. We have finalized the

details of this tax. The reason we are taking a look at the communities that we

are looking at is because of the severe unaffordability in those communities.

Kelowna, severely unaffordable. The international housing affordability survey

has found Kelowna has a 0.2 percent vacancy rate. In Nanaimo, vacancy rates

were 1.6 percent. Langford has a vacancy rate of zero percent for homes with

three bedrooms or more.

We are going to address the issue of housing affordability for British

Columbia families in the areas where it is most difficult to find affordable

housing. That’s good for those families, and that’s good for the economy in

British Columbia.

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

B. Stewart: Well, I beg to differ. What is happening in these communities…. I can

speak for two of them that I represent. There are hundreds and hundreds of jobs

that are being put at risk and, actually, people that are intending to look for

housing that are basically being taken out of the opportunity for jobs. One of

these projects is over 300 jobs at risk in the community, and more projects are

being cancelled every day.

I have another letter from a local builder: “We have already been forced

to indefinitely postpone the development of a townhouse project. This impacts

hundreds of employees and is a direct result of the concern and fear of the

unknown of this undefined speculation tax.”

The minister defines these employees and construction workers as

speculators and the 1 percent. These are real people, and they are hurting. How

is she going to help them?

Hon. C. James: We are helping those individuals and those workers and those businesses

by making sure that there is affordable housing in communities that they work

in so they can actually afford to live in those communities.

I’d like to read some comments. Gerard from Kelowna says: “If someone

can afford two houses and uses one in Kelowna just a few weeks of the year and

leaves the house empty for the rest, then they should pay the speculation tax.

That home could otherwise be occupied by young couples that live and work here

but are forced out of the market.”

We are going to address affordable housing. The public has said clearly

it’s the biggest issue they face. We brought forward a 30-point, comprehensive

housing plan that we will continue to monitor over this next year. We will work

on behalf of British Columbians, as we committed to during the

election.

RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

AND TECHNOLOGY

SECTOR

A. Weaver: British Columbia is blessed with a wealth of natural resources, and many

communities rely on these resources for their livelihoods. But British Columbia

will never compete head to head in digging dirt out of the ground with other

jurisdictions that don’t internalize the social and environmental externalities

that are so important to us. We have to be smarter, more efficient and

innovative. In doing so, we’re not only able to sell our resources, but we’re

also able to sell the knowledge and value-added products that arise from

them.

Rather than adopting a race-for-the-bottom approach to deregulation, we

have an incredible opportunity here in British Columbia to integrate our tech

sector and our extractive resource industries. B.C.-based companies like

MineSense, a company that creates digital mining technology, exemplify such

innovation.

To the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Partnering our resource

industries with B.C. innovation is an easy choice with obvious returns. What is

this minister doing to encourage these partnerships?

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the member’s optimism about the power of technological discovery

and innovation to transform very traditional resource industries. In fact,

that’s what we’re doing by appointing the innovation commissioner and expanding

the mandate of Innovate B.C. to support emerging technologies that will assist

in transforming our resource industries.

[2:20 p.m.]

MineSense is a very good example that illustrates the point, I think,

extremely effectively. MineSense is a company which won an award as one of the

world’s top-100 new clean-tech companies. What it does is…. It’s a technology

which assists in sorting mining ore through a sensor system, which makes the

process more efficient and therefore more profitable. It also reduces the use

of water, reagents and other aspects of the mining process, and it reduces

CO 2 emissions, therefore making the entire process more

energy-efficient and, in effect, greener.

That’s the kind of transformation that’s coming about in the sector, and

that’s what the innovation commissioner and the innovation commission are

setting out to continue and to enhance, building future prosperity here in

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: For far too long, government has ignored the potential for innovation

within the resource sector. A race-for-the-bottom approach to resource

extraction may benefit a few corporate elite, but it’s not in the best interest

of communities across our province struggling to attract and retain

well-paying, long-term jobs.

It’s not just our raw resources that can be profitable in the global

markets; it’s our innovation too. Rimex, for example, is a B.C-based company

that designs and manufactures innovative, cutting-edge industrial tires. Their

products are efficient and reduce risk, and they’re also a prime example of

B.C. innovation that’s gone global. The manufacturing base and corporate

headquarters for Rimex are both located in the Lower Mainland, and there are

over 200 Rimex employees in the province of British Columbia.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this: what

is the minister doing to foster the growth of B.C. mining sector innovation in

this global marketplace?

Hon. B. Ralston: Again, I thank the member for the question. The government, the Minister

of Energy and Mines, has appointed a mining task force, and those issues that

the member raises are precisely some of the issues that that task force will

raise — how to integrate British Columbia’s leading innovation and technology

sector with the traditional resource industries in order to make sure that they

can compete globally.

Another example of a B.C. company that is transforming the mining sector

is LlamaZOO, which by using data analytics and visualization technology,

enables those proposing a mine to create a digital double of the mine and to

plan the extraction of the ore in a more efficient way. That technology has

attracted wide interest in the mining sector, and that company is,

understandably, doing very well.

That’s just one example of what innovation and the support that’s given

to it by the government of British Columbia will do to transform the mining

sector and enable it to continue to be a world-leading sector here in British

Columbia.

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

L. Throness: Well, 25 years ago Brian from Chilliwack bought a little cabin in the

nearby hills close to Ryder Lake. Big mistake. Ryder Lake is still subject to

the so-called speculation tax.

Now, Brian is not a rich man. He’s not a speculator. He’s just a grandpa

who wants to entertain his grandkids at his family cabin. Why is the Finance

Minister still targeting Brian with her cabin tax?

Hon. C. James: More than 99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the speculation

tax. We’re targeting the tax to large urban centres with the most serious

housing crisis. For people who do own two houses that are in the areas that are

targeted for the speculation tax, the first $400,000 will not be taxed. So

again, for most people who have small cabins that are family cabins, they are

well below the $400,000. They do not pay tax on that.

The other resources will help us with affordable housing for families in

British Columbia, which they have long been calling for in this

province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: This is not a speculation tax; it is an asset tax on ordinary people.

Despite her changes, the minister is still taxing family cabins.

Now, the minister’s on-line ads claim that she’s targeting the 1

percent. Is the minister saying that Brian is part of the 1 percent and that

ordinary people like him who own cabins are responsible for increasing housing

prices?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The other side just needs to take a look in a mirror to know who is

responsible for the housing crisis we see in British Columbia.

British Columbians know we were left with a crisis. Are we going to be

able to fix it overnight? No, we aren’t. But it’s why we took the time this

fall to put together a 30-point plan, a housing plan that is 30 points more

than the other side has ever imagined, bringing more into this

province.

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

AND REAL ESTATE SPECULATION

TAX

S. Bond: After causing concern and outrage across the province with a half-baked

cabin tax — and by the way, the Finance Minister did not tell British

Columbians during the election campaign that if they owned a cabin, they’d be

captured by a speculation tax — this minister caved in and introduced another

version of the speculation tax. But it still doesn’t focus on speculators, and

communities remain concerned and confused.

Adding to the confusion is the refusal of this minister to update her

revenue projections as she tries to fix her blunder. A simple question to the

minister. The tax has been amended. What is the revised revenue

forecast?

Hon. C. James: I would first say to the member that taking the time to listen to

British Columbians, to be able to refine the tax, to do the consultation that

we said would occur on the specifics and the implementation is exactly what

British Columbians want and what they didn’t get from the other side when it

came to talking to British Columbians.

