Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 277

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Graham Mann

D. Clovechok

Heiltsuk Big House

J. Rice

Executive assistants and gender equity

S. Cadieux

Clark de Boer

B. Ma

Vancouver–False Creek neighbourhood families and schools

S. Sullivan

Al Martin

A. Weaver

Oral Questions

Urban development and property taxes

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

C. Oakes

Business costs and government support for small business

C. Oakes

Hon. S. Robinson

Geothermal energy development

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Business costs and government support for small business

S. Bond

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

M. Bernier

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C., annual report, 2018-19, and service plan, 2019-20 to 2021-22

Petitions

T. Shypitka

S. Gibson

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 35 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

I. Paton

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today, we’re joined by a number of students

representing the British Columbia Federation of Students, also known as the

BCFS. They represent 170,000 students across the province, and they’re

visiting the precinct for their annual advocacy week. There are 40

representatives here in the House today, led by Tanysha Klassen, the

chairperson, and Brynn Joyce, the secretary-treasurer. I’m thrilled to be

able to recognize their dedication and advocacy for affordable, accessible

and high-quality public education. They hosted a breakfast this morning for

government MLAs.

Thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for being here. We look forward

to meeting with you — the Premier and I — later this afternoon.

Will the House please join me in welcoming our special

guests.

Hon. C. Trevena: Joining us today in the gallery are members of the boards of directors

of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of B.C., including

the chair, Gurjit Sangha from WSP, as well as association president and CEO

Caroline Andrews.

ACEC-BC members employ nearly 10,000 British Columbians in

professional and technical roles in every community in our province.

Association members are involved with the design, delivery and management of

B.C.’s critical infrastructure projects, such as the Pattullo Bridge

replacement and the Kicking Horse Canyon project. ACEC-BC has long been a

trusted adviser to government, and I hope that everyone in this House will

make our guests very welcome.

N. Letnick: In the House today we have Christine Sorensen, the president of the

B.C. Nurses Union, and Kath Kitts, the B.C. Nurses Union communications

officer. They’re here to talk with MLAs and advocate for their members, who

are the front line of the B.C. health services. Please, could everyone in

the House make them feel really welcome.

S. Cadieux: Colin Harty, from my riding, is here this morning. He’s a denturist

and has served the people of British Columbia for over 12 years. He joins

denturists from across B.C. here in Victoria this week to showcase denture

technology. As we know, October is Denturist Awareness Month in Canada.

Would the House please make Colin welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: We have a team visiting from the housing policy branch here in the

House today. Would everyone please join me in welcoming Sarah Petrescu,

Michael Duncan, Kendall Butchart, Candice Gartner, Susan Low, Roxanne

DeSouza, Olga Liberchuk, Katie Carrothers, Avery Kelly, Jeff Dean, Chelsea

Power, Melanie Hope and Courtney Lamb. These people really help government —

our work around housing policy — and I want everyone to please give them a

warm welcome.

P. Milobar: We have with us today another denturist from Kamloops, Mr. Robby

Jaroudi. He’s the owner-operator of Natural Smiles Denture Clinics. I’d ask

the House to please make Mr. Jaroudi feel welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure to introduce someone who is both a constituent and

works in Vancouver-Fairview. Dave Carney is visiting the Legislature today,

along with other denturists, to talk about the services they provide to

British Columbians, to seniors, and the regulations that affect them. Will

the House please make Dave Carney very, very welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: Joining us today is Marcie Cochrane, project leader with the

Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of B.C. Her team is working

to increase the participation of women in the engineering, geoscience,

technology and technician occupations. This will focus on programs to

recruit, retain and promote women in engineering and technology roles. Will

the House please join me in welcoming Marcie Cochrane.

[10:10 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AND STATUTE

REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019.

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 39, a bill not easily forgotten, the

Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision

Amendment Act, 2019. This bill is a collection of minor corrections and

technical housekeeping amendments to various statutes. As part of the

statute revision process, the office of legislative counsel routinely

identifies and brings forward these types of corrections. The minor

corrections in this bill are part of the routine process to ensure that

B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: 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 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute

Revision Amendment Act, 2019, 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)

GRAHAM MANN

D. Clovechok: Today I’m honoured to be sharing the story of a local hero from

Kimberley who passed away this summer. Graham Mann was the pinnacle

version of a volunteer and one of the kindest men I’ve ever known. He

worked tirelessly to make the city of Kimberley a better place, focused

always on giving back to his community, a community that became global

for him.

A loving husband, father and grandfather, Graham embraced life,

and he lived it very large. He was so proud of his family and would gush

with pride at any opportunity to introduce them, especially at his 80th

birthday party, which coincided with a large Rotary dinner. He spent 36

years in the airline business, travelling extensively throughout Canada,

the United States, Europe, Asia and South America. He chuckled, saying:

“I did it all except fly, fix and finance the airplanes.”

His contributions to Kimberley extended from his passionate role

in Rotary. He was named a Paul Harris Fellow four times, an honour

bestowed upon a Rotarian who willingly and without pay offers themselves

in service to the community. That is the man Graham was — someone who

prided himself on being selfless and giving back. In Rotary, he was

always apolitical, but outside he loved to bust my chops about what was

going in our province and our country and always ended those

conversations with a big wink.

In his passing, he was praised by local leaders, who likened him

to the Energizer Bunny who could out-fundraise anyone, and characterized

him as an incredibly unique and inspiring character. Graham helped

create Garden View Village seniors home and the splash park and was a

leader in ShelterBox, which provides emergency shelter and supplies to

victims of natural disasters around the world.

Graham did everything in his life with love, passion, enthusiasm

and purpose, always accompanied by his signature smile. I would ask that

everyone in this House join me in applauding Graham and his life so

incredibly well lived.

Ride the winds, my friend.

HEILTSUK BIG HOUSE

J. Rice: Imagine this place that we’re all sitting in right now, the

chamber of the assembly, otherwise known as the big House. Imagine if

this place was destroyed, and we couldn’t carry on the orders of the

day, introduce bills or conduct our legislative business. Well, that’s

what happened to the Heiltsuk. Their parliament, their place of

government, was destroyed, likely by missionaries, over 120 years ago

with the goal of assimilating the First Nation.

Missionaries claim that the last big house was blown down in a

storm, but no one ever believed that because the area was chosen to live

in because it was so sheltered from the storms. So it was such an honour

to be invited by the Heiltsuk First Nation to attend the opening of

their brand-new big house this past week,

Gvúkva’áus

Haíɫzaqv .

[10:15 a.m.]

Gvúkva’áus Haíɫzaqv ,

or House of the Heiltsuk, took a year and a half to build and is

constructed entirely of red and yellow cedar from Heiltsuk territory.

The community spent this past week with guests from all over B.C. and as

far away as New Zealand. The opening means the community now has an

appropriate space for carrying out their governance systems and for

their ceremonial events like potlatches and the naming of babies, which

had previously been carried out in a community centre.

Indigenous artists worked tirelessly to design, carve and paint

four house posts that tell the origin story of Heiltsuk people. They are

stunning and magnificent.

Cultural adviser William Housty said the Big House is described as

a living space. The rafters and house posts serve as the ribs and

backbone of the structure, the front of the Big House as its face. “It

has the same sort of qualities we do as humans…. There’s a sense of

pride knowing the dreams of so many ancestors are now being lived by our

generation — people like my late grandfather, who always talked about

the big house and how important it was. Now we’re living their dreams,”

he says.

Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett says: “Going forward, it’s a symbol

of our strength and our resilience as people.”

The strength and resilience of the Heiltsuk people is

unquestionable. Wálas

ǧiáxsix̌a to the Heiltsuk for the invitation

to witness this historic opening.

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS

AND GENDER

EQUITY

S. Cadieux: If I asked you to picture a secretary, you’d probably have an

image pop to mind quite readily — the female secretary, the admin, the

second wife, the personal assistant, and the role with no potential for

growth. It’s not surprising, really, since it’s been the most common

career for women since the ’50s and ’60s. Frankly, TV and movies have

cast so many memorable characters for us, it’s not unlikely that some of

you pictured Bond’s Moneypenny, Pepper Potts from Iron Man or

Joan Harris of Mad Men .

Of course, if I asked you to picture the average working woman

today, you would probably come up with something a little different.