Again, we were very cautious in our budget numbers. We were clear about

that. I certainly hope that people who have two or three or four extra houses

put them on the rental market so that people can find affordable places to

live. That would be success.

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

S. Bond: This minister is creating tax policy by trial and error, with no clarity

and no details. The reason that she needed to listen to British Columbians was

because there was such an outcry when British Columbians who own a cabin found

out they were captured in the speculation tax.

Let’s go back to the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

S. Bond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s go back to the question. The minister forecast $487 million in

revenue. That’s a numbers question. Now she has reversed herself on major

elements of the tax. She reduced the coverage area, she reduced the rate for

British Columbians, and she reduced the rate for Canadians.

How can the minister possibly stand up and claim that the revenue

projections that she projected are still accurate? Today will this minister

provide British Columbians with accurate, revised revenue numbers?

Hon. C. James: As I said on budget day, as I said on the day we came out with the

specifics around the tax, as I will continue to say to the member, we are very

conservative in our budget numbers. We were conservative when we put the

numbers into the budget. We were very cautious in the numbers we have in here.

There is no change in the numbers.

As I said earlier, 99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the

speculation tax. Now, the members may be upset about that. They may be upset

that not more people are impacted so they can bring forward issues. We are

addressing affordable housing for British Columbians and will continue to do

so.

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

R. Sultan: As every week goes by, the groundswell of opposition to the so-called

speculation tax intensifies. British Columbians aren’t getting the speculation

tax they were sold, and people are upset.

I was troubled by the response to their concerns. The member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale scoffed at those who opposed the speculation tax with a most

disrespectful tweet: “If you’re not pissing off somebody, you’re not doing

anything important.”

[2:30 p.m.]

A question for the Minister of Housing. Does she share the same opinion

as her parliamentary secretary? Does she, too, feel it’s important — to use the

words of the member — to be “pissing off” British Columbians with these

half-baked taxes?

Hon. C. James: What the people of British Columbia are seeing is a government, on this

side of the House, that is addressing the housing crisis in this province —

finally, after 16 years.

Perhaps that member would like to hear from Peter, a father and a

homeowner in West Vancouver. He writes in his support of the B.C. speculation

tax. He says: “There are many empty homes, and homes with satellite families,

in West Vancouver. They contribute little to our province and social services.

For those of us who live here, it is infuriating. I support the speculation

tax.”

That is one British Columbian of many who want action, who are looking

for a government to do that, and they are getting that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a supplemental.

R. Sultan: Clearly, the minister is not reading my email flow.

Thousands of British Columbians will be very interested in hearing how

this government dismisses legitimate concerns. The member’s tweet is a direct

insult to the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade and the growing list of

municipalities that are seeking exemption from the tax.

Again to the Minister of Housing, will she clearly repudiate the

comments made by her parliamentary secretary?

Hon. C. James: The other side had 16 years to address the housing affordability crisis.

I understand they’re frustrated that they didn’t do anything to try and make it

more affordable for families.

We had businesses who approached us to say: “If we don’t address the

housing affordability crisis, we are not able to recruit employees. We are not

able to retain employees.” We have people who are leaving this province. You

had the seniors advocate last week saying that no longer is it simply families

and individuals. It’s grandmas and grandpas who are at risk of homelessness

because of the affordability crisis. It’s seniors who are in this

situation.

That is unconscionable. We as a government have a responsibility to act,

and that is exactly what we are going to do.

TOURISM INDUSTRY AND MUNICIPAL

AND REGIONAL DISTRICT TAX

PROGRAM

N. Letnick: For 30 years now, the municipal and regional district tax program has

provided vital funding for local tourism marketing efforts. Tourism

organizations across the province are deeply concerned with this government’s

plan to divert money from tourism to a half-baked housing tax. There was zero

consultation before they were blindsided by this proposal.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can she explain why she’s

taking vital dollars away from tourism-dependent communities through her

half-baked scheme?

Hon. C. James: The member is completely wrong on the question. What we are doing,

through the MRDT, otherwise known as the hotel tax, is enabling municipalities

and the tourism industry, if they wish, to use some of the MRDT resources to be

able to provide for housing. It’s a tool that municipalities have expressed an

interest in.

I’ll give you the example of Tofino. It’s a community that has trouble

finding housing for their employees who work in the tourism industry. So it has

a direct link to the tourism industry.

It is entirely up to municipalities and tourism organizations. You have

many communities, such as Victoria, that have already said they don’t have an

interest in that. They’re using the money in other ways. That is their choice

as a municipality.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.

N. Letnick: The minister introduced this change without any idea of what impact it

would have to the tourism sector. She never even consulted with them, I

understand. Hoteliers are now saying that they may pull out of this program

altogether, a program that they started, which means less money for the tourism

sector or anything else. This is another lose-lose NDP tax blunder.

Again to the minister, will she commit today to leaving the intent of

this program the way that it always has been? That is to support tourism

marketing.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll say again that municipalities and tourism operators can do exactly

what they are doing today. That is exactly their opportunity. They can continue

doing what they are doing today. But if they have a conversation together and

they come up with a solution and decide that they want to utilize some of those

resources for housing, because that’ll support the tourism industry, they are

allowed to do that as well.

I’m not sure why the other side would think solving a problem together

is a problem. Only that side could come up with that as a problem. It’s a

solution, if they want to take it.

YOUTH OVERDOSE DEATHS

AND SAFE CARE ACT

J. Thornthwaite: My questions are for the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Last

year there were 23 illicit drug overdose deaths amongst children aged 10 to 18.

There have been a further three deaths so far this year. The Safe Care Act was

introduced this February. Rather than yet another review, why not bring this

bill forward for debate today?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for her question. The member may know that as

soon as we heard of the death of Elliot from Oak Bay, a 16-year-old student, my

office reached out to his family. I met with the parents just today, just an

hour ago.

I want to begin by acknowledging their pain and their suffering and the

heartbreak. As a parent, or anyone in this Legislature, I don’t think we can

imagine anything more devastating than the loss of a child. I want to really

admire their courage in speaking out in order to try and help prevent tragedies

in the future.

Nothing is more important to this government, nothing is more important

to our ministry, than the safety of our kids. That is why our ministry was

created. It is why a central part of my mandate is to develop a plan for child

and youth mental health, which includes addressing addictions and overdoses

amongst our young people. As part of developing that plan, we will be looking

at all of the potential pieces of legislation and all of the policies that

potentially affect this issue.

We will also be listening to the health professionals and the experts on

the front line. Island Health is conducting a review of any interaction that

Elliot or his family had with the health care system to see if they have

recommendations for changes. The coroner’s report will be making a

recommendation.

We are listening very carefully to families. We’ll be reviewing all of

the policies and all of the actions, and we will be acting in order to ensure

that children are safe.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Brenda Doherty said: “My daughter was released prematurely from the

hospital and overdosed a day and a half later. If there had been legislation

like the Safe Care Act in place, her death could have been avoided.”

Again my question is to the minister. In the interest of helping

children with substance use issues, will the minister bring the private

member’s bill entitled the Safe Care Act, where all of the work has already

been done, to the floor for debate today?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you, again, to the member for her question. As the member also

knows, I met with Steffanie’s parents, from Squamish, and they expressed their

views about the Safe Care Act. They also spoke to me, as did Elliot’s parents

today at noon, and they shared with me, in heartbreaking detail, their

perception, their experiences, of how the system failed their children in many

different ways. They shared with me the tragedy of the loss, but they also

shared with me their children’s journey through the system and their family’s

journey through the system.