However, according to the 2016 census, “administrative assistant” is

still in the top ten roles for women. The career area being

female-dominated is understandable in the 1950s, when fewer career

options were open to women, but today, with women earning more graduate

degrees than men, why don’t the demographics of the administrative

positions today reflect more gender parity?

Let’s face it: there’s a negative bias associated with the title

of EA, and not many men are lining up to apply for administrative

positions because it’s considered to be the housework of the office. In

order to attract top talent to the role, though, many have dropped the

EA-to-CEO title and have evolved to manager of executive operations,

administrative business partner or chief of staff. Not only does that

better suit business needs, but it also means that more men will apply

for the job.

The role of EA became, over time, much more dynamic, and the

individual must encompass the same competencies as the people they

support — influencing and managing people, power dynamics and executing

on business strategy. They are troubleshooters, schedulers, gatekeepers,

translators, human databases, diplomats, travel consultants,

ambassadors, researchers, writers, mind readers, right hands, and they

are often the company backbone. The title of “assistant” is hardly the

correct title for this type of role.

This may be the golden age of executive assistants. Highly

educated, ambitious young people, most of them women, with demonstrated

superior soft skills of IQs and EQs are in demand. Despite that, the EA

still seems to be an underappreciated role. The compensation, while on

average has improved, still likely reflects the gender bias that has yet

to be balanced. Let’s hope it’s not the underappreciated role of the

next decade.

To all of those EAs out there today, thank you for the job you do.

Unsung and stealthy, you keep us highly productive and on track. And to

the ones who have since retired, like my mom, thank you.

CLARK DE BOER

B. Ma: The first weekend of October was typical of fall in North

Vancouver. The leaves were beginning to turn, people were out and about

enjoying the autumn sun, and many soccer games were being played

throughout the North Shore. Yet on what you might expect to be noisy

fields peppered throughout the region, alive with laughter and shouts,

cheers and jeers, there was a solemn silence, a solemn quiet shared by

them all — a moment of silence in honour of a man named Clark de

Boer.

[10:20 a.m.]

A longtime resident of North Vancouver, Clark was a passionate and

tireless supporter of sports on the North Shore. He volunteered

countless hours of his time coaching, managing, scheduling and serving

as a board member for the Mount Seymour soccer club, the North Shore

Youth Soccer Association and, most recently, the West Vancouver soccer

club.

Over the course of his career, Clark coached both youth and adult

players in softball, field hockey and soccer. He was committed to these

sports and his community until the day he died, on September 14, 2019,

from complications related to his lengthy illness, which he had battled

since his diagnosis of esophageal cancer in early 2018.

Clark was born on August 1, 1955, and is survived by his siblings

Peter, Fred and Kim; his children, Jessie and Matt; and his loving wife,

Lisa, of 36 years. Hundreds of community members packed his memorial

service, which was held in North Vancouver earlier this month. Some

dressed in their sports uniforms in honour of the contributions that

Clark had made.

He is deeply mourned by his friends, family and, indeed, the

entire North Shore community.

VANCOUVER–FALSE CREEK

NEIGHBOURHOOD FAMILIES AND

SCHOOLS

S. Sullivan: I want to highlight the parents of children in my riding of

Vancouver–False Creek and congratulate them on the efforts they are

making to see their neighbourhood become more family-friendly.

Vancouver–False Creek is wonderful for children in so many ways. Science

World, Arts Umbrella, beautifully designed parks and community centres,

but a lack of larger homes, street disorder issues and lack of school

spaces are especially challenging.

High-density living is good for the environment. The average

downtown resident will generate one-quarter of the greenhouse gases and

occupy 1/20 of the land. Vancouver–False Creek has many children five

years and younger. Our gathering places experience traffic jams of

strollers. But there’s a growing number of school-age children who have

to enter lotteries to get into their local schools and, if unsuccessful,

travel outside of the riding to find schools. Parents drive their

children to a distant school and come back home so they can walk to

work. Some parents have moved away because of the uncertainty of finding

a school. This has been especially difficult for parents like Lisa

McAllister who have moved into the Olympic Village and send their

children to other neighbourhoods for school.

This model of environmental sustainability has been waiting over a

decade for their school, and with over a dozen new high-density

buildings built and in progress, the need is only growing. Our wonderful

new school, Crosstown, struggles with the challenges that spill over

from the Downtown Eastside, just a few blocks away. This has been

especially demoralizing for parents like Desiree Miller, who have to

balance their concern for others with the priority of safety for their

kids.

Henry Hudson parents like Robert Ford also struggle with the

problems around competition for space. A development of 3,000 homes just

a few blocks away has just been announced. The 100-year-old school is in

serious need of an upgrade, which is moving ahead. But they worry that

with the anticipated surge in population, it may not be

enough.

These parents are the pioneers for a new model of living. Their

work will make it possible for families in the future to be confident

that their choice of raising a family in a high-density environment will

be supported by our broader community.

AL MARTIN

A. Weaver: It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to a

great man, Al Martin, who tragically passed away on October 15. Al was

an admired colleague, mentor and friend to many. He was tirelessly

devoted to the betterment of fish and wildlife management in our

province and spent more than 30 years in B.C.’s public service. He was a

beloved leader in B.C.’s conservation community.

Al’s career started as a fisheries biologist in the Kootenays in

the late 1970s. In the 1980s, he moved to Victoria and worked in

fisheries management before becoming the director of the watershed

restoration program. Soon after that, he was the director of fish and

wildlife for the province and then assistant deputy minister in the

department of agriculture and fisheries.

My office had the great fortune of working closely with Al over

the last five years. He was incredibly generous with his time and

wisdom. A man of calm, careful, composed and deliberate words, when Al

spoke, I listened. He had a strategic mind and determined demeanour.

There was never anything I could tell Al. Even if I had breaking news,

he’d already have a copy of it in his back pocket.

[10:25 a.m.]

Highly professional and laser focused, the only subject that could

distract Al from the issue at hand was his family. Al had three children

— Alex, Michael and Joanne — and considered his beloved wife Julie’s

four daughters his own as well — Michelle, Christianne, Jessica and

Lexi. Al also had nine grandchildren — Elise, Penny, Omri, Meyer,

Lincoln, Beckett, Sawyer, Oliver and Hudson — and he adored each and

every one of them.

My policy adviser Claire was at a fisheries conference with Al

last year. As they sat quietly listening to the presentation, Al took

out his phone and slid it across the table without a word. On the screen

was a picture of a perfect, brand-new baby — his new grandchild, he

said, beaming with pride, born a few days earlier.

Thank you, Al, for your service to our province. May we honour

your legacy by advancing conservation for future generations and for

your beloved grandchildren.

Oral Questions

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY TAXES

T. Stone: As our urban centres grow, the resulting plans for significant

densification are placing huge pressure on small businesses, through

dramatically increased property taxes based on the undeveloped airspace

— literally, a tax on the unused air above their heads.

Last month a broad coalition of arts, culture, small business and

local government representatives wrote to the Premier asking for

immediate action to address these huge property tax increases. Their

proposed solution is to implement a new commercial property subclass for

the airspace above small businesses and other affected organizations.

This broad coalition is calling on the government to take action now to

give small businesses and these small organizations a fighting chance to

survive.

My question to the Deputy Premier would be this: will she ensure

that her government acts on this coalition’s proposal in time for the

2020 tax year?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, small businesses, non-profits and the arts and culture

organizations are a vital part of our communities and our economy. When

we took office a couple of years ago, we heard right away from them that

they have been struggling significantly for a number of years. Years of

an out-of-control real estate market have left these businesses and the

arts and culture and the non-profit industry struggling. Years, because

the previous government absolutely ignored — they ignored — an

out-of-control real estate market, and they are suffering as a result of

that.

When we took office, we heard them, and we set out to look at how

the property assessment system works during rapidly increasing real

estate markets or significant changes to community plans in zoning. We

took action. We engaged with stakeholders, including the cities of

Vancouver and other Metro Vancouver cities and other groups, to evaluate

short-term and long-term strategies to improve affordability for these

important local businesses.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: The minister’s struggles with that answer are only matched by the

struggles of small businesses, who are being squeezed like never before

under this current government.

The fact of the matter is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

T. Stone: Well, the member for Vancouver–West End obviously has tremendous

influence in his government caucus, because they haven’t acted on it in

two and a half years.

[10:30 a.m.]

The fact of the matter is that under this government, in the last

two and a half years, they’ve imposed or increased 19 new taxes,

including the employer health tax. British Columbia’s small businesses

now have the largest payroll tax burden, second highest only to the

province of Quebec. We’ve had 25,000 jobs lost, mostly in the private

sector, in the last four months alone. Our retail sales are down. Export

sales are down. This government needs to step up and throw a lifeline to

small businesses in this province.

Now, I’ll refer back to the letter of late September, just at the

very first day of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention — the

letter that I referenced in my first question — that was sent to the

Premier, to the government, from that broad coalition. Included in that

coalition was the city of Vancouver. Here’s what the mayor of Vancouver

actually had to say in the letter: “The viability of independent small

businesses and the arts, culture and non-profit sectors in Metro

Vancouver is under threat” as a result of this “fast pace of

change.”

Even the Premier’s own chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, seconded a

motion when he was a Vancouver city councillor to address this issue.

But the Premier, the NDP government, has done nothing.

My question, again, to the Deputy Premier would be this. Changes

could be implemented now. In fact, they need to be implemented now. Will

she throw that lifeline to small businesses and act in time for the 2020

tax year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to acknowledge that this is

important for small businesses. It’s an important issue. It’s been

coming for…. It’s an issue. Folks who invest in small businesses work

hard to put food on their table. They work hard to grow their

businesses.

My father was a small business owner, and I remember what it was

like when it was difficult at times. It’s really hard on families, and

it’s hard on small businesses. We’re committed to working together with

the small business community, with arts and culture communities, which

is why we brought together various leaders to talk about how to best

proceed. It is complex work. It’s incredibly important work.

I also want to remind the member that he raised the issue at the

UBCM, and the delegates were absolutely divided on the resolution

calling for a new commercial subclass, because local governments, too,

have a vested interest in making sure that it’s the right tool to

deliver the right outcome. It’s absolutely important that we do

that.

We are exploring a variety of tools to take a look at how to

address interim measures to resolve a problem that had been building for

years while the people on the other side were on this side, and they did

nothing about it. We’re working quickly to resolve a challenging issue

while we undertake the important analysis that’s absolutely needed in

order to deliver a long-term solution.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, two and a half years to do the analysis on an issue that was

a challenge two and a half years ago — it was a challenge a year and a

half ago; it’s a challenge today — is time that small businesses just

don’t have, to the minister.

The government’s own Small Business Task Force recommended taking

action on this. The Union of B.C. Municipality resolution that the

minister referenced was actually endorsed by the delegates at the

convention. The UBCM wants action. The city of Vancouver is leading a

working group on this, which includes, among some other provincial

organizations, Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, North Van, Richmond,

Surrey and West Van, to name a few. The Chamber of Commerce has had

numerous resolutions endorsed by their provincial body. The CFIB is

asking for this, arts and culture organizations.

The minister’s response is: “We’re going to continue to do

analysis. We’re going to continue to do reviews. We’re going to drag our

feet.” Small businesses and these other organizations need action

now.

Interstyle Ceramic and Glass in Burnaby saw a 250 percent spike in

their assessment due to the increased value of the air above their

heads. Small businesses along South Granville are closing their doors,

like Ouisi Bistro, West Restaurant and Plum Clothing store, all in the

last month. Neighbourhoods are being hollowed out of their small

businesses because of inaction of this government.

[10:35 a.m.]

Again to the minister, how many businesses, how many charities,

how many arts organizations have to close their doors in communities

around this province before the government is going to finally take

action to support these organizations?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we have been taking action, haven’t we? We cut the small

business rate by 20 percent. We eliminated the PST on non-residential

electricity, saving businesses more than $150 million annually. That’s

the….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Since we formed government, we’ve saved B.C. businesses more than

half a billion dollars so that they could be more competitive. We are

making record investments in child care, in housing and in

transportation. We are working together with the business community. We

are working together with local governments to make sure that businesses

have the opportunities that they have been needing for a significant

amount of time. When the people over there were sitting here, they

ignored their voices.

C. Oakes: Well, to the minister, it doesn’t matter how loud she talks or how

many talking points she continues to bring forward. The fact of the

matter, to this minister, is that small businesses in the province of

British Columbia are struggling. Once these small businesses are lost,

neighbourhoods will be changed forever.

At the Union of B.C. Municipalities, a bill was passed unanimously

and a resolution calling on action now by this minister. But the

response from this Minister of Municipal Affairs was that her quick

action was that “nothing would be possible.”

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, why hasn’t she

acted?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we have been acting. We have been…. We engage with

stakeholders…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …to identify…. We work….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is complex and important work. In order….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Please allow the minister to answer the

question.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are exploring a number of interim solutions while we do the

important work of making sure that we don’t have unintended consequences

from a….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, clearly they’re not interested in hearing what we’ve been up

to.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

BUSINESS COSTS AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT FOR SMALL

BUSINESS

C. Oakes: Well, forgive us if the action that this minister has taken — the

19 new taxes — doesn’t cause some area of concern for small businesses

across this province.

If this minister was sincere and really wanted to support and take

action supporting small businesses, she would listen to the Small

Business Task Force that was released one year ago, Small Business

Speaks , and listen to the associations of over 30,000 members

who have clearly said to this minister that small businesses are hurting

in the province of British Columbia.

They require some action. They require this minister to step up

and make changes that this report last year said could be done quickly.

When will this minister act?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I think we need to thank the B.C. Liberals for

the soaring property values under their watch that fueled this challenge

that we see today. Those were their actions that put this challenge

before small businesses in place. It was their inaction on that that

challenged people who are putting their blood and their soul into their

businesses, and they are suffering as a result of what they did not

do.

[10:40 a.m.]

I also want to point out to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: I also want to point out to the member who asked the question

about what local governments have been saying, because the resolution at

the UBCM was quite contentious…. In fact, there were local governments

who opposed the resolution, including the Cariboo regional district,

which opposed it. Whistler opposed it. I wonder if the member from Sea

to Sky had a conversation with those folks. Or what about the member for

Parksville-Qualicum when Lantzville said: “This will not work. This is

bad for our community”?

Hon. Speaker, we are going to take the necessary time to make sure

it’s the right tool to provide relief to small businesses.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology what

his ministry was doing to encourage a strategic approach to

transitioning away from the reliance on fossil fuels development in

northern B.C. He talked about the importance of innovation. I agree. But

there are barriers to innovation in B.C., and those barriers lie in B.C.

Hydro.

Take the Borealis geothermal project in Valemount, for example.

The member for Prince George–Valemount and I have been trying to get

government to recognize the enormous potential for this project to

showcase innovation in B.C.’s clean energy sector. British Columbia is

the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim that isn’t using its geothermal

resources. It strikes me as a no-brainer. Community support is strong.

Valemount is at the end of an existing B.C. Hydro line, and with Glacier

Destinations moving forward, enhanced local power production on an

already stretched and often intermittent line will be

required.

My question is this, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Could she please explain what her ministry is doing

to encourage the use of our outstanding geothermal resources?

Hon. M. Mungall: The opportunity for geothermal needs to be proven in B.C., and

there are some companies that are doing just that. They’re working to

prove up the geothermal resources that have been identified. Borealis is

one of them. As the member will know — and the member for Prince

George–Valemount — they received a permit just over a year ago to start

doing that work. They actually have a new permit before the ministry. I

look forward to seeing the recommendation from the ministry in terms of

how to proceed with that permit so that they can do the work that

they’ve been doing to prove up this opportunity with

geothermal.

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

A. Weaver: The reality is that on the ground, nothing is being done, not

because of lack of industry or community support but rather because of

cumbersome regulatory barriers and the absence of a champion within this

government. Geothermal drilling is being regulated by the Oil and Gas

Commission via rules that don’t reflect the practice within the

international geothermal sector.

There is no ability for geothermal projects to lever existing

federal funds without a strong provincial commitment. Our geothermal

resources have the potential to diversify and decarbonize B.C.’s energy

systems; provide energy with minimal environmental impact footprint —

probably the smallest environmental footprint of any type of resource

like that; create jobs and prosperity in northeastern B.C.; and provide

a showcase for innovation in our clean energy sector.