Steffanie’s parents talked about fragmentation in the system. They

talked about gaps in the system. They talked about going to one door and then

it closing in their face, going to another door and it being closed in their

face. Elliot’s parents, at noon today, talked about the same thing — about his

care being fragmented, about the gaps, about the lack of a withdrawal

management plan when he was released.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is a complex issue. Anyone who works in the field of addictions

knows this is a very complex issue. There is not one single solution, and

that’s why we are looking at the wide range of services and supports and

programs and legislation and policy to support children at risk of

overdose.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move two motions to appoint committees. I have shared

the text of those motions with the opposition.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend

to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Representative for Children

and Youth, pursuant to

section 2 of the Representative for Children and

Youth Act , S.B.C. 2006, c. 29.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to

refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during

the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following Members:

Nicholas Simons (Convener), Anne Kang, Linda Reid, Stephanie Cadieux and Sonia

Furstenau.]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A POLICE

COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend

to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Police Complaint Commissioner,

pursuant to

section 47 of the Police Act [RSBC 1996] c.367

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to

refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during

the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following Members:

Rachna Singh (Convener), Garry Begg, Rich Coleman, Mike Morris and Sonia

Furstenau.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 15, Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate

on the estimates for child care, minister of state.

Petitions

B. Stewart: I rise today to present a petition. This petition is called “scrap the

speculation tax” and has, to date, acquired and assembled over 17,000 signatures

on it, and more are signing each and every day. My constituency office alone has

received over 749 emails as of this morning protesting this tax, along with copies

of another 250 letters submitted to the city of West Kelowna. My constituents and

everyone who has signed this petition are urging the government to rethink their

controversial speculation tax.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — ENERGY, MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. M. Mungall: Before we get started, I just wanted to introduce my staff. We have Ines

Piccinino, who is the associate deputy minister for the oil and gas division of

the ministry. We have Richard Grieve here, who is the executive director of

regulatory and infrastructure branch. And we have Sara Gregory, who is

vice-president, legal services and regulatory affairs, with the B.C. Oil and

Gas Commission.

The Chair: The member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the minister and the staff as

well.

As we move through this bill, we have some important questions or

clarifications on certain areas that we want to be able to bring forward. It

will give the minister an opportunity to give some explanation of certain

aspects of the bill as well, and give her an opportunity to clarify some

areas.

As was mentioned in our discussions earlier yesterday, of course, this

is not something that we see as a bill that we are going to be opposing,

necessarily, but there are some clarifications that we need to make sure that

we get on the record from the minister. I know that she’ll indulge me as we

move forward through this.

section 1, specifically, if the minister can start by explaining….

Under the act,

section 12 — under the permits, I believe — was already in

there, and now we’ve added the heritage conservation portion to it. Can the

minister maybe explain a little bit more about why that’s being added into the

Oil and Gas Activities Act?

Hon. M. Mungall: If I understand the member’s question correctly, he’s wondering why we

would have eliminated a reference to

section 12 of the Heritage Conservation

Act but then kind of put it back in.

It’s just in terms of making sure that we’re grammatically correct, as

we include a reference to

section 14 of the heritage act — specifically wanting

to include the investigation component of that — so that we’re not just doing

inspections but also doing heritage investigations under the OGC.

M. Bernier: The minister doesn’t have to worry. We’ll have lots of time, as we go

through this, to allow some flexibility. Hopefully, if there’s clarification on

any questions that I ask, she can just ask that of me.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we talk about the Heritage Conservation Act, then, can the minister

confirm whether or not…? If I remember correctly, before this, especially

around permits…. Is this going to allow more opportunity or more oversight, I

guess, from the Oil and Gas Commission by adding these components within the

act?

Hon. M. Mungall: As the member may know, prior to this act — I guess currently, today —

FLNRO does the investigations and the inspections under the Heritage

Conservation Act. But our Oil and Gas Commission is the concept of a one-stop

shop for the industry. What we want to do is maintain that one-stop shop and

move those activities over from FLNRO to the Oil and Gas Commission so that

they’re able to do the investigations and the inspections, as well as issue the

permits.

M. Bernier:

Section 12 — just back to that one for a second — of the Heritage

Conservation Act, I believe, gives more authority to the minister, or she can

actually designate authority under

section 12 of that act. Is the intention,

then…? Is the minister going to have oversight herself, through her ministry?

Or is she going to actually be allowing that oversight specifically to the Oil

and Gas Commission under

section 12?

Hon. M. Mungall: It will be the Oil and Gas Commission.

M. Bernier: Then, if we jump to

section 14 — I’m trying to jump around in my head

here too — of the Heritage Conservation Act, we’re going to give more

authority, it sounds like, to the Oil and Gas Commission for the work that they

need to do. I understand how — as the minister stated, through FLNRO, prior —

we want to have that one-stop shop. That is important, not only for business

but, I would say, maybe for affected landowners and others as well.

I’m just trying to understand. Under those authorities, is it going to

give them more opportunity, then — I’m thinking, again, that most of this

activity is up in my part of the province — to do more research before permits

are handed out, to do more consultation under that? If we’re dealing with the

Heritage Conservation Act, is it going to be consultation now with communities,

First Nations, affected landowners? I’m just wondering if this is going to be

taken into effect now and how that will either expedite or maybe slow down the

process for permits being lent out.

Hon. M. Mungall: The intention is to actually expedite the process that the member is

asking about. The reason is that right now the OGC does a lot of the actual

on-the-ground work. Then they have to feed it back to FLNRO, and you have this

administrative back-and-forth.

To expedite, we would be reducing that administrative back-and-forth so

that OGC is not only doing the work but they’re responsible for the compliance

as well, and for ultimately making the decisions and so on. We would imagine

that when you keep everything in one agency, rather than having an agency in

another ministry having to oversee everything, we’re actually reducing some of

that red tape and, therefore, expediting the type of work that’s being

done.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Can the minister maybe give some examples, then, of how, by adding

section 14 in, that will broaden the OGC’s mandate of what they can actually

review and discuss prior to permits going out? I think we’re very clear on the

fact that

section 14, now being added in, will allow that one-stop shop, but

I’m just wanting to get on the record, then, some examples from the minister of

what she’s heard or what she thinks the OGC will now be looking at before

decisions are made.

Hon. M. Mungall: I don’t have a specific example that would walk the member through the

steps, but I think that on the level of a specific example, as we’re

discovering more and more fossils in the northeast, for example, this is

exactly where this type of work will come into play.

What the OGC will be doing is that they’ll be the ones receiving the

application, as opposed to FLNRORD, they will be the ones doing the

consultations and the engagement with First Nations, they’ll be evaluating the

plan and issuing the permit, or not, and then they will be responsible for the

enforcement. So for every step that occurs right now, the OGC will just have

100 percent administrative responsibility for it.

M. Bernier: First of all, thank you for that answer and for the highlight of the

paleontological finds that we have up in my area. Of course, that’s quite

important. We want to be able to work with those finds, with industry, with

communities and all that. That’s really important. If that helps expedite and

give certainty, I would say, to companies when they’re applying for permits in

their roles, that’s obviously a good thing.

[3:00 p.m.]

Can the minister let the House know — as this bill was being drafted up

and presented before it came here — whether it received green, yellow or red

legal advice before it came to the floor?

Just to clarify, usually before a bill is presented, it has gone through

legal scrutiny within the Legislature here, with advice given back: green,

yellow or red. Green being, obviously, that there are no issues the Ministry of

Justice sees with this. Yellow means there are warnings that there could be

some legal challenges. Red is an advice saying: “Please don’t put this bill

forward.” It’s up to the minister and cabinet whether they do anyway. I’m just

curious what advice she was given.