My question again is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. When will her ministry start streamlining the

regulatory process and start encouraging, as opposed to discouraging,

British Columbia’s outstanding geothermal sector?

Hon. M. Mungall: My ministry has done nothing to discourage the opportunities with

geothermal — in fact, quite the opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m not too sure why the Liberals are all worked up about this

particular issue, hon. Speaker. It’s not like they ever discovered

geothermal when they were in office. The reality is that there’s quite a

bit of science here that needs to be done, and it’s about a process in

terms of actually making sure the resource is sufficient enough, hot

enough, to actually generate electricity from it. That needs to be done,

and that’s exactly what Borealis and other companies who are interested

in doing this work in British Columbia are given the opportunity to do.

I’m very glad that they’re here and making those investments, and I look

forward to working with them going forward.

[10:45 a.m.]

BUSINESS COSTS AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT FOR SMALL

BUSINESS

S. Bond: As we’ve heard, it’s Small Business Week in British Columbia. You

have to ask yourself how small businesses in our province are feeling.

Well, you don’t need to look very far. You simply need to look at

business confidence. Guess what. Under their watch, this government’s

watch, it has dropped to among the lowest in the country.

Last year this government heard loud and clear in a report from

thousands of small businesses that they expected some action. Here’s

what they said: “We respectfully request the minister provide a public

response on which particular recommendations have been accepted by the

government, including a detailed rationale and an associated action

plan.”

One year ago they asked for action, but one year later, what have

we seen? No rationale, no plan, no action from this

government.

So a simple question to the minister, why were the recommendations

of thousands of small businesses in British Columbia simply

ignored?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think it’s important to place the comments that the member for

Prince George–Valemount has made in the context of the B.C. economy as

it is now. Let’s have a look at it.

The private sector forecasters say that B.C.’s GDP growth will

continue to outperform the rest of Canada for the next three years. The

Conference Board of Canada forecasts British Columbia will continue to

lead the provinces in economic growth over the near term.

TD Bank expects B.C.’s economy to top the provincial leaderboard

in 2020. The Royal Bank of Canada predicts British Columbia will lead

the country in capital investment this year.

Since we formed government, British Columbia has added 73,500 jobs

— 56,000 of those, full-time jobs. British Columbia has the lowest

unemployment rate in Canada, tied with Quebec in last month’s results.

Workers are not being left behind in 2018. British Columbia had the

highest wage growth in a decade.

The British Columbia economy is doing well in a very turbulent

economic situation internationally, and we continue to go

forward.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: He’s been ignoring them for a year, and he’s ignored the question

today. This is about confidence levels of small businesses in British

Columbia, amongst the lowest in Canada. What does that translate to?

That translates to the potential loss of small businesses, loss of jobs,

loss of productivity. What does this minister do? Stands up and rails on

and completely ignores the question about the task force that he put in

place and has actually ignored the very recommendations.

Let’s be clear. Small businesses in British Columbia are getting

layers and layers and layers of taxes — 19 new and increased taxes in

British Columbia. That’s not something I hear the minister bragging

about on that side of the House.

Let’s ask the question. Why did the minister ignore…? Simple

question. There was a series of recommendations. There were some

short-term recommendations. Why did the minister ignore the

recommendations and has taken absolutely zero action to support small

businesses, the heart of the economy in this province?

Hon. B. Ralston: The premise of the question is completely false. Among the steps

the government has taken to implement many of the recommendations of the

Small Business Task Force is to increase access to labour and skilled

workers by working with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

[10:50 a.m.]

The provincial nominee program has been strengthened, and the

workforce development agreement has been strengthened.

Just last week I was visiting a rebar manufacturer in Langley.

What they said their challenges were, were that they couldn’t get enough

people to work there. They had two shifts running. They wanted to run a

third shift. Such is the dynamism of that sector in the Lower Mainland.

For many businesses — or the businesses I encounter, the businesses I

meet with — that is one major challenge, and we are working to address

that challenge.

M. Stilwell: What we have is a government that has imposed 19 new or increased

taxes on the backs of hard-working British Columbians, and the impacts

are being felt. It’s clearly, clearly visible by many. Here on the

Island, Footprints Security is facing a tax bill of $14,000 a month just

to cover the employer health tax that this government

implemented.

How can the minister explain that nearly $170,000 a year in

increased taxes is making life more affordable for these hard-working

British Columbians?

Hon. C. James: I think it’s very convenient that the other side has forgotten

about their mismanagement for the people and businesses of British

Columbia. Let’s remind the other side that housing prices soared out of

control for everyone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: B.C. was the only province with MSP premiums continuing to double

under that side. Hydro rates were hiked by 70 percent. How does that

help small business? A legacy of challenges when it came to child care,

the continuing pressures that they face.

Let’s take a look, in fact, at the breaks that businesses have

been given. Capital investment, as my colleague has said — 80,000 jobs

in British Columbia; $800 million in the budget in 2019 to help

businesses with their capital to help them grow and create good-paying

jobs in British Columbia; elimination of the PST on electricity, helping

businesses of all sizes across our province.

The two biggest issues that businesses have raised with this

government, with the people of British Columbia, are the challenges of

housing and child care to recruit and retain employees. We are

addressing it. I’m sure the other side is waiting to get rid of it all.

We’re going to invest in people because we believe in the people of

British Columbia.

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

M. Stilwell: This government inherited the strongest economy in Canada. They

were given over $2 billion in surplus money…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: …and they still increased taxes on British Columbians.

In 2017, RLC Park Services signed a ten-year deal with B.C. Parks.

Since then, they have been hit with a series of new, added costs, all

downloaded by this NDP government: the increase of minimum wage, the

EHT, increases in gas costs, in fuel costs. And now the NDP

refuse….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please allow the member to ask the

question.

M. Stilwell: Now the NDP refuse to adjust that contract to meet those

additional costs that that company is experiencing, that are being

imposed by this government. What are they supposed to do? How is this

government expecting them to stay afloat and stay in business with all

these additional costs?

Again, to the minister, how is adding thousands of extra dollars

of additional costs making life more affordable?

Hon. C. James: We certainly heard — I’m sure we’ll hear more — of the kind of

direction that that past government would take by not increasing the

minimum wage and leaving people in poverty here in British Columbia —

unfair to people in this province.

[10:55 a.m.]

Let’s look at what the other side’s mismanagement of the economy

left us with. It left us with money laundering running rampant across

this province. It left us with families struggling to find or afford

quality child care and not able to go back into the workforce to help

those small businesses in British Columbia. It left us with a lack of

care and no increase in support for income assistance for over a decade

for the poorest in British Columbia and the most vulnerable in this

province. It saw MSP premiums doubled. It saw tuition fees doubled. It

saw interest on student loans continue to rise, as they took money from

people in British Columbia.

Well, unlike that side, this side believes in the people in this

province. We believe in investing in the people of this province. I

expect we’ll continue to see the pessimism of the other side. We believe

in this province, and we’ll continue to invest in the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, do you have a question?

M. Bernier: I do, if you’re allowing me to have one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I’ll allow you to have the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: You know, the minister can stand up and say all of these what she

thinks are amazing things. But down right now…. The unfortunate

part is

they’re the only ones that are actually listening and believing it,

because nobody in the province of British Columbia is actually believing

a thing that this government is saying.

Nineteen increased taxes are hitting the bottom lines of

businesses in this province. You’ve gone from the best economy in the

country to now going to the point that companies do not want to invest.

They do not want to be in the province of British Columbia. In my area,

they’re moving to Alberta.

Now, to the minister, I know she doesn’t think this is a big deal.

I know she thinks it’s not a big deal, and taxing all these companies

that they don’t like is no big deal. But when you look at a company in

my riding…. Dahlen Contracting, for instance — $150,000 a year they’re

going to get taxed, employer health tax, a new tax they never had to

pay. What did they do instead? Shut their doors, closed down and laid

off 130 people.

I know the government doesn’t really care about those 130 people.

They want to continue to tax all of these companies. In Small Business

Month, what are they actually doing? What are they going to say to these

130 people who are now unemployed, looking for work?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the statistics in

British Columbia, so the public knows the kind of challenges we’re

facing. Lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Highest wage growth in a

decade. In fact, housing starts are at a record high. Since we formed

government, 73,500 jobs in this province created because of the work we

are doing.

The member says he wonders what we’ve done. Well, let’s actually

take a look at the list of what we’ve done: $1 billion into universal

child care that will be built across this province; the largest

investment in housing — $7 billion over ten years to create affordable

housing across this province.

[11:00 a.m.]

That’s not all. An increase in the climate action credit to $400 a

year for families. Working-class families, if they earn $60,000, will

see a 60 percent net reduction in their taxes under this government. A

family making $80,000 will see a 43 percent reduction in their

taxes.

With that, I look forward to the next questions so I can talk

about our investments in this province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Annual Report 2018-19 and Service

Plan 2019-20–2021-22 from Elections B.C.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: I’d like to present a petition.

Denturists are primary health care providers and are an integral part

of the dental professional team serving and protecting dental patients. The

190 petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House modernize the

Health Professions Act and increase their scope of practice as recommended

part 2 of the Harry Cayton report and that the denturist regulations be

brought in line with the regulations of other provinces.

S. Gibson: I’m pleased to present a partial petition from the Denturist

Association of British Columbia to this House.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have an envelope of petitions from the Denturist Association

asking for an increased scope of practice.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee on Bill 35, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On the amendment to

section 19 (continued) .

L. Throness: I would like to speak to the amendment that the member for

Abbotsford West proposed yesterday, which is an amendment to the

definition of “premises,” and that is simply to add “a building,

permanent structure, trailer or portable structure designed or used to

shelter animals.” This is about something that’s very important in the

Fraser Valley, and I want to bring this to the minister’s attention in

my remarks.

I was, first of all, surprised to hear that I resulted in the

amendment that the government has brought forward — the addition of the

word “airplane.” Sometimes it’s a bit discouraging in this House. You

think that what you say goes into the void and never has any impact. So

it was a pleasure to hear yesterday that the government, because of a

remark I made three or four years ago when we were in government, in a

parliamentary committee, has taken up the cause to protect airplanes. I

think that’s a great thing, because that could be a security

issue.

I would point out that the minister has specified airplanes

without an imminent threat, without any problem that he can refer to,

yet he has not brought forward any specific amendment to something that

really is a problem, that is an imminent threat. I want to take a few

moments to talk about that threat, because I think the minister has not

yet grasped the gravity of the situation with respect to agriculture in

B.C. I don’t think he’s got the message yet.

I don’t want to disparage the member in any way, or other members

on that side who live in urban areas, but the minister does not have

chicken barns in his backyard. He does not have hog farms in his riding.

He has skyscrapers in his riding. There’s nothing wrong with that, but

it just means that the minister may be out of touch with what is

happening in the field of agriculture, which is so important to many

members in this House, particularly on this side, and so important to

the economy of the province.

I think that if farmers across B.C. heard that the government had

brought forward an amendment to add the word “airplane,” they would roll

their eyes, because they’d say this doesn’t reflect what is happening on

the ground. The government could have done so much more in terms of this

legislation. What they’ve proposed right now is not relevant.

Other governments are taking action. On September 2, the Jumbo

Valley Hutterite colony was invaded by dozens of protesters, and it was

shut down for the better part of a day. When this invasion happened on

farm property, on September 2, Alberta Minister of Agriculture Devin

Dreeshen tweeted immediately. This is what he said. “This attack on a

turkey farm is unacceptable. Hard-working farmers and ranchers shouldn’t

have to deal with harassment from illegal protesters. They shouldn’t

have to worry about people entering their work, interfering with their

lives or threatening the health of their animals.”

[11:10 a.m.]

Just 30 days later, on October 30, the Premier, Jason Kenney,

Kenney, had a news conference at Jumbo Valley and announced strong

legislative protection for farmers. All it took the government of

Alberta was 30 days to act. Now, the minister told us yesterday that he

received correspondence on this in the summer, so he is very much aware

of this problem, yet he brought forward nothing.

I would say that the executive council, the cabinet, is informed

on this topic by the Minister of Agriculture. But where is she on this

issue? When the Treurs, who are a family in my riding, went public with

the onslaught of Facebook threats that they have experienced and wrote

to the minister, her office called and said that they were concerned

about that, and she appreciated that. Since then, I’ve not been able to

find a single word that the Minister of Agriculture has spoken about

this threat to every animal farmer in the province.

When it comes to animal protection, she’s silent. When it comes to

her Twitter account, she celebrates fruit and vegetable growers on

multiple occasions. I was at a meeting in my riding where she celebrated

beekeepers. I think that’s great. I celebrate fruit and vegetables and

bees and all of that myself. But I found just one tweet on the

minister’s feed celebrating Angus beef, one or two talking about

milk.

All of politics is a matter of emphasis, and the minister is in a

decidedly less celebratory mood when it comes to those who grow animals

as a source of protein. In fact, I would call the minister’s de-emphasis

damning with faint praise, and I would encourage her to change that

emphasis to celebrate chicken farmers in my riding, to celebrate the

jobs and the protein that is provided by the two packing plants in my

riding, to celebrate the two above-ground fish farms in my riding, to

celebrate our hog farms, to celebrate the enormous amount of dairy

produced where I live.

We have the largest dairies in Canada in my riding. The minister

should come out to visit them. I would invite him to come out and visit

them. I would invite him to visit Grace-Mar Farms, for instance, which

has a turntable on which there are 60 robotic milkers that milk 1,000

cows two or three or times a day in about an hour, with one person to

tend it. Imagine if that business were shut down for a day because of

occupiers on their land.

Think of the millions that it took to put this turntable in place

and all the machinery around it. Think of the millions. Think of the

interruption of income. Think of those cows and the pain to them

because, in farm parlance, they’re fresh. They’re lactating. They need

to give their milk. This could all be interrupted, and that would be

wrong.

The minister, unfortunately, does not celebrate farmers, in my

view, who raise animals, much less has she spoken about protecting those

farmers, their privacy, their property and their livelihood from

activists. She is nowhere to be found. There’s only a deafening silence,

but that silence speaks profoundly, loudly, to farmers who keep animals

around B.C.

Well, this issue is gaining in political salience. My visit to

Creekside Dairy and the comments that came from it were picked up in the

Kingston Whig-Standard in Ontario. In that province, on

September 18, just three weeks ago, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture,

Ernie Hardeman, had lots to say about it. I want to quote what he said

about it: “It’s not a matter of finding out whether there’s a problem.

Ontario recognizes that there’s a problem. I think it’s pretty clear

there is one. People have a right to be safe in their homes. We want to

make sure that people feel protected.”

Unfortunately, our government today does not appear to share that

feeling by what it has brought forward in this bill. That’s why I’m

speaking to the amendment. The minister in Ontario intended to meet with

farm groups as fast as possible. He said: “We’re putting everything on

the table in terms of what we can come up with.” He said “it’s very

important” that those breaking the law are held accountable.

On the other hand, our own Minister of Agriculture and our

Attorney General have had nothing to say. I wonder when they’ll speak to

this issue, and I would certainly call upon them to do so — to declare

their support for those who raise animals for human consumption for

millions of British Columbians and even to help grow this

industry.

Now, I want to dwell for a moment on this amendment, because there

is an emerging activist movement that appears to be brand-new. It wasn’t

around a few years ago when we were government. It’s not something that

the former government could have dealt with. This radical movement seeks

to destroy a way of life on farms all over B.C., to destroy the

livelihoods of farmers, to destroy a source of protein for millions of

people. That’s their end goal, and we in this House have a

responsibility to protect farmers and the diet of millions of people

from these activists.

[11:15 a.m.]

Farmers are not bad people. They’re good people. For example, back

in April, Creekside Dairy in my riding invited the public to come out

and watch their cows be put out to pasture. The cows had been in the

barn for the winter, so 250 local people came out to watch this great

spectacle. The owner’s biggest surprise was the gratitude that they

received from the community for the invitation.

Now, farmers are not hiding behind closed doors. They want to be

open to the public. Why did so many people want to come out to see what

would not have been a story in times past? Letting cows out of the barn,

for heaven’s sake, would not have been news a generation ago, but today

it is such a novelty that hundreds of people came out.