Hon. M. Mungall: I was a little bit confused there, because that process is used for the

orders-in-council, as opposed to legislation. But if this was an OIC, rather

than legislation, it would get a green tag.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. A lot of times — in my past life, of course —

before legislation was brought forward, a similar process went through. So I

appreciate that. Now, before we move on…. I know there’ll be some other

questions too.

Under

section 1, I think, will be the most appropriate place to ask

this. The Oil and Gas Commission has put out a document — and I know I’m not

allowed to use props — a comprehensive liability management plan, that I know

the minister’s staff around here is aware of. We’ve had some discussions. I

just want to bring this forward and have a few questions.

The reason why I believe it’s relevant is because in this letter that

they’re putting forward, they quite explicitly reference this proposed bill in

legislation on some of the changes or ideas that they might be bringing

forward.

I’m not sure if they have it in front of them. It looks like they do. So

they should be able to follow my questions.

Again, at the very beginning of the second chapter, they’re looking at

doing a comprehensive liability management plan, which is really supporting

this legislation — some of the changes. I’m just curious. When they look at the

principles that they’re going to put out in this management plan, one of the

things they want to look for, one of the principles — and I’ll probably canvass

this as we go through the bill a little later on as well — is having timely

reclamation and restoration of inactive oil and gas sites.

I’m just curious, from the minister’s thoughts — and what kinds of

discussions, maybe, with the OGC — what the ideas of “timely” mean. Of course,

this bill is being brought forward, I’m told, because it’s timely, in the sense

that we have quite a few orphan wells that we want to be able to look at. Is

there going to be discussion and has there been direction or has the Oil and

Gas Commission maybe discussed what their thoughts are around bringing forward

timely reclamation and what that would mean?

Hon. M. Mungall: The timeline, in terms of what defines “timely,” isn’t in this

section

of the bill. It’s in another section. I would recommend that when we get there,

we talk about it then. Right now, the information bulletin…. As the member

knows, we’re talking about legislation, so we might want to keep following

section by section. We’ll be able to address that in greater detail when we get

to the

section that actually looks at time frames and how regulation will be

involved in deciding those time frames.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, thanks to the minister. That’s fair enough. We’re continuing with

section 1, of course.

We’re giving more flexibility and more authority to the Oil and Gas

Commission in many aspects of this bill. One of the ones, then, maybe I’ll ask

— it is also referenced in this letter, but it could be also considered when we

look at sections 12 and 14, under the Heritage Conservation Act component — is

the relationship that the Oil and Gas Commission, then, will have as they’re

going through their process and using this with respect to local First

Nations.

I don’t see that addressed anywhere within the actual bill or the

changes that the minister has put forward within Bill 15. But within this

letter, it is quite explicit. It says that now all decision-making will be

considered around UNDRIP. I know it’s something that her government has made

sure that they’ve talked about — almost every aspect that they’ve brought

forward in this House. I guess how I’ll tie that into

section 1 is around the

heritage and conservation portion of it.

What is the Oil and Gas Commission’s role now in dealing with local

First Nations, encompassing the government’s ideals around their commitments to

UNDRIP, before, after and during permits and applications?

Hon. M. Mungall: Government’s obligations to work with First Nations and the relationship

with First Nations are not governed by any legislation. They’re governed,

ultimately, by constitutional relationships that are defined in written

constitution, as well as conventions and decisions, often, by the Supreme Court

of Canada. Ultimately, that’s how those relationships are defined. That flows

throughout all government agencies, as well as ministries.

In relation, though, to the Heritage Conservation Act and how the OGC

will be conducting its requirement to consult with First Nations, again, it

follows those directives that come from a broader constitutionality. But it is

required for the OGC to consult with First Nations any time they’re issuing a

permit that’s respective of the Heritage Conservation Act. That work has

already been taking place and will continue to.

S. Furstenau: I just want to ask a few more questions about the increase in authority

to the Oil and Gas Commission and it becoming a one-stop shop. Given some of

the challenges we’ve seen with the Oil and Gas Commission in its capacity to

regulate — for example, the several dozen illegal dams that have been

discovered up in the northeast — does the minister not have some hesitation

around this and also recognize that government ultimately does have a

regulatory and oversight role that should be played in this?

Hon. M. Mungall: The short answer is: no, there is not a hesitation. The Oil and Gas

Commission has a very strong record of operations. Have there been some

problems in the past? Yes. Are they correcting them right now? Yes, they are as

well. So in terms of a hesitation in their ability to fulfil their duties under

this particular

section of the act, there is not one.

S. Furstenau: I actually find it a little ironic, given that there is a review of

professional reliance underway in this province because of a recognition that

industry and self-regulation have actually resulted in some pretty worrying

outcomes. The Oil and Gas Commission has a dual role of both promoting the

industry and — now an increased role — in regulation and oversight.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think that there should be some hesitation around this and that the

track record is not one that shouldn’t be raising concerns. Being a one-stop

shop, I think, is going to raise a lot of alarm bells for people that have been

monitoring the Oil and Gas Commission’s activities.

I guess I ask again, just in terms of the minister’s view: what role

does she think her own ministry and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resources should be playing in this, then?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ve already communicated that I have confidence in the OGC to manage

the appropriate oversight that’s been given to them under this act. If there’s

further commentary or concern about the OGC in reference to other parts of its

activity, I’m happy to address those in estimates.

Just so that the member knows, her comment around the OGC’s dual role of

also being a promoter of the industry as well as regulator is not correct

whatsoever. The OGC’s purposes are to be a regulatory body. I would refer her

to the act governing the Oil and Gas Commission where it lists its purposes,

and promoting the industry is not on that list.

S. Furstenau: Can the minister give some clarification around the OGC’s capacity to

pass regulations without bringing them forward to cabinet? Will this expand

that capacity?

Hon. M. Mungall: No, it will not expand any capacity whatsoever in terms of making

regulations without review by cabinet.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s flexibility as we go through this.

Obviously, there are questions that can also sound like we’re in estimates,

which we are not. I appreciate the fact that she’s indulging in answering those

questions to the best of her ability, which obviously can be canvassed more

later on, during estimates, as well.

Under

section 2, we’re talking about the crux of this whole bill in

front of us, which is changing from a tax to a levy. There are obviously other

things we’ll talk about. Can the minister start, first of all, by explaining

why we want to move from a tax to a levy system?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was mentioning in second reading debate, the reason why we’re

moving from a tax to a levy…. I appreciate the member actually asking this

question, because for a lot of people in the public they’re like: “Any time the

government asks for money, it’s got to be a tax, right?” There are actually

different legal mechanisms that define whether it’s a tax or whether it’s a

levy.

[3:15 p.m.]

For something to be a tax, it is in legislation. The rate is defined in

legislation and so on. What we have found is that going that route has

disallowed government and the OGC to be responsive to what might be happening,

in terms of industry conditions — how it impacts industry — but also how it

impacts the public interest and how our land is ultimately managed.

A better approach that we identified would be a levy. How a levy works,

legally, which makes it different than a tax, is that it’s not defined within

legislation but rather in regulation. So as things change — and therefore

change on the land base — we are able to respond more quickly and in a way that

ensures that the public interest is being protected.

In this particular case, moving from a tax that’s defined within the

legislation to a levy that we can deal with in regulation, we’ll be able to

address the situation that we find ourselves in right now, which is that

industry had a major shift. That was a downturn. It caused increased orphaned

wells. We just don’t have enough money from industry in the orphan site

reclamation fund to actually be reclaiming the increased number of orphan

wells.

If we don’t change this, the result will be that taxpayers, through

other means than the industry tax that funds this particular fund, would be on

the hook for paying for the reclamation and doing the environmental work of

those orphan sites. The concept of fairness is not being met there. Industry

should be paying for these types of things, so we want to use a levy, which

would allow government, through the OGC, to be more actively responsive to

situations like we find ourselves in.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’ll give the minister an opportunity here. We both know the

answer. Just so we can, through this process, also share that information with

the public, can she please explain, then, or tell the House how many orphan

wells there are, how that increase has changed over the last couple of years

and why we’re looking at this bill?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member asking questions that we may have already

discussed in second reading. It’s because this committee stage addresses a lot

of the

interpretation and the motivation for legislation, if legal issues ever

come up.

For the member’s information, in 2016 we had 45 orphaned wells; a year

later, 220. Right now, we’re sitting at 307. So they’re growing quite

substantially. We have $3 million in the fund. I can tell the member that that

does not cover the need to reclaim 307 orphaned wells. In terms of how much our

current liability is at, we’re just calculating. I will get it to the member in

one second. Hold on.

Pardon me. There’s $13 million in the fund at the end of the fiscal, not

$3 million. It’s still staggeringly low from where the current liability is. If

we were going to reclaim all 307 orphan sites today, it’d be $62

million.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. I know approximately what it costs

to reclaim a well. So when I heard $3 million, I was a little nervous

there.

Again, I know that the minister and I talked about this in second

reading, but I want to make sure that we get some of this stuff out there as

well during this process. We’ll probably canvass some of this deeper, maybe, in

estimates. This is not the time. The minister can appreciate that this is not a

gotcha moment. This is more of just trying to make sure that we get this

information so that it’s factual and that it helps people out.

I just want to also say, if I can make a comment without sounding

condescending, that if the minister ever needs a break, let us know. We are

going to go for a little while, I believe, on this.

The minister did say, then…. Obviously, $13 million is a drop in the

bucket to what we need because of the increase. There have been a lot of

reasons why we’ve had this increase. Can she just confirm for me, or her

staff…? That 307 amount — are any of those just inactive or dormant? Or are

those all classified now as orphan?

Hon. M. Mungall: They are all orphaned. The inactive number is substantially

larger.

M. Bernier: I know we have quite a few inactive. There are different reasons for

that, and some of them actually could have the opportunity of becoming active

in future years. I just wanted to make sure they weren’t captured in that

process.

When we’re talking about changing it from a tax to a levy…. In light of

the fact that we only have $13 million, and we have to put in this change or,

at least, try to have a system in here to help, it looks like — and I’ll

canvass this more as we go along — a lot of this is being changed through

regulation now, going forward. What kind of timeline does the minister see on

trying to have the regulations changed, specifically on this tax, to a levy?

What kind of impact will that have, short term or long term, for

companies?

The reason why I, obviously, bring this one up is that I believe not

only everybody in this House but the companies would agree that we want to have

proper systems in place to ensure that we don’t, first of all, get to orphan

well situations but that if we do, for whatever reason, we have the financial

means to make sure that the government or, even worse, landowners are not

negatively affected.

At the same time, we want to ensure that around a competitiveness level,

we’re not going to be going and changing this overnight. I’m assuming that

there’s been added discussion with companies. Maybe this will give the minister

an opportunity to highlight that a bit.

Hon. M. Mungall: I completely appreciate everything that the member opposite was saying

about competitiveness and making sure that we’re doing things in a timely way.

We’re starting tomorrow with our consultation.

[3:25 p.m.]

We hope that we get through committee stage and it passes snuff and

everything, because we want to get on this right away. It’s a problem that

exists right now. We want to fix it. We want to make sure that we find that

sweet spot so that we’re not reducing competitiveness for industry at the same

time we’re ensuring that the public interest is being met. That’s why we have

our consultations with the industry started for tomorrow and with communities

shortly thereafter.

M. Bernier: Hopefully, the minister can appreciate my somewhat tongue-in-cheek

comment in this situation. I appreciate the fact that she’s bringing forward a

bill and then doing consultation, unlike a lot of other things the government

has been doing. It’s usually consultation with no decisions. This is something

a little bit different, which is actually appreciated.

I know the big issue here that we do need to address, obviously. I think

that consultation will be very important. Again, back to the competitiveness,

is the minister, through those discussions, then, going to be looking at what

is happening in neighbouring jurisdictions such as Alberta and Saskatchewan

that have similar issues? That will really set the stage for what the companies

cap, etc. We’ll talk about landowners afterwards, but we really do need to make

sure that we’re setting up a fair playing field on how the system is. Maybe the

minister can acknowledge that.

Hon. M. Mungall: Absolutely. We’re going to be looking at what other jurisdictions are

doing. We want to make sure that B.C.’s industry remains competitive, not just

within Canada but internationally as well, within the context of being a

Canadian jurisdiction. So, absolutely, we’re going to be doing that analysis,

as well as consulting with both industry and the public.

M. Bernier: Maybe just one final question on this

section that I can think of. When

the minister highlighted how much money is needed, what’s the thought, then,

that’s been put in by herself, cabinet ministry, even talking with OGC,

probably, on this, on a timeline that’s appropriate? How much money are they

looking to generate? Has that discussion taken place yet?

Hon. M. Mungall: I don’t want to pre-empt what those consultations are going to result

in, but our overarching approach is that we want to see the new system come

into play by the next fiscal year so that we start to see that fund, the orphan

site reclamation fund, starting to grow by next fiscal year. But it’s not going

to be looking for another $62 million within one year. I think the member

appreciates the negative impact it would have in his community, specifically,

in terms of potential job loss.

What we’re doing is looking at a graduated approach and looking at

different classes of wells in terms of how the levy would function. So class A

might have a little bit more than class B or so on — but, again, a graduated

approach over time to ultimately reach our goal of having all orphan wells

cleaned up within a ten-year time frame.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Bernier: The minister kind of answered…. Where my head was going next on this was

around different classes. Obviously, as the minister knows, up in British

Columbia we have different types of wells. We have different types of

companies, different exploratory opportunities that take place — exploratory

wells right down to producing wells to what have you.

Is the minister, then, saying that the flexibility is going to be there

as a levy is being levied to a company and that there will be discussions that

take place, then, with the companies as permits are being let out, not just a

cookie-cutter approach for every single piece of drilling activity that would

take place, then?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mungall: That would be correct.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Bernier: Although there are other people opposite that are eager to have

section

3 pass, I do have a couple of questions first that I’ll bring forward. First of

all, on

section 3, there’s a bunch of amendments and additions here. Can,

maybe, the minister start off, then, on the additions — if she can explain why

this is being added in this part?

Hon. M. Mungall: The ultimate purpose of

section 3 here is part of the preventative

measures. As I mentioned, we have a substantial increase in orphaned well

sites, but we also don’t want to just be cleaning up after them. We want to

prevent them as much as possible.

Unfortunately, what has happened in the past is that we see directors

and people who are associated with a company that went bankrupt, come back —

same activities, same approach in their new business. It goes bankrupt. They

come back — same activity, same approach, new business. It goes

bankrupt.

At some point, the cycle has to come to an end. It’s been shown that

that particular individual or that particular company or individuals involved

with that company are not operating as best they can for the people of B.C.,

and so maybe they should move on. But we definitely can’t take their risk and

liability anymore.

That’s the purpose, in a nutshell, of this particular

section.

M. Bernier: I’m just curious, then, if the minister can explain in a little bit more

detail one aspect of this. When I’m reading through some of the additions

here…. I’m just looking for some clarification. It says that a person who, in

the opinion of the commission, may be able to affect the activities permitted

by the permit or may influence the applicant or the permit-holder.

When we discussed and canvassed earlier…. I just see that as very broad,

and I don’t know if that’s the intent here. Who can actually influence a

permit, and who’s going to be part of those discussions? Is that everything

from an affected landowner to a First Nations community to local government?

I’m just kind of curious on what the intent was there. I might be

misinterpreting this

section on that, but to me it just seems very broad, and

I’m just wondering what the intent was to leave it that way.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member’s point that it seems quite broad. The intention

is that we’re looking at people who are similar to investors, creditors,

financers, stakeholders — anybody who might have a financial gain in dumping

liability onto the people of B.C.

I know it reads quite broad, but it’s actually not as broad as your

local councillor or your local MLA. It is specifically those who have a

financial relationship with that company.

M. Bernier: Therein lies the question, then. A financial relationship with the

company can be the affected landowner or impact-and-benefit agreements that

have happened with local First Nations. At what point do they have a role or a

play, then, through this?

Again, those same people I just referenced are the same ones that don’t

want to see orphan wells. They don’t want to see a company do exactly what the

minister suggested earlier. But I also question: where are their rights through

this process to influence how the Oil and Gas Commission, through letting

permits, can try to deal with that issue? Do they have a say at all, under this

section, when they’re talking about the permits themselves?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think what the member is trying to get at — and he can correct me if

I’m wrong — is to ensure that this broad language isn’t scooping up a bunch of

people it shouldn’t be scooping up.

I feel that we have reached the point where we’re not doing that at the

same time as ensuring that we don’t have any loopholes — or any other ways in

which somebody who has negatively impacted their company in the past and who is

now trying to apply to do the same things they’ve done in the past, to find a

way that they can do it. Say if we only list investors or people with a

financial relationship, that they can’t somehow come at it from a different

perspective.

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s why the advice in terms of drafting this legislation was to keep

it broad. It’s so that we can make sure that we are prohibiting those very

people from finding some type of backdoor approach to doing the things that

they have done that had a negative impact on the British Columbian land base

and communities in the past.

M. Bernier: The minister did kind of understand where I was coming from. I’ll try to

be more succinct in my commentary and questions.

My concern is that when we talk about the one-stop shop aspect,

especially with the Oil and Gas Commission, if there are other agencies or

affected people when permits are coming, or when companies are looking at

changing to avoid — I guess, for lack of better words — their responsibility,

we don’t have it so broad that it muddies the water of decision-making. It

could take a long time to get through a process if we start having the local

governments and landowners and First Nations all having….

There’s a place and a time and an opportunity for that. I just want to

make sure that this isn’t it, because we need to make sure that the government,

the ministry and the Oil and Gas Commission, specifically, have the opportunity

to do their due diligence and also have the hammer, I guess, that’s needed, at

the right time, to ensure that everybody’s well-being is taken care of. And

when I say well-being, obviously I mean the government, in this case, and the

taxpayers of the province.

I think we can move on to the next section, but I just wanted to make

sure that I got that on there. The minister was on the right track with what I

was saying.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Bernier: Just maybe to start with, the minister…. I think there are only actually

a few sections I won’t have a question on.

section 29…. Well, we’re talking about

section 4, but

section 29 here

is being amended. This is all around the transfer of permits, again, and

liabilities, authorizations — similar to what we were just talking

about.

I’m just curious. In sections (

a) and (

b) here, when we’re changing some

of the wording…. A person who wants to acquire a permit. Now, that’s a little

bit of a change from what I understand under the act. Can the minister explain

why we’ve added that specific word? Because I know there’s….

When we talk about this specific act, of course, and we’re looking at

some of the transfers, people and permit holders…. Maybe she can have an

opportunity here to explain, when people are applying for the permits, etc.,

and in this specific case, why we’re acquiring a permit.

Hon. M. Mungall: My staff pointed out that this is basically about somebody who wants to

adopt an orphaned well. That’s why we’re saying a “person who wants to acquire

the permit.” That’s our best way to describe that individual and what they want

to be doing in relationship to everything. We had to make this change, because

sometimes the original permit holder cannot be found whatsoever. We have

somebody who wants to acquire, or adopt, the well, and so that’s how we named

the person. Rather than using the word “adopt,” we went with

acquire.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Mungall: I call the estimates debate for Social Development and Poverty Reduction

in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, and I call the committee stage of Bill 15

here in this chamber.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — ENERGY, MINES

AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:46 p.m.

section 4 (continued) .

M. Bernier: Just following up with the minister’s last answer to my question. I

guess another tongue-in-cheek comment, based on her answer, was that I didn’t

realize the Ministry of Children and Families were involved in orphan wells and

on this bill, but I do know that we have to utilize terminology that somewhat

makes sense.

While we’re moving further down in this…. On

section 29, one of the

areas, of course, that I have a question about — and it’s more around how often

it happens, etc. — is: “the commission is satisfied that the permit holder no

longer exists or cannot be located.” The minister just highlighted that a

second ago.

I’ll give her some time with this, because I see that staff are still

working their way in. We’ll maybe take a quick break for a minute after my

question. It’s more along the lines of if the minister can give me information

on how often this truly happens, because of course we’re trying to, as the

minister said, fix an issue that’s really exploded over the last year or

two.

I guess my question — and I’ll canvass it a little bit more afterwards

too — is: when we are talking about companies that cannot be located, what

would lead to that? Is this to the minister’s points earlier on companies who

are dissolving and reappearing under different names? I guess the whole point

would be that we have to make sure that we have policies in place so this

doesn’t happen to begin with. Maybe she can explain why this is in there and

what we’re going to do to stop it.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: To answer the member’s question, if there’s a corporate reorganization,

that wouldn’t qualify under this particular section, right? That is all

registered. We would be able to find them.

In this day and age, the likelihood of us not being able to find a

permit holder, in the sense that we can’t locate them at all, is very, very

low. It can possibly happen. But we will go to great lengths to find the permit

holders, the former permit holders that now have an insolvent company as well,

to make sure that they are meeting their liabilities. Again, that’s why I say

it’s very low.

What this particular

section is mostly about, though, is…. There is the

case where a well might have been drilled in 1910, for example, a very long

time ago. Records were not very well kept at that time, or they have been lost

between then and now. The likelihood of us finding the original permit holder

from that time is very, very low. That is what’s driving this particular

section of the bill.

M. Bernier: I think the minister would acknowledge, even with her last comment, that

the amount of wells we had drilled in British Columbia in 1910 was, thankfully,

not very many. But we have found some where we have no idea when they were

drilled. A farmer is working on his field. We’re building a dam, whatever might

happen, and we locate some of these. I appreciate the fact it’s a maybe in the

past. The whole point now is to make sure that we have processes in place to

make sure it’s never a maybe in the future.

Can the minister maybe explain, also, then, at this point, under this

section here…? It’s really around

section 29, around the transfer of permits.

When there’s a transfer of permits, there’s also the expectation around the

liability that transfers with that permit, or there’s even the discussion of

liability that stays with the original permit holder.

Maybe the minister can highlight or explain for me, then, when those

transfers take place, what the obligations are of the original tenure permit

holder. Does all of that transfer now to the new person or company?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: If I understand the member’s question correctly, it’s about continuing

liability, which is what

section 6 in this act is all about. So maybe he’d like

to address it further, then.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Bernier: I just have a quick question under this one. It’s more for my morbid

curiosity. I don’t know if the minister can answer it. It’s just more on the

technical aspect of

section 5 here.

We’re adding 43.3 into

section 29. If we were redrafting and adding that

whole subsection in, why did we actually have to even have

section 5? Maybe she

can explain that to me, if she understands what I’m talking about.

We just finished discussing

section 29. Subsection (c)(1.2) is all being

added. Why didn’t they just do it at that point? Why do we need to really have

this in the bill?

Hon. M. Mungall: Far be it for me to question too much how the legislative writers have

to do everything. They know the ins and outs of making sure that the laws are

written in an appropriate way and so on. What I’m being told is that the reason

why we have

section 5 and

section 4 is that

section 5 of the bill, which amends

29 of the OGAA, actually refers back to what we will ultimately get to in

section 7.

I’m sure there’s a Monty Python writer right now repeating all of

that.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that I gave the minister an opportunity for some amazing

words of wisdom there on legislation drafting.

section 6. We are getting into, I guess, my earlier question. We’re

now on

section 42 in the actual act. Can the minister, then, go back to my

original question and just explain…? In here is where we’re adding the word

“transfer,” I believe, into what’s going on as well….

[4:00 p.m.]

Can the minister explain, then, the process, which I asked earlier,

around when a permit is being transferred, purchased or moved from company to

company — what the liabilities and obligations are to the original or future

permit holder?

Hon. M. Mungall: The intention of this is that if a new permit holder who is receiving

the transfer, however which way, only wants to accept a certain percentage of

the liability from the former permit holder, they would only accept that

percentage. They wouldn’t have to take it all or nothing, right? They’d

actually be able to take a portion that they want to take on.

At the same time, we want to ensure that it doesn’t prevent government,

through the OGC, to go after that permit holder who has the liability — the

remainder of the liability or the original liability. It doesn’t prevent us

from doing that. We are still able to seek out the full scope of the liability.

One is through transferring it to somebody else who might be interested in that

particular asset. The other one is that we seek a remedy, maybe through the

courts, if necessary.

M. Bernier: I’m just curious. Under this

section 42, one of the big changes is,

instead of just “cancellation,” we’re adding the word “transfer.” What has

happened to date? It was my understanding that we already could have allowed

for a transfer of permits. An easy question: is this change, reflective in this

bill, for the act to highlight what needs to take and has been taking

place?

Hon. M. Mungall: The concern was there was a gap in government’s ability to go after the

former permit holder, once we are transferring a permit — again, just perhaps a

portion of that permit. This closes that gap so that we can continue to seek a

remedy for the liability on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Bernier: Again, I appreciate the minister’s indulgence. Some of the questions

I’ll ask are more just to get certain things on the record that probably the

minister herself would want to highlight. Can the minister start in this

section, maybe? Since we’re adding a whole

section around

definitions and

dormant sites, etc., could she maybe, for the House, explain the difference

between “dormant” and “orphan” and what we’re trying to solve here through

this?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m very happy to explain the difference between a dormant and an orphan

site. Often in the industry, we’ll also hear the term “inactive site” — which,

I would say, is akin to what we’re calling here a dormant site.

An orphan site is a well whose parent company — I’m putting the word

“parent” in here because this is the best way I can possibly explain it — has

become insolvent. For all intents and purposes, in terms of its existence, it

has died, leaving that well without a parent company. It exists in the world.

It is an orphan. It has nobody looking after it, unfortunately.

With a dormant site or an inactive site, what we have is that the well

exists, and its parent company also still exists but is not actively drilling

or using that well site.

[4:05 p.m.]

What has happened over time is that dormant sites that remain in that

category often don’t get reclaimed. That’s not at all how we want to be

managing our land base. We’ve identified the need to have better and more

timely reclamation of dormant sites to prevent the orphaning of those sites,

potentially, in the future.

M. Bernier: I’m just looking around. I don’t see anybody in the House that would

wonder what we’re talking about right now, but it is actually Bill 15, around

oil and gas and orphan wells.

One of the things the minister just mentioned, looking at the bill that

we have in front of us: under 43.3, for the cancellation of permits, it talks

about the “prescribed period of time.” We just talked about, and the minister

has highlighted, dormant wells. I’m just curious, then, what the thought

process is. Is that going to be something in regulation? Is it going to be

open-ended? The last thing we want to do…. I know the ministry would agree that

it’s through consultation with the company permit holders, etc. We don’t just

absolutely declare something.

Even though we talk about “dormant” or “inactive,” there are many

different ways that companies look at the wells and the well sites, what their

assets could be presently or down the road. Is there a thought…? When we say

“prescribed period of time,” as the minister is thinking, what does that

mean?

Hon. M. Mungall: The prescribed period of time will be ultimately dealt with in

regulation. Some of the things that will be considered as we consult with

stakeholders are, for example, if the site is of a certain age or it’s of a

particular activity. It’ll be dependent on age and type of activity, as well as

geographical area. There are a variety of things that will determine at what

time the permit in relation to a dormant site is cancelled, what the time frame

will be that would trigger that cancellation.

M. Bernier: What I’m hearing from the minister, then, is that, obviously, as

regulation goes on, consultation will take place. I know we’re seeing that

throughout the bill in a lot of places.

Will there be flexibility, then, working with the companies? Of course,

companies’ decisions around a lot of what they do are based on commodity price.

We want to ensure that we don’t restrict a company to make decisions when they

might have to hold out. I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on

that.

Hon. M. Mungall: In one word: absolutely.

M. Bernier: In 43.4, the liability reduction plan under this bill, I’m just curious.

“The commission may approve a liability reduction plan.” What does this plan

look like? Can the minister explain what a liability reduction plan, the

concept, is and what issue we’re trying to resolve with that?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Ultimately, we don’t want to be responsible for triggering more

bankruptcies that result in more orphaned wells. If we have a company that has

quite a few dormant wells, for whatever reason, we want to be able to work with

them in terms of identifying how they’re going to deal with that liability of

the dormant sites.

Why do they have so many dormant sites? Commodity prices might be one

issue, but there might be a variety of others as well. We want to make sure

that we’re working with industry to ensure that they are indeed managing their

liabilities and, if they’re struggling to do so, that they actually start

putting together a plan to do that. We’re making sure that that plan does have

some enforcement and oversight by the OGC.

M. Bernier: The minister kind of highlighted them a little bit, but there are some

benefits, I guess, to the permit holder. They won’t be completely mandated.

There’ll be some flexibility there.

One of the concerns I guess I have as we go through this is that it

sounds like a lot of this stuff is going through regulation. What is the

minister’s plan to ensure that there’s some sense of security within these

companies, I guess, going forward — rather than consultation? We talked about….

Later on this year, they’re going to be taking place.

Of course, some of the companies that have reached out to me, first of

all, are all wanting to make sure that they do their due diligence, but there’s

some nervousness around what this all means. So maybe they give the minister an

opportunity to actually make sure that they feel comfortable with what’s being

discussed here, on dormant wells.

Hon. M. Mungall: I know the member opposite appreciates how much work is always involved

with legislation. Not everything, therefore, is legislation a practical way to

deal with…. Sorry, I don’t know if that sentence made total grammatical sense.

Maybe we’ll have a recess after this answer.

The point is that in terms of industry and any concern, absolutely, any

time there’s a change that’s going to impact an individual’s, a family’s, a

group of people’s or an industry’s day-to-day lives, there’s going to be a bit

of nervousness, and there’s going to be some apprehension in terms of how that

change will impact them over the long term.

That’s precisely why we’re going to be engaging with them — very, very

detailed, in terms of what the regulations would look like. We want to be

consulting with industry. We want to be consulting with impacted parties to

make sure that, as I said earlier, we get this right, so that we’re not putting

anybody at risk of insolvency. We certainly don’t want to be a part of that.

And we’re making sure that we’re meeting the test of the public interest as

well.

The reason why we’re leaving quite a few things to regulation — for

example, that “prescribed period of time” — is that as technology changes, as

we learn more about managing the land base, we don’t want to have to come back

over and over again, using miscellaneous statutes amendment acts over and over

again to amend legislation. We want to be able to be quickly responsive to

things that fluctuate over time — some of those things that are maybe, perhaps,

more minor than legislation but still very important to industry and to the

people who rely on that industry for their well-being.

With that, I ask for a five- to ten-minute recess.

The Chair: This House will recess till 4:25.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

S. Furstenau: I just had a question about determining…. If a permit holder is

determined to have a dormant well, what would be the steps to take for that

well to be restored and activated again, and would there be any kind of

security involved in that?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Our ultimate goal with this legislation is to reduce, as much as

possible, liability on the land base. In terms of the dormant sites, we’d want

to ensure that companies are doing…. As the member pointed out, sometimes

companies might choose to leave a site dormant, and as another member pointed

out, due to, perhaps, commodity prices or so on.

What’s then required of them if they are going to have this dormant

site? Well, we want them to deactivate the sites. This sounds like a bit of a

campaign slogan, but it’s not. It’s actually a three-step process. First,

they’d have to purge, they’d have to drain, and then they’d have to contain the

site. They would have to decommission to a certain level that would categorize

it as dormant — decommission it and decommission the subsurface as well as the

surface equipment. That would, then, leave the site technically dormant. So

it’s not like they can just walk away and not do anything. There’s actually a

process that they must follow.

In terms of any security, there’s no change in the security legislation.

That remains the same.

S. Furstenau: A little bit more on the liability reduction plan. It says: “…a permit

holder may submit to the commission a plan to reduce the permit holder’s

shutdown obligations….” Could you provide a bit more clarity on what shutdown

obligations would be and how they could be different from one site to

another?

Hon. M. Mungall: This is recognizing a situation that could arise where a permit holder,

for whatever reason, perhaps due to financial causes, is not able to do any of

the liability reduction plan. We want to make sure that they do as much as they

possibly can, so rather than having an all-or-nothing approach, we want to make

sure that we’re able to get whatever we possibly can out of the permit

holder.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just to clarify. Then in that case, the levy would come in, and this is

where the costs of that kind of shutdown would then fall to the fund created by

the levy?

Hon. M. Mungall: No, because the orphan site reclamation fund only applies to orphan

sites. Because the parent company still exists, if they’re not able to finish

that work immediately, then we’d be looking at a later time frame for them to

complete it. They would still be responsible for completing all of the work.

But we’d be looking at a way to make sure that if they can’t do it all right

now, well, let’s get what they can do right now done.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Bernier: I know that the minister can appreciate, too, a lot of these questions.

We’ll try to keep them appropriate within the

section we’re talking about. I

know a lot of the questions we, maybe, both know the answers to, but again,

it’s really important that these things get discussed.

section 45, under

section 9, subsection (b), it talks about “a person

the commission has not been able to identify or is satisfied no longer exists”

— kind of like we talked about earlier. The reason why I just want to highlight

this one for a minute is this is back into the reclamation part of the orphan

wells and how this is a huge issue for local landowners, local affected people,

to make sure that we have these safeguards that are put in place to make sure

that people are protected and government’s protected.

When we get into that reclamation portion of the orphan sites, can the

minister maybe explain, then, what, from a consultation aspect with a local

affected landowner…? What I hear is that they’re left out of the equation. It’s

truly their land. A good portion of the drilling activity is not on Crown land.

A lot of it’s on private land, First Nations land. What I hear from them is: a

huge struggle when it comes to the orphan wells — specifically what we’re

talking about — not dormant. The feeling, and I know what we’re trying to

accomplish here with this bill, is they’ve been left out — the fact that

government, companies, have let them down.

I know we are trying to resolve some of that through this bill, and I

know it will take a little bit of time. But as we go through the reclamation

process, are we going to be allowing — through the Oil and Gas Commission,

probably, or whatever steps will be in place — for those affected landowners to

have a seat at the table or at least some kind of arbitrary opportunity for

them to have a say in the reclamation? They witnessed, in many cases, what the

land looked like prior to the activity and should have a say in what it looks

like afterwards.

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of developing the regulations for this legislation, absolutely

the Oil and Gas Commission will be consulting with landowners. They already

have a process where they do that, and so they will be absolutely following

that process and engaging actively with landowners.

[4:40 p.m.]

In terms of how they would enter onto someone’s private property to deal

with an orphaned well, nothing is changing there. That process is outlined and

will continue. However, I don’t want to suggest that the OGC is not going to be

open to hearing what landowners might have to say in terms of improving that

process. It might not be directly related to the regulations pertinent to this

act, but if that comes up, I’m sure that the OGC would take that into

consideration and start looking at ways they could do things better. But

absolutely, landowners will be engaged in this process.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

M. Bernier: Thanks for the last answer from the minister. Of course, again, it

brings us back to the whole point of this bill and this

section 10, here,

around making sure that there’s enough money in and the use of that security. I

think we both acknowledge that the whole point is never to have to use a

security. If companies do their due diligence, we don’t have these orphan wells

to begin with.

When we’re doing the reclamation of orphan sites…. I’m just curious,

again, if the minister can explain…. We’re doing these orphan sites because

there’s no company to go after, so we’re now having to look at using money out

of the orphan well fund. Again, it brings me back to a question that I just

talked about.

Is there going to be, possibly, an arbitration process or something in

place for local landowners if they feel that government now has not done a

suitable job on the reclamation, and maybe a chance for them to apply to the

fund if there is, maybe, loss of revenue of the land or a cost to the affected

landowner? Is there a way that it’s not just the government using this money

but, again — if the minister understands where I’m going — the landowner

themselves, or somebody being able to apply externally to use that fund, during

the reclamation process?

Hon. M. Mungall: The first thing is that landowners do have access to a landowner

compensation fund for loss of use of their land due to an orphan site. They

would not be able to apply, however, to the reclamation fund to potentially do

some of the work themselves. Only the OGC is able to do that work. The OGC has

to meet standards under legislation, under the Ministry of Environment. Once

they do complete reclamation, they would then get a certificate that the

standards have been met.

If there’s any concern about whether or not the standards have been met,

my understanding is that the landowners could advocate in terms of their

concerns. But ultimately, the decision for those standards being met rests with

the Ministry of Environment.

M. Bernier: This is a whole new

section that’s being added to the act, under this

bill, in 45.1. I’m just curious on one here. In subsection 45.1(c)(ii), it

talks about “the costs, estimated by the commission, of continuing to manage

the orphan site.”

[4:45 p.m.]

Can the minister explain what the explanation around that is? Of course,

if we’re talking about the reclamation of the orphan site, we’re hoping that

it’s reclaimed appropriately, and then the certificates are lent out, so why

would we need to have additional costs held back to manage the orphan site if

it’s actually been reclaimed properly?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, after we get a certificate that the reclamation has been done up

to standard and that things should be going along smoothly into the future, we

don’t just hope and cross our fingers that it will be actually monitored. So

that’s what that particular clause is talking about: the c