The minister lives in an urban area, and many of his members, too,

would be surprised at the novelty of such a thing as letting cows out of

the barn. I think part of the problem is that urban people don’t get out

to farms anymore. When I was a teenager, I worked on several farms. I

threw bales. I got up at five in the morning to get the cows in the

pasture. We milked them, and then I’d shovel manure up to the top of my

gumboots. I’d drive tractor, putting up silage and all the other related

stuff you do on a farm.

Urban people today may not feel as protective of farms and farming

as they used to be, because they’re unfamiliar with it. It’s all the

more reason for the government to step in and provide the protection

that farmers need, which they are not doing today. Let me detail some of

the threats that our farmers are enduring, and not just here in

B.C.

In Montreal, activists occupied the meat

section of a Costco. They

stood in front of the freezers and tried to stop people from buying

meat.

A lady named Mylène Bégin, who co-owns Princy Farm in Quebec’s

Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, created an Instagram account a few years

ago to document the daily life on her farm and combat what she calls

disinformation and the negative image of agriculture. She describes

herself as the target of bullying from vegan activists.

Again, there’s this theme that urbanites are removed from

agriculture and have a negative view of it. She had to start getting up

an hour early every morning to delete more than 100 negative messages a

day, some of which made her fear for her safety. Here’s what she said:

“There was one that took screenshots of my photos. He shared them on his

feed, after adding knives to my face and writing the word ‘psychopath’

on my forehead. It made me so scared.”

This is happening in England. In Brighton, 20 activists wearing

pig and chicken masks stormed a McDonald’s, threw fake blood all over

the floor, sat there and occupied a place in front of the shocked

customers.

In Australia, vegans blocked a number of streets in downtown

Melbourne last April. One vegan activist in New Zealand said that we

should stop using vaccines, for heaven’s sake, because part of the

vaccine is grown inside a fertilized egg. Therefore, it’s not vegan, and

it’s therefore unacceptable to use. The ramifications of that would be

far-reaching for human safety.

In Petaluma, California, there’s a packing plant for ducks, and

600 activists with Direct Action Everywhere — I have the feeling that

we’re going to hear that name more and more — converged on the plant,

locking their own necks to the gates and machinery. Activists also

removed 32 ducklings and rushed them to emergency veterinary treatment;

100 protesters were arrested there.

The government was cognizant of the threat that that places to

agriculture. There was considerable cost to the justice system, as well

as the loss of a day of production.

Some activists are calling the killing of a food animal “murder.”

Artificial insemination they’re calling “rape,” and animal ownership is

called “slavery.” This kind of radical language reflects a radical

philosophy, and it can lead to radical action. That’s the reason for our

amendment today.

After all, if someone is murdering another, does it not require a

physical intervention to stop it? This is how they reason. Their radical

philosophy gives rise to radical terminology and escalates the

possibility not only of trespass but of real, physical harm to farmers

and to farm families.

Yet there’s nothing. There’s no protection. There’s no word from

our government — maybe, I think, because their hearts are really more

with the protesters than with our farmers. I think the Minister of

Agriculture and the Attorney General need to declare themselves, to tell

us where they stand on protection for farmers.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want to repeat, as I’ve said before, that I’m a strong proponent

of rights. People should have the right to protest whatever they want,

but everyone has rights, including farmers and their families. Let the

right to protest happen on public property, and give farmers their right

to privacy as well. I abhor cruelty to animals. No one would countenance

cruelty to animals — we all agree on that — but the charge of cruelty is

the wedge issue that activists use to get their wider goal, which is to

eliminate animals as a source of protein.

Now, I want to ask the Chair a question.

If I ask the Attorney General a question, can I speak for longer

and ask another question? That’s my question to the Chair.

The Chair: If the minister permits that.

Interjection.

L. Throness: Right. I’ve had a

preamble now, and I want to ask a

question.

The Chair: The minister has indicated to go ahead.

L. Throness: So the two-minute warning is not on? Okay. Let me ask a question to the minister. Will the minister

affirm that the law of trespass in B.C. applies to producers and

processors of animal protein, and will he condemn the actions of

activists who attempt to occupy these premises?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s kind of a remarkable situation that the actual member who

proposed the amendment that’s in the bill, the member for

Chilliwack-Kent, is now using that amendment to beat the government over

the head, saying: “Why didn’t you do a different amendment?”

I have the transcript from May 28, 2018 — not three or four years

ago — where the member specifically asked: “What about an airplane, say,

on a tarmac? Should that not be included as a different kind of

conveyance” in the Trespass Act? Then the member for Nechako Lakes

weighs in: can we ensure that this can be done by amendment?

Staff, who are here with me, said that “it would be considered a

substantive change” but that it’ll be flagged for the minister “at the

appropriate time.” Not a word. Not a word about farms, about farmland,

about anything that he talked about today.

When he talks about conspicuous silence, I think a good thing

would have been, at that committee…. If he doesn’t care about airplanes,

which he asked about, and he cares about farms, which he says he does —

take him at his word — maybe asking about farms would have been a good

thing to ask about at the committee. Then maybe we would have a

different amendment in front of us. The member underestimates the power

of the opposition.

To his question, I will note what I said yesterday, that in the

act, in its plain wording, “premises” means “land” — so land including

but not limited to “enclosed land, foreshore and land covered by water.”

That’s land. That’s what the Trespass Act includes. It also includes

anything on the land, including but not limited to “a building or other

permanent structure” — whatever is inside the building, whatever the

building is used for, and so on. So yeah, it includes all these

activities.

As Attorney General, I condemn the breaking of any of British

Columbia’s laws, federal government laws, criminal laws. I stand with

the member and say that people should follow the law — period —

regardless of their political ideology. Now, I hope that assists him.

That it doesn’t get us any further ahead is the problem.

In my constituency, it’s an urban constituency. The member points

it out, rightly. People are huge enthusiasts about farmers, about

farming, about local food. They go out of their way to support local

farmers. They’d be surprised to hear the member’s comments that they

don’t care about animal farming, that they don’t care about farmers.

They would be actually quite startled and disappointed, because although

they live in the city, they support farmers in British

Columbia.

I understand the member is passionate about this issue now. As I

said to the member for Abbotsford West yesterday, some issues are not

partisan. The concern for our farmers, the safety of farmers, is an

important issue.

One of the things that I’ve looked at in the interim, when I

suddenly got the amendment yesterday without any notice from the member

for Abbotsford West…. We went overnight to legislative counsel. We said:

“Can you have a look at this?” Even though we’ve made legislative

counsel available to the opposition to ensure that their amendments are

drafted consistent with B.C. statutory language so that it can be easily

implemented if something like this comes up, for some reason, the

opposition refuses to take advantage of that service. It’s their

prerogative. But overnight we went to legislative counsel: “Can you have

a look at this? Can you clean it up?”

We have a proposed amendment that we believe is consistent with

statutory language and also achieves the intent of the member for

Abbotsford West. I will note that sometimes in law you might put

something in there that doesn’t necessarily add anything. It is my firm

belief that the current state of the law includes land, includes

buildings — regardless of what the buildings are used for — includes any

structure, whether it’s for animals or otherwise. But that’s not

actually the issue we face.

[11:25 a.m.]

However, sometimes it’s important to send a signal with the law.

Sometimes it’s important to tell people: “We care about you. We’re

concerned about what’s happening.” I understand that that’s the spirit

in which the member for Abbotsford West has brought his proposed

amendment forward.

What I’m going to propose doing is sharing the proposed amendment

to the amendment with the member for Abbotsford West for his

consideration and for the consideration of the other side of the House.

I know that there are other members that want to speak to this, and

maybe we can assure members that we’re interested in working together on

this important issue. You can have a discussion about the amendment to

the amendment and see whether it achieves what you think needs to be

achieved.

Also, I think, maybe we need to have another discussion — because

the act does cover this situation, I believe — about why it’s not

happening the way that it should be, why the act is not being used the

way that it should by either law enforcement or others. I don’t direct

the police. I don’t know why they’re not using it. So we’ve also reached

out to the chiefs of police in British Columbia to ask what issues that

they identified in terms of using this act. We’ve reached out to the

prosecutors to say: “What issues have you identified in terms of the use

of this act?” That work is underway, as well.

Before I table it, maybe I’ll just pass it over. Then any other

members who want to speak to the amendment as it stands on the floor

should go ahead and do so. Then, hopefully, we can come to some kind of

resolution on this.

L. Throness: I just want to talk about a couple of other things to impress upon

the minister the importance of this amendment. I appreciate that he’s

brought forward an amendment to our amendment. Of course, we’ll want to

consider that carefully.

I want to tell the minister about Direct Action Everywhere, which

is a group here in B.C. Direct Action Everywhere, which has the

abbreviation DxE, which I have no doubt we’ll be hearing about more, has

a Vancouver Facebook page where they advertise a global lockdown for

animal rights this fall. They urge civil disobedience to reach their

ends. They justify it by something called Rose’s law. Rose is not a

person. It’s a hen. Rose’s law has among its principles that every

sentient animal has a right not to be owned or killed.

Direct Action Everywhere indicates that the fall of 2019 will be

their time to take direct action everywhere. I’m just concerned that if

we do not take strong action legislatively, that will embolden the

people who are listening to our debate today from Direct Action

Everywhere, and it will embolden them to see that the Legislature does

not have a strong will in this matter. So it is important that we make a

statement.

One event that Direct Action held was on August 22, and they

called it Dairy is Scary. Certainly, that’s a verbal attack on dairy, a

direct attack on the industry that fuels the Chilliwack economy and much

of the Fraser Valley economy and an attack on the way of life, thousands

of my constituents and all the healthy food products that dairy provides

to British Columbians and millions of other Canadians.

At that meeting, Direct Action decided not to disrupt any farms

right now, but they discussed future plans, and I would not be surprised

at all to see them in Chilliwack soon. That’s why we brought forward

this amendment.

I want to add something here, as well, that the minister needs to

consider. If animal rights activists care about animals, they will care

about biosecurity. If you have 100 people coming onto a farm, they might

have just come from other nations, perhaps from a protest on a farm

elsewhere. They could bring disease, unwittingly, on their shoes or

boots as they tromp over somebody else’s property. They can destroy the

lives of hundreds of thousands of animals or maybe more.

In 2014, during the avian influenza outbreak in the Fraser Valley,

140,000 animals had to be destroyed. That is real damage to animals as

well as people, and animal rights people should be concerned about that.

So far, they, apparently, are not. I think that’s wrong, and I think if

they don’t show due care for animals, the law should care. The law

should protect animals and the industry.

I think that in whatever amendment the minister has brought

forward, it needs to single out the issue of biosecurity and provide

harsher penalties for those who breach biosecurity, which has enormous

ramifications on animal health and human health right across the

industry. So we’re going to be looking carefully at the amendment the

minister has brought forward.

I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak on

this issue, and I look forward to the amendment the government has

brought.

M. de Jong: I wonder if it might be worthwhile to seek a five-minute recess of

the committee’s work, because I think the Attorney has presented

something that is within the spirit of what the opposition was trying to

advance. With your and the other members’ permission, maybe a

five-minute recess might be appropriate.

The Chair: The House is recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:30 a.m. to 11:34 a.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Depending on the discussions on the other side, if they’re

supportive of the redrafted amendment, the appropriate procedure, I

understand, would be for the member to withdraw his amendment and to

substitute this amendment in its place.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney is correct. And I wonder if, just prior to

doing that…. The only question that arose — it’s a fairly

straightforward one. Well, I should say this. The amendment is not

formally on the floor for the reasons the Attorney has mentioned. But a

few moments ago he speculated about what the ultimate intention of

presenting the original amendment was, and I think he got it right. It

is to make clear that farmers and their buildings and their farms are

protected.

The question with respect to the amendment that the Attorney has

kindly shared with us relates to the term “livestock.” I don’t know if

that’s a defined term somewhere. I tend to think of livestock as

four-legged animals. But of course, our intention is to ensure that

there is a specified statutory protection for farmers of all sorts. And

we, of course, are thinking of the chickens and the turkey farmers who

are also subjected.

So if the Attorney is able to provide, with the assistance of his

staff, some confirmation around the breadth of that term and whether it

captures farm buildings that house, obviously, cows, horses but chickens

and turkeys. That’s the nature of the question.

Hon. D. Eby: The intent of the word “livestock,” which is used in other

statutes in the province to reflect farm animals broadly…. It’s not a

defined term. It was meant to capture animals that may be bred or housed

for the purposes of farming. It is distinct from “animals” as a

category, because animals could include wild animals, which was not, as

I understood it, the intention of this. It was aimed specifically at

farmers raising animals for food or for other uses like dairy, which is

why the word “livestock” was used, which is used elsewhere in statutes

in British Columbia.

I can’t recall, off the top of my head, what word the member used,

but the intent, as we understood it, was to capture farm animals of all

kinds — two-legged, four-legged, and so on. That is why the term

“livestock” was used rather than “animals” more broadly.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. I think what he has said is livestock

captures cattle, horses, chickens, turkeys — animals that are raised by

farmers for food consumption. If we could just clarify that.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. So if you hammer up a bird house in a park or something, that

wouldn’t be what we’re talking about here. Livestock reflects the

raising of animals by farmers in other statutes in the province, and

it’s consistent with that, regardless of the type of animal that’s being

raised.

M. de Jong: The example that I used yesterday, of course, specifically

referred to pork producers and pigs. I’ll take it from the Attorney’s

answer — and he’s indicating that is so — that those are livestock

within the meaning of the term being proposed in his

amendment.

What I think I would propose, Madam Chair, in keeping with the

procedures of this place — and on the assurance of the Attorney that he

does intend in a moment to formally table this amendment — would be to

withdraw the amendment that I have offered to the committee and have it

substituted by the amendment the Attorney has provided me with a few

moments ago.

The Chair: Members, we require unanimous consent to withdraw the

amendment proposed by Abbotsford West.

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table a proposed amendment to Bill 35 and read it into

the record.

[11:40 a.m.]

SECTION 19, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 1 of the Trespass Act, R.S.B.C. 2018, c. 3,

is amended in paragraph (b) (ii) of the

definition of “premises”

(

a) in subparagraph (

i) by adding “,

including a building or permanent structure designed or used for

shelter for livestock ” after

“ structure ”,

(

b) in subparagraph (ii) by striking

out “ or vehicle ” and substituting “,

vehicle or aircraft ” ,

and

(

c) in subparagraph (iii) by adding

“, including shelter for

livestock ,” after

“ for

shelter ” . ]

On the amendment.

M. de Jong: My colleague just reminded me, and I suppose I should ask on the

record. Livestock, from the explanation the Attorney offered, would

include mink, as well, as I understand it.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, the intent is to reflect any animal that’s farmed for any

use, which would include dairy, eggs, fur, other types of animals,

including animals that you might think of typically as wild animals,

like deer, that may be farmed, or elk. Livestock is intended to reflect

animals raised by farmers, rather than any particular type of

animal.

M. de Jong: What I would intend and hope to do next is to take up the

Attorney’s invitation to query the second part of this, which is having

created an expanded tool or a more specific tool to explore how it’s

being utilized or how it should be utilized. But there may be other

questions about this specific amendment. So perhaps the proper course

for us to follow is to consider the amendment and then, prior to voting

on the

section as amended, assuming it is amended, to pose those

questions at that time.

If that makes sense to you, Madam Chair, and to the Attorney, I’d

propose to proceed on that basis.

Hon. D. Eby: I guess I’m not sure what the member is suggesting — that we stand

down this section, go through the rest of the bill and then come back to

this section?

M. de Jong: No, I’m suggesting that we consider the amendment, vote on the

amendment, and then, prior to voting on the

section as amended, we pose

any additional questions relating to the use of the section.

The Chair: Recognizing Delta South, speaking on the amendment.

I. Paton: I would like to speak on the amendment that has just recently been

put forward to add the term “livestock” to this bill, the housing of

livestock. As my fellow colleague from Abbotsford West has implied, this

also must apply to not only four-legged animals but to animals such as

mink and animals such as poultry, hogs, etc.

This is a very simple amendment. I can speak to the fact that last

fall and last spring, we had simple amendments put forward to bills

regarding Bill 52 and Bill 15 that were very simple, but they were not

acted upon. It has caused a great deal of furor in the agricultural

sector in B.C. So this amendment is important.

It’s a simple one, but it’s paramount to the safety of the

biosecurity of B.C. farms in British Columbia. If passed, this simple

amendment will amend the

definitions of “premises” to include buildings,

permanent or portable structures designed or used to shelter

livestock.

This will add extra protection to local farmers to fight against

trespassers and keep their lands safe for their families as well as for

their livestock. Fundamental to the notion of property rights should be

the ability of the owner to feel safe and secure on his or her own

property. This is no more true than on the family farm, and we have many

family farms in my riding of Delta South.

We have several poultry farms, and we have several dairy farms. I

was one of those dairy farmers for many, many years. I know the

importance of cleanliness. I know the importance of animal husbandry, of

looking after my animals in the very, very best way.

[11:45 a.m.]

In fact, I would be happy to say that in Canada, people that own

any sort of farm, whether it’s poultry, whether it’s dairy, whether it’s

hogs…. We like to say it’s almost like a cruise ship atmosphere, where

animals are getting the very, very best treatment. Whether it’s where

they lie down to sleep at night, the type of feed they’re getting, the

automatic brushes, the robotic milkers, I think life is pretty good for

animals in our agriculture industry, especially here in British

Columbia.

Farmers have a great responsibility all across this province.

Hard-working farmers are putting food on our families’ dinner

tables.

In fact, I can tell you that just this morning, I was in touch

with the B.C. dairy producers association. In British Columbia now, all

dairy farmers have signed on to a code of practice for care and handling

of dairy cattle. All dairy producers in Canada must now meet the

requirements of what’s called proaction for animal care in this

country.

I can assure people that whether it’s the poultry industry, the

hog industry, beef, cattle or dairy, these animals are being very well

looked after. An animal that is happy, that is relaxed, that is in a

good environment is going to be the best producer of your milk or your

beef or your pork or whatever it happens to be.

Last spring, unfortunately, hundreds of activists descended on

Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, creating chaos and disrupting the

ability of the local farmers to go about the work. This even scared the

children of the owners of this hog farm, and I find that very disturbing

— that protesters and activists would try and invade a family farm and

create so much trepidation with the family members.

A very incredibly unfortunate incident about two months ago on the

Global TV evening news. A friend of mine, Brian Anderson, has a dairy

farm in Fort Langley. The camera showed that someone came in, in a

fairly expensive SUV in the middle of the night. They didn’t get a

proper picture of the licence plate or the person who did it, but they

actually stuck an arrow in a newborn baby calf in a maternity pen and

somehow dragged that calf out and put it into the back of the SUV. This

is completely unacceptable behaviour to take place on someone’s dairy

farm in British Columbia.

Being in the farm auction business…. This is a rather bizarre

story. For over 40 years, I’ve been involved at the PNE as a director

for agriculture. My dad and I, since the 1960s, have done the annual 4-H

auction at the PNE. These kids bring these 4-H projects, and it’s just

unbelievable how well looked after they are and how well kept they

are.

Every year on a Tuesday, with the fair being open and the public

being able to come in and sit in the Agrodome and watch the auction and

feel the excitement of the auctioneers and the kids selling their

animals…. About three years ago, in the middle of this auction, came a

protest by the PETA group, with bullhorns and signs, and completely

disrupted the 4-H kids’ day at the PNE with the 4-H auction. It took at

least 35 minutes to disrupt the protesters that showed up in the middle

of the Agrodome at the PNE to disrupt this auction. Now, unfortunately,

the 4-H auction has had to be moved to a dark day, which is a Monday at

the PNE, when there is no public access to the PNE that can disrupt the

4-H auction.

Just this past Labour Day, several dozen protesters broke into a

turkey farm in Fort Macleod, Alberta, making demands.

The Treur family, a local Agassiz dairy farmer family, are also

worried about an invasion of protesters on their farm. The Treurs milk

about 100 Brown Swiss cows, and their farm has been certified organic

since 2015. The Treur family has been subjected to verbal and physical

threats of violence from activists on line. According to the Country

Life in B.C. newspaper, one protester threatened to report the

Treurs to child protection services for “exposing her children to animal

abuse.”

I believe very strongly in the fundamental right of every person

living in a democratic nation to protest. That is a privilege we all

enjoy as Canadians. What we do not have and should not have, however, is

the right to invade a person’s private property and risk compromising

the farmer’s product and endangering their livelihood. Farmers need

protection enshrined in legislation that says that if you are a farmer

in this province and you work hard every day to put food on peoples’

tables, you have a recourse when activists trespass on your

farm.

We need to have enforcement of this amended act that goes forward.

We need to know what the local police departments, the RCMP will do

about these situations where people are breaking onto farmers’ property

and entering buildings.

[11:50 a.m.]

This isn’t just about property rights. It’s also about

biosecurity, which is very important in the agriculture industry.

Farmers work very hard to ensure their farms are sterile environments.

They wear protective clothing in order to ensure there is no

biocontamination with their livestock. Can you imagine the biohazard

that is imposed on sensitive farm ecosystems when hundreds of protestors

storm cattle barns or chicken barns and hold a sit-in?

Many of us on this side of the House have toured poultry farms,

hog farms and dairy farms. And nowadays, you cannot even go onto a

poultry farm in British Columbia unless you put on plastic boots, a full

white set of coveralls that are throwaway coveralls and a hat to cover

your hair. Biosecurity is very important. Every time you step into a

dairy farm or a poultry farm, you must dip your shoes in a liquid that

disinfects your shoes so there’s no chance you can bring a disease onto

the farm.

Biosecurity is very important. Activists that are breaking into

barns or farms in the middle of the night or protesting during the day

are completely breaking the rules of biosecurity, which are so important

to the future of our agricultural products in this province. It is

irresponsible and could cause irreparable harm to the animals

themselves, not to mention the disruption of the farmer’s business and

way of life.

The member for Abbotsford West’s amendment will address this gap.

Now the amendment has been amended, and I’m very happy to see that

livestock has been added to it. To quote my colleague from

Chilliwack-Kent, he has said that three things need to be done to ensure

that this legislation moves forward with this trespass bill.

First, we need to have a separate provision in the Trespass Act —

or a new act for food production, like farms, and food processing, such

as packing plants — to address the protection of our food sources and

our farmers. Two, we need to put in place strong penalties that will

deter activists, and we need enforcement by our police departments to

enforce these rules. Three, we need separate penalties for those who

breach biosecurity, because we know that someone who brings a disease

into a farm can threaten the entire industry, not just that one farm.

And those penalties need to be stronger than the penalties for trespass

because of the incredible risk there is to the industry, but also to

animal health.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment today. As

I’ve always said, it’s not farmland without the farmer. It’s important

that this legislation show farmers across this province that we take

their safety concerns seriously, be it the safety of their animals, the

safety of their employees and the safety of their family

members.

Amendment approved.

section 19 as amended.

M. de Jong: That brings us to the part of the conversation that the Attorney

alluded to and, I think, other speakers, including myself, have alluded

to. Yesterday I asked the Attorney some questions about the

prosecutorial record around the Trespass Act,

section 2 — maybe

section

6 as well. I think the Attorney probably appreciates the nature of my

interest.

To what extent is this tool, this legal instrument, being used to

protect the rights of landowners? I’m not sure if he’s had an

opportunity to gather some of that information, but I’m curious to know

if that’s the case.

Hon. D. Eby: I have reached out to the prosecution service. We’ve also reached

out to the B.C. chiefs of police to ask them about any information they

have about the use of this act, including the fact that this act may

have fallen into disuse, and if so, why?

I don’t have that information yet for the member. We just asked

yesterday afternoon when he raised the issue. As soon as I have that

information, I will share it with the member.

M. de Jong: I am happy to concede and admit that in my time in the office that

the Attorney holds, I wasn’t aware of prosecutions taking place around

the provisions of the Trespass Act. This is not intended to be

cross-examination, but I take it from the Attorney’s response that he

similarly is unaware — that doesn’t mean they don’t exist — of

prosecutorial activity around the Trespass Act presently.

Hon. D. Eby: There are probably thousands of prosecutions every year. I’m not

aware of every one. I think that it is a good approach to let the

prosecutors develop whatever information they can for us to make an

informed discussion in this place.

With that, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report

progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada