British Columbia Hansard — 15 May 2019, p.m., Issue 258 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190515pm-Hansard-n258

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 258 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 9409 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9410 Jacky Ko J.

Y ap Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 9410 Ministerial Statements ............................................................................................................................................................ 9411 David Kampe Hon. A. Dix D. Ashton Introduction of Bills................................................................................................................................................................ 9411 D.

Barnett Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 9411 New curriculum in schools and news analysis by students J. Routledge 70th anniversary of Hope-Princeton Highway J. Tegart River of Belonging art project at École Heritage Park Middle School B. D’Eith Anniversary of B.C. government apology to Chinese Canadians T. Wat Frank Burden R. Leonard Ralph Nilson and Vancouver Island University M.

Stilwell Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 9414 Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister S. Bond Hon. J. Sims J. Johal Soil disposal site in Shawnigan Lake watershed S. Furstenau Hon. G. Heyman Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister and political fundraising issues P . Milobar Hon. J. Sims J. Thornthwaite Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister J. Tegart Hon. J.

Sims Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister and political fundraising issues M. Polak Hon. J. Sims Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9418 S. Sullivan Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9418 Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019 Hon. D. Eby M. Morris

Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 9421 Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9422 Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019 P . Milobar Hon. G.

Heyman Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 9422 Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9422 Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 J. Martin Hon. H. Bains G.

Kyllo Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 9429 Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9429 Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Martin Hon. H.

Bains Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9434 Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019 J. Rustad Hon. D. Donaldson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9440 Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019(continued) M. Lee A. Weaver Hon. C.

James Point of Order (Chair’s Ruling) ............................................................................................................................................. 9445 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9445 Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019(continued) Hon. C. James A. Weaver M. Lee R.

Sultan Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9450 Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 G. Kyllo Hon. M. Mungall Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9460 Estimates: Ministry of Health(continued) N. Letnick Hon. A. Dix

WEDNESDAY , MAY 15, 2019 The House met at 1:35 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. A. Dix: I’m proud to introduce paramedics from around B.C. who’ll be visiting with members of the Legis- lature today. They’ll be visiting with me much later, because I and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country will be doing Health estimates and probably talking a little bit about ambulance paramedics and B.C. emergency health services at some point.

I wanted to welcome Cameron Eby — I want to say, again, no relation — who is the president, of course, of the Ambu- lance Paramedics of B.C. and who plays an extraordinary role every day. There are 33 paramedics here to meet with us today. They’re all around us in the gallery, particularly up there — hi, Cameron. I look forward to meeting them later; I know members of the House do. Please give them a warm round of applause, welcome them, and thank them for all the work they do every day for British Columbia. D. Davies:It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of students from Western Washington University.

They’re the political science class on Canadian government and politics. We’re joined here by their instructor, Butch Kamena. I just spent the last 25 minutes with them trying to explain everything that happens in this place, which was about 24 hours less than what I needed — in a very unbiased fashion, Mr. Speaker. Would the House please make the stu- dents feel welcome. N. Letnick:I would like to follow up on the Minister of Health’s introduction, and for once, I actually have the list of all the names — which, usually, the Minister of Health gets to do, and I can’t.

The honour falls to me to misquote some of these wonderful names. Before I do that, I just want to say thank you, on behalf of all of my colleagues here in the House, for the work they do. I know I have availed myself of your expertise over the years, on more than one occasion. I’m sure my colleagues to the left of me and to the right of me have also availed themselves of that expertise. Thank you, and thank you for the privilege of advancing the blood bill, the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, on your behalf in this Legislature just a few years ago. So the brave soul jumps in.

Let’s welcome Keith Taylor, Shane Thair, Melanie Stevens, Paul Alberts, Amy Chris, Gretchen Bonegardener, Corey Viala, Cameron Eby, Greg Hayes, Keith Moraes, Scott Sywake, Warren Leeder, Jessica Chilton, Annemarie Byers, Corey Froese, Dave Deines, Dustin Jackson, Kelly Budway, Kevin Marriott, Kevin Lemay, Robert Parkinson, Sophia Georges, Megan Nelson, Jason Jackson, Andre Ledoux, Chris Andersen, Matt Bor- dewick, Ashton Paradis, John Strohmaier, Grant Farquhar and Dave Leary.

Before I ask the House to make you feel really welcome, you should know that I’m giving the list toHansard, so it will actually be spelled correctly. If I missed the pronunciation, don’t worry about it. Would the House please make them feel very, very wel- come. J. Routledge:Well, I’m very excited to introduce Jody Tor- rance, who is a teacher at Gilmore Community School in Burnaby North. With her are 58 grade 4 and 5 students, one of which is my granddaughter, Asia Brassington. Also with them are nine parents who are here for the trip, one of whom is my son, Bill Brassington.

Please make them all feel very welcome. [1:40 p.m.] Hon. M. Mark:In the gallery today we are joined by rep- resentatives from the regulatory body for architecture. The Architectural Institute of B.C. is an independent profession- al self-regulatory body that was incorporated in April 1920 under the Architects Act. We have several guests from the AIBC joining us today: chief executive officer Mark Vernon, general counsel Thomas Lutes, director of registration and licensing Jenelyn Torres. They had a chance to meet with me this morning. I know that they’ve met with the members opposite.

I’m pleased to recognize that AIBC is commemorating its centenary year. For the past 100 years, the institute has served the public interest by ensuring that architects meet the qualifications and standards needed to practise architec- ture in B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and those that aren’t here. There are 2,167 members as far as I know today. Would the House please join me in welcoming the architects of B.C. Hon. C. Trevena:It gives me great pleasure to make two sets of introductions today. One is in the gallery, representatives of the B.C. Auto- mobile Association.

I think that many of us in this House are members of the BCAA. They do a great job for us. They’ve been talking to members of the government caucus and are going to be talking to members of the Lib- eral caucus later on. We have in the gallery Shawn Pettipas, the director of community engagement and marketing; David Weloy, the senior manager of automotive safety and training; Sara Hol- land, who is the senior manager of communication advo- 9409

cacy; and Sacha Trueman, a road assist fleet driver. I hope the House will make them all very welcome. My second introduction. I impinge a little on my col- league, the Minister of Agriculture’s role here, but in the gal- lery today is one of my constituents. He’s here as part of the B.C. Seafood Alliance. Gary Casavant works at Keltic Seafoods, a seafood company up in Port Hardy. I hope the House will make Mr. Casavant very welcome also. Hon. L. Popham:With us today in the gallery are a num- ber of folks from the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

The alliance collectively represents more than 90 percent of the com- mercially harvested seafood in British Columbia, and that’s worth almost $1 billion in annual sales. Members that are joining us here today are Christina Burridge, the executive director of the B.C. Seafood Alliance; Chris Sporer of the B.C. Seafood Alliance and the Pacific Halibut Management Association; Tiare Boyes, B.C.

Tuna Fishermen’s Association; John Nishidate, the Seafood Produ- cers Association of B.C. and Grand Hale Marine Products; Robert Hokness, who is a fisherman; Lyle Pierce, who is a fisherman; Brad McLean, seafood producer, French Creek Seafood; Gary Casavant, as we heard from the Minister of Transportation, a seafood producer from Keltic Seafoods; Grant Dovey, Underwater Harvesters Association; and Dane Chauvel, Gulf Trollers Association. Please make them feel welcome. M. Dean: In the precinct today we have over 30 grade 5 students from École Victor Brodeur. They’re here today with their teacher Daniel Bernatchez.

Please make them very welcome. S. Chandra Herbert:It gives me great pleasure to stand to celebrate a devoted dad, a loving husband, an incredible athlete, a good friend, a hard-working MLA for the people of Delta North. A very happy birthday to the MLA for Delta North. Tributes JACKY KO J. Y ap:I have some sad news to share with the Legis- lature. We learned that last night Jacky Ko, who is well known in the Richmond community and the Chinese- Canadian community as a very successful, popular photo- grapher, passed away.

Jacky Ko will be best remembered for founding the Van- couver International Photography Festival, which I know some members on both sides of the House have attended over the years. He was a wonderful human being who car- ried out his profession of photography with great energy and passion and supported, most notably, the not-for-profit and charitable sector by providing photography services, often without charge.

He did operate as a professional photo- grapher with his own professional photography studio. [1:45 p.m.] As I said, very well known and cared for in the com- munity, so very sad news to hear of his sudden passing last night. I ask all members of this House to join me in sending condolences to the family of Jacky Ko. Introductions by Members S. Furstenau:I have two sets of introductions to make. I’m pleased to introduce Christine McLean, Eric McLean, Judith Pringle, Doug Watt, Marlene Watt and Doug Gook, all from the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake.

I’ d like to applaud their commitment to protecting their local water- shed, which, as members may remember, was decimated by the Mount Polley disaster. They continue to raise awareness about the impacts to their watershed, which is sadly syn- onymous with experiences that we have had in Shawnigan Lake. May the House please make the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake most welcome. Speaking of Shawnigan Lake, I have three members of the Shawnigan community here today, and I’m delighted to introduce them.

John Hayes was one of only two citizens who filed an Environmental Appeal Board appeal when the permit to put five million tonnes of contaminated waste into our watershed was delivered. He went to all 31 days of the EAB hearings. He is a true hero in our community. Shelagh Bell-Irving and Marnie Hare are also here in the gallery. Shelagh was relentless in her efforts on the road every morning, and Marnie as well. I would like to really acknowledge that the friendships that we formed over those many years are deep and true. I’m delighted to see you here today. Thank you for coming. Hon. L.

Beare:I’ d like to introduce 30 grade 5 students from Maple Ridge Christian School from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. They’re in the precinct today, led by Mr. Reid and accompanied by 15 adults. They are touring the building at this moment, but I had the opportunity to meet with them this morning and brought them into my office. They took numerous selfies at the minister’s desk. We have a bunch of budding ministers in this group. I’m very excited to have had the chance to visit with them. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. R.

Kahlon:I share a special birthday with, I just found out, two special people. A special message to one of the birthday boys in the chamber today from his son, Dev, and his partner, Romi. I want to recognize the member for the West End. We share a birthday. People often confuse us as twins. I just want to make sure, for the record, that we’re not twins. We just look very much alike. Also, it’s the birthday of the member for Penticton’s mom, 9410 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

who is turning 94 today. A lot of great people born on this day. Ministerial Statements DAVID KAMPE Hon. A. Dix:I rise to give a ministerial statement. Last Wednesday David Kampe passed away, surrounded by family and friends, and our province lost a community builder, a role model and benefactor. Mr. Kampe was a true champion of the city of Penticton and the entire South Okanagan. He grew up in Summerland and built Peters Bros. Construction and Paving from scratch to a company that is in every market in B.C. ’s interior. A kid at heart, one of Mr.

Kampe’s passions was giving youth a chance to have success, no matter whether they had money or not. He was all about community, and I think it’s fair to say he loved Penticton. In recent years, he donated close to $8 million to Pentic- ton Regional Hospital for its new patient care tower, one that now bears his name, and a further $1.7 million for future equipment. We are so grateful that he was able to be with us when we opened the hospital — to be with the member for Penticton and the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who were there with us that day.

I know that we were able to express our gratitude to him, and he was able to celebrate a hospital that he wanted very much to be a five-star hotel. I think we met that test on that day. His loss is, of course, considerable for his family, friends, employees and all of the staff of Penticton Regional Hospital. I ask members of the Legislature to join with me and the member for Penticton today to honour Mr. Kampe, whose work represented, I think, Penticton, his community and his province so well. His dedication will live on at the hospital and everywhere in Penticton for generations to come. [1:50 p.m.] D.

Ashton:I would really like to thank the Minister of Health for his kind words. The gentleman of which the minister speaks was a very good friend, a mentor and an incredible philanthropist not only in the Okanagan but throughout British Columbia, an individual who never, ever, ever wanted credit for his gener- osity. He actually really preferred to be anonymous. He actu- ally had to be persuaded to have his name put on that brand- new tower at the hospital in Penticton. I was taken into his confidence many times on some of the contributions that he wanted to remain anonymous on. I can say that Mr.

Kampe did an incredible job of not only employing hundreds and hundreds of people in this province but making a difference to many in the province, especially those in need. With the graciousness of all of us in the Legislature, I’ d just like to reserve the opportunity in the future, when things settle down, to give him another word of thanks. Introduction of Bills D. Barnett:I move that the bill entitled Adoption Amend- ment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to stand in this House to reintroduce the Adoption Amendment Act. I first brought this bill forward on November 21, 2018. This bill removes the legislative stip- ulation that disqualifies adults over the age of 19 from form- ally being adopted if these individuals were not supported as children by their prospective adopter during their youth. It increases the ability for consenting adults to have the free- dom to define their family relationships and have them rec- ognized by the state without the unnecessary and arbitrarily restrictive legislation exclusions currently present in the Adoption Act.

If passed, consenting adults who enter adoptions will have the ability to have equal access to state benefits afforded to families. This will align British Columbia with other Cana- dian jurisdictions that already have allowances to adulthood adoption in place, such as Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, among others. The bill will allow for the same protective safeguards against abuse of the adoption process that are already gran- ted to the adoption of minors to remain in place for adults by allowing the courts to determine the validity of the motiva- tions of prospective adult adoptions.

Finally and most importantly, this bill has been brought forward due to the fact that in my constituency, I have adults who wish to be adopted, and under the current system, it is difficult. I see no reason these individuals should not be allowed to define and have recognized their consenting fam- ily relationships. Mr. Speaker:Thank you, Member. We will take that on notice for the moment. It wasn’t on the order paper. There must have been some glitch. We’ll look forward to hearing you introduce that again at the earliest opportunity. D. Barnett:It was my understanding it was.

Statements (Standing Order 25B) NEW CURRICULUM IN SCHOOLS AND NEWS ANALYSIS BY STUDENTS J. Routledge:The other day I was having lunch with my granddaughter Asia, and I asked her what she was learning in school. She told me they were deconstructing the news. That’s right, deconstructing the news — her words, not mine. She’s ten years old. Now, I must have looked impressed, because my son shrugged and said: “New curriculum. ” I decided to find out more about this new curriculum, but first, I had to remind myself what “deconstruct” meant — to analyze by breaking Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9411

something down into its component parts in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions. The new curriculum recognizes that kids in school today will graduate into a world that’s totally different from the one we know now. Not only do we need to teach them to embrace technology; they must become highly skilled in communication, collaboration and critical thinking. [1:55 p.m.] B.C. ’s new curriculum allows students to have more input with respect to how, when and where they learn.

It helps kids, both girls and boys, feel more connected and engaged with what they’re studying so that they can have a better chance of success. Back to deconstructing the news. My granddaughter explained it to me like this. Everyone in the class picked a local news story and described it by answering a few ques- tions. What’s the story? How has it been constructed? Who is the target audience? What persuasive strategies have been used to connect with the reader? What does the story want you to think and feel? Asia picked pipelines.

Now she watches the news with her dad, and she views it very differently than she did before she learned how to deconstruct it. Let’s keep in mind that today there are 58 young people in the gallery who know how to deconstruct what we’re saying. They may even go home and share their analysis with their parents. 70th ANNIVERSARY OF HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHW AY J. Tegart:Recently I had the opportunity to attend a celeb- ration of the 70th anniversary of the Hope-Princeton High- way. The event was hosted by the Hope Communities in Bloom Committee, which had printed copies of the original program used in 1949.

The program indicates that they actu- ally sangGod Save the King. The contract for the building of the highway was let to J. Tomlinson and Emil Anderson. Work began in 1945, and four years later, at a cost of $12 million, the route was com- plete. We would not even have environmental assessments done in that period. Six thousand people attended the open- ing day ceremony.

One of my constituents shared the following story with me, how exciting it was to be 16 years old at the opening day celebration of the highway that would open up the southern Interior of B.C. and to drive it on the first day with his two friends. His buddy had borrowed his dad’s car, and the three of them hit the road. He said he will nev- er forget that experience. He indicated they drove up to Princeton and back to Hope with a great many others who were excited about the new highway.

When they arrived back in Hope, there was more excitement, as it appears his buddy who drove that day had forgotten to ask permission to borrow the car. The police were waiting for them when they arrived back in Hope. It was a memorable day all around. The Hope-Princeton opened up the southern Interior of the province. It provided an efficient route for trade and pro- duce out of the Okanagan, and for tourism. We only have to look at the economy of the southern Interior to know the impact that this highway has had in the last 70 years.

Congratulations to the engineers, the contractors, the workers and those with the vision to see the importance of highway infrastructure. Y our work and vision have had a sig- nificant impact on the past and future of this great province. RIVER OF BELONGING ART PROJECT AT ÉCOLE HERITAGE PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL B. D’Eith:I continue to be amazed by the students and teachers in my riding, and I’ve shared a few of their accom- plishments in the past — their dedication to helping others in programs they’ve created. Once again, I’m happy to stand and speak about an initiative taken on by teachers and stu- dents in Mission.

Last week École Heritage Park Middle School unveiled a new 12-by-4-foot art project called aRiver of Belonging. The piece is made of mostly coloured glass and glass rocks, and it depicts a beautiful river filled with salmon. It’s indeed some- thing special, because every student and staff in the school contributed a piece. Each person created a rock for the river, with a message or a picture that was meaningful to each of them. This actually was the brainchild of outgoing vice-principal Mikel Brogan.

Artist Marina Papais collaborated with Daniel Collett and local First Nations carver Peter Gong to work with the students. The vice-principal said that the project was aimed at creat- ing a stronger sense of belonging in the school toward recon- ciliation, and it encapsulates the notion that every student truly matters and belongs.

The school’s six core values — respect, responsibility, perseverance, courage, integrity and empathy — are all represented in six beautiful carved salmon by Peter Gong. [2:00 p.m.] It’s our job to teach the next generation about truth and reconciliation, and it’s so wonderful to see schools and school districts take this amazing step towards this recon- ciliation. I want to thank vice-principal Brogan for his dedication to the students at Mission and for starting this project. I’ d like to thank the artists and the Stó:lō First Nation who were part of the unveiling ceremony.

And of course, I want to thank every student and staff who participated in this amazing project. This piece of artwork is now permanently displayed at the school, in their Clark theatre. I encourage everyone to visit Mission to see this wonderful work. 9412 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

ANNIVERSARY OF B.C. GOVERNMENT APOLOGY TO CHINESE CANADIANS T. Wat:As we move to the halfway mark of Asian Heritage Month, we land on an anniversary of a day that is very important to me and to the Chinese-Canadian community — a day that fills our hearts. In May 2013, as the then Minis- ter Responsible for Multiculturalism, I began a consultation process that saw more than 1,300 people attend a series of seven forums throughout the province.

This all led to May 15, 2014, five years ago today, when I had the honour of standing next to the then Premier, Christy Clark, as she shared these words: “We can’t undo the actions of the past, but we can acknowledge them, apologize and learn from them.

Today we rightly recognize and celebrate cultural diversity, and that’s why all sides of the Legislature were able to come together to offer our deepest regrets to members of the Chinese community for historic wrongs. ” The report that came out of the consultations outlined 13 recommendations to recognize the social, cultural and eco- nomic contributions of Chinese Canadians. One of those recommendations that received consensus at every forum was to update the social studies curriculum to acknowledge the contribution of Chinese British Columbians.

Other recommendations, such as repealing racist legis- lation, identifying sites and artifacts of historical signific- ance, publishing a book profiling the contribution of notable Chinese British Columbians and creating commemorative monuments, have also been implemented. It is with great pride that I repeat this again in the House. “In the words of one forum participant, our efforts will not only heal the past but generate new thinking about how to ensure we have a vibrant, inclusive community and continue to make a real difference in the lives of many thousands of Chinese British Columbians. ” FRANK BURDEN R.

Leonard:Frank Burden is someone who steps up to help without question. I wasn’t surprised to learn that I’m not the only one in this House that knows he’s always looked for ways to be of service to others. It began small, with his children, coordinating activities for local Cub and Scout leaders. As a secondary teacher-librarian and union activist, he served as union rep at his school, then as union president and bargaining chair in his school district. He facilitated countless workshops and advocacy and cur- riculum change through the B.C. Teacher’s Federation and was elected to the board of the B.C.

College of Teachers. After retiring, he didn’t stop. He supervised the work of UVic student teachers and was a founding counsellor for the Com- munity Justice Centre in the Comox Valley. Along the way, Frank joined his local legion wherever he lived, from Alberta in the 1960s to Vanderhoof, Nelson and, finally, to the Comox Valley. With Courtenay’s Branch 17, he’s been poppy chair and president and served on the board of central Vancouver Island zone command before taking on the role of service officer.

As service officer, Frank conducted poppy services and other forms of remembrance ceremonies for veterans and legion members. His advocacy and support for veterans, their spouses and dependents and other members of the community, went above and beyond, with deep gratitude in return. Digging up military records, helping apply for pen- sions, filling out forms and appeals — these were his regu- lar fare. Through the poppy fund, he’s helped families leave abusive relationships. He’s helped two veterans settle after a house fire. There are countless other stories. His legion has honoured him with a life membership.

Frank Burden has enriched the fabric of our whole community with his selfless service on behalf of others. We love you, big Frank, and thank you. [2:05 p.m.] RALPH NILSON AND V ANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY M. Stilwell:I would like to take a moment to recognize and celebrate the wonderful work and dedication of Dr. Ralph Nilson, president and vice-chancellor of Vancouver Island University. He’ll retire at the end of June, after more than a decade at the university. I know that he will be greatly missed. Many of my colleagues already know Dr.

Nilson, having either worked with him or because of the initiatives that he’s launched in his time at VIU. He came from Acadia Uni- versity in Nova Scotia to the post-secondary institution in 2007, when it was still Malaspina University College, and he led it through to its transition into a university. Under his leadership, the university has been recognized for its work on reconciliation with First Nations communit- ies and became the first university in B.C. to launch the tuition waiver program, meant to improve access to post- secondary education for former youth in care. In 2017, Dr.

Nilson was recognized for his work, with the B.C. Community Achievement Award. I didn’t know Dr. Nilson well prior to entering politics, but I can say that he has become someone I respect and admire for his leadership and advocacy to create opportunities for all students attending VIU. The WEST program that my son will attend in the fall is just one program. The university has become a national leader in creating educational opportun- ities for non-traditional learners, thanks to him.

It has been an absolute pleasure to work alongside Ralph on successful projects like the expanded marine, automobile and trades complex and the health and sciences building at the Nanaimo campus. I want to congratulate Dr. Nilson for all that he’s accom- plished at VIU and wish him the very best in retirement. I know I’m going to miss his storytelling. He has such an incredible memory for personal details, and of course, his Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9413

personal delivery of my Christmas wreath along with his homemade plum jam over the holidays will certainly be missed. I also want to give a warm welcome to the new chancellor and president, Dr. Deborah Saucier, who I look forward to working with. Oral Questions VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER S. Bond:On October 23 and again on December 18, 2018, the Minister of Citizens’ Services used her position as a member of the executive council to write sponsorship letters for ten Pakistani citizens.

According to the whistle-blower: “In my questioning of the minister, she admitted that she did not know these individuals personally but vouched for them regardless. ” Can the minister confirm again today that she did not per- sonally know the individuals she vouched for? Hon. J. Sims: I take my job as a representative very seri- ously. I’m a minister, and I’m an MLA, and when I’m in my riding I meet with constituents. A number of letters were sent out with my electronic sig- nature, and I did not see the final draft. I take responsibil- ity for what happened.

When I became aware of the issue, I immediately had a serious conversation with the staff to ensure that it would not happen again. While the opposition continues to focus on gotcha polit- ics, I’m focused on our government’s important work to make life better for people in our province. The letter was written on the Legislature letterhead and had the Legislature signature on it. Mr. Speaker:The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental. S. Bond:That is an absolutely unbelievable and irrespons- ible answer from this minister. This is a very, very serious allegation.

We have seen six letters where the minister used her ministerial title to sponsor individuals who turned out to be on a security watch list. In the letter, she describes all ten individuals as friends and even claims that she plans to host them, both in Victoria and on the Lower Main- land. Her personal relationship with these ten individuals is clearly laid out. How does the minister explain the contradiction between the letter and what she admitted yesterday? [2:10 p.m.] Hon. J.

Sims: I’m so disappointed to see the opposition spreading unfounded accusations — not only that but also spreading people’s private personal information all over the Internet. I take my job as an elected official in my riding very, very seriously. As MLAs, we get all sorts of requests from mem- bers of the public. A number of letters were sent out. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental. S. Bond:Well, the last time I checked, the job of the oppo- sition is to bring these issues to the Legislature and hold ministers of the Crown accountable.

The minister may be disappointed, but what she should do is recognize that we have seen not one, not two, not five but six letters that this minister signed, that were signed in this minister’s name. The government of Canada has very specific guidelines for writing reference letters for visa applicants. The min- ister should well know this. She was a former MP and, believe it or not, had critic responsibilities for immigra- tion, of all things. In fact, when the whistle-blower raised the concerns with the minister, the minister said to her: “I know what I’m doing.

I had the immigration file. ” The guidelines require documentation of the relationship to the person seeking a visa and that “you must tell the truth and write the letter in good faith. ” Why did the minister misrepresent her relationship with these applicants and write letters in bad faith on behalf of individuals she did not know? Hon. J. Sims: My colleagues across the way know that this was a challenging HR matter involving a former employee who was employed for six weeks. I do take my job seriously, and I try to do my very best for my constitu- ents, which is our job. I take responsibility for what happened.

I do take respons- ibility for the fact that those letters were sent. I also take responsibility for the fact that I sat my staff down and had a serious conversation with them to ensure that those kinds of mistakes would not be made again. That was done, and that is what happened. J. Johal:Y ou know, I’ve heard about throwing your staff under the bus, but this minister keeps reversing and keeps doing it over and over. It’s ridiculous — wow. Wow. Here are the facts. This minister wrote six letters and spent months trying to use her position as a minister of the Crown to expedite these visa applications.

Three of the individuals that she personally vouched for and falsely described as friends were on a security watch list. The only reason we know this is because of a whistle-blower who raised con- cerns and was promptly fired. Can the minister explain her appalling lack of judgment? 9414 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Hon. J. Sims: As an MLA, when I’m in my constituency, I meet with constituents. I advocate for them, and yes, I do write letters to support — I don’t sponsor — visa applica- tions. I explain to them; “This is a federal matter. Go to your MP . ” We give them the phone number. We give them the address for the MP . They go there. When they ask us for a letter…. I did write those letters. As I have said before, I take responsibility for those letters. Once I became aware of the full content of them, I made sure that I had a conversation with my staff to make sure that that did not happen again. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker:Members. Hon. J. Sims: As I said before, I advocate for members. I do the work that other MLAs do in writing letters to support. Mr. Speaker:The member for Richmond-Queensbor- ough on a supplemental. [2:15 p.m.] J. Johal:This was clearly a high-priority political file for the minister, who spent five months attempting to expedite these visa applications. Three initial letters were sent on October 23, 2018. Three more letters were sent on December 18, 2018.

On February 6, 2019, the minister told her staff: “Drop everything, and deal with this. ” She approved these bad-faith letters and vouched for individuals she doesn’t even know on behalf of her political supporters. This just wreaks old-school political cronyism. How does the minister explain her inexcusable actions? Hon. J. Sims: Y ou know, for my colleagues on the other side to talk about cronyism is really, really rich. And let me say that I take…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members, the minister has the floor. Hon. J. Sims: When I’m in my riding and I meet with constituents, I listen to their concerns.

When a constituent came and asked me for a supporting letter, I wrote one. It was done. It went out under my electronic signature. And let me assure you that the first letter went out, but it never got used because the people did not apply. They asked for…. The constituent who sponsored asked for the letter again with a different date on it. That letter was given, and the new employee…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members, if we may hear the response, please. Thank you. Hon. J. Sims:The ex-employee….

The only thing she was asked to do was to phone the MP’s office, which is normal practice, to find out where these visas were in progress. Once she brought the information back, we pulled back and said: “Do not pursue any further. ” SOIL DISPOSAL SITE IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE W ATERSHED S. Furstenau:There have been at least three iterations of a closure plan for the contaminated landfill in the Shawnigan drinking watershed — two in 2017 and one just a few months ago. The company that was hired to complete the original and updated closure plans, however, has not been paid for their work. So what to do?

Well, it seems that there’s a convenient change to the most recent closure plan. Now the plan is to import an additional 70,000 tonnes of soil to the site in order to generate the revenue to pay the company that provided the design for the closure plans. To be clear, there is no need for this additional soil as there is currently 100,000 tonnes of soil that our com- munity was repeatedly and explicitly told was intended for remediation of this site, and also to be clear, our com- munity will not rest until the contaminated soil has been removed.

Essentially, it seems to appear that we have a situation where a company has devised a new closure plan so that they can eventually get paid. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Does the minister see a conflict of interest in this situation? Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you to the House Leader of the Third Party for again raising this issue on behalf of her con- stituents. We understand, on this side of the House, how important safety of drinking water is and assurance that drinking water and their environment will continue to be safe are to people all over British Columbia.

And we understand that as a result of the decision that was made a number of years ago to dump the soil in this area, there has been ongoing stress on the res- idents of the area. To the question that the member raises, we have met with her as well as with residents of the area on a number of occa- sions to go over information they’ve brought forward, infor- mation that we have had. When we’ve had inspection reports and other studies, they have been posted in the interest of transparency. The closure plans to which the member refers have been posted for public comment.

I’m aware of the member’s concerns and the community’s concerns about the quali- fied professional in question, and that’s precisely why we also retained and continue to retain another qualified pro- fessional, completely independent, to review all of the Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9415

plans and are proceeding to evaluate all the information that has come forward. [2:20 p.m.] Mr. Speaker:House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemen- tal. S. Furstenau:It is getting complicated to keep track of all the qualified professionals and which ones weren’t paid at which time, but I’ll help the minister a little bit more on this. In his 2017 decision, B.C.

Supreme Court Justice Sewell said that the conflict of interest at the centre of the case, the secret profit-sharing deal between the landfill owners and the original engineers “struck at the heart of the Environ- mental Management Act” and that the withholding of infor- mation about Active Earth’s equity position “brought the integrity of the approval process and appeal into question. ” One of those qualified professionals continues to provide information on this site, but now we’ve got the new qualified professionals. Consultants like Active Earth are hired to provide expert advice.

The recommendations they put for- ward are supposed to be based on the best available evidence and their expertise. They are not supposed to give advice that benefits them financially. That is a conflict of interest. I would suggest that the current landfill closure plan in front of the minister contains a similar conflict. The closure plan proposes to import tens of thousands of tonnes more soil to this site for what appears to be no good reason except to generate income to pay for the landfill closure fees. My question is, again, for the Minister of Environment.

I know he still needs to make a decision, but in light of this, how can the third iteration of a closure plan even be con- sidered by his ministry? Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you, again, to the member. She’s quite correct. Ultimately, I will have to make a decision on the closure plan based on information brought to me by ministry staff who’ve been working on this issue, as she knows, diligently for a long period of time.

In my role as minister, I wanted to be assured that all due diligence is done — that if there’s any question of conflicts, we retain completely independent, qualified professionals to review the work that went into the closure plan so that we can be assured that whatever information forms the basis of our decision is science-based, that it’s based on the best evid- ence, that it’s independently reviewed and that it’s consistent with the acts under which we must make our decisions.

The member also knows that this government took actions with the Professional Governance Act to deal very strongly with the questions of conflict of interest that hung over the activities of this company and this permit for a number of years. We believe that this act will close loopholes in the future, and we’re taking measures today to ensure that people can be reassured that all information is independ- ently reviewed. VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND POLITICAL FUNDRAISING ISSUES P . Milobar:It’s very interesting today.

The Minister of Cit- izens’ Services’ first answer was that staff wrote the letters, and her last three answers have been that the minister wrote the letters. Let’s take a look, again, at what happened last year. Last year in October and again in December, the Minister of Cit- izens’ Services wrote sponsorship letters for ten Pakistani cit- izens. Y esterday she told the media: “I know the people who are sponsoring them. ” The minister is the only name in the sponsoring letters listed as a sponsor, but apparently, there were other people pulling the strings.

Can the minister confirm that the people she referred to as sponsors were Rabina Sattar, her fundraising chair, and Kul- want Dhesi, a well-known NDP political supporter? Hon. J. Sims:As I said previously, when we are MLAs, we have all kinds of duties and responsibilities when we’re back in our offices. A number of letters were sent out with my electronic signature and without me seeing the final content. I take full responsibility for that happening, and I have taken measures to make sure that my staff is fully aware. I am disappointed. I am disappointed that the opposition is spreading unfounded accusations.

Not only that, they are spreading people’s private and personal information all over the Internet. Mr. Speaker:The member for Kamloops–North Thomp- son on a supplemental. P . Milobar:Rabina Sattar is the minister’s fundraising chair, who claimed donations would be made for these let- ters in the allegations from the whistle-blower. [2:25 p.m.] I have here an email chain between the minister and Rabina dated October 29, 2018. Attached to the email are three sponsorship letters. Rabina’s business partner is Kul- want Dhesi, the same individual who has donated over $14,000 to the NDP and who hosted the infamous O.K.

Corral cash-from-convict event at his private residence with Maninder Gill and Jawahar Padda. Why do this minister’s fundraising chair and political sup- porters have any role in facilitating immigration issues? Hon. J. Sims:Let me say very, very clearly that Ms. Sattar is a constituent of mine, and she has the same rights as any- body else to come into my constituency office and ask for guidance or support. Let me also tell the members across the way that Ms. Sattar has not donated a penny, either directly or indirectly, to me. J. Thornthwaite:Let’s make this perfectly clear.

The indi- viduals behind the minister’s falsified visa letters were 9416 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Rabina Sattar, the minister’s fundraising chair, and Kulwant Dhesi, a prominent political supporter of the NDP . Accord- ing to the whistle-blower: “The minister stated to me that the visa issue had to be fixed, as these were very important people to her campaign. ” My question to the minister: does the minister think that this is an appropriate behaviour for a minister of the Crown? Hon. J. Sims: Once again, it is outrageous that the opposition keeps repeating unsubstantiated allegations that result from… Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Hon. J.

Sims: …an employee who is no longer in my employment, an employee who was there for six weeks. Let me say that I take my job very, very seriously. I take no money, and I do no political or other favours when I’m doing my work as a minister or as an MLA. That is my job. Mr. Speaker:The member for North Vancouver–Sey- mour on a supplemental. J. Thornthwaite:The minister wrote six letters trying to expedite visa applications. She misrepresented her relation- ship with these people, three of whom turned out to be on a security watch list. And she did all of this on behalf of her political donors. That is disgraceful.

I’ll ask the minister once again: does she feel this is an appropriate behaviour for someone on the executive council for the province of British Columbia? Hon. J. Sims:I am a member of the cabinet, of the execut- ive council. I am an MLA. When I’m an MLA and I’m back in my riding, I meet with constituents. They come to me to ask for letters of support for this, for guidance to deal with, sometimes, their issues with health care. They come to us for a variety of reasons. I deal with people who walk through that door in the same way, whether they have donated to me, voted for me or not voted for me.

This issue is about providing service to con- stituents, and I think that it is…. I want to stress that I will never, ever apologize for working with constituents to get them the best services. [2:30 p.m.] GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER J. Tegart:Kate Gillie attempted to blow the whistle on the wrongdoings she observed in the minister’s office and brought her concerns to the NDP executive director, Roseanne Moran, on February 15. One week later, she was fired. On March 4, she wrote to the Premier’s office, again outlining her serious concerns.

What steps did the government take to investigate these serious allegations they have known about for over two months? Hon. J. Sims:I’m really happy to be able to get up to clari- fy and answer this question. This individual was hired as a constituency assistant. My colleagues across the way, because they did sit on this side for 16 long years, know that as a constituency assistant, she is not an employee for government. The matter was raised in the March 4 letter. If my col- leagues had read the letter from the lawyer, the employee says that her last day at work was on the 22nd of February. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker:Members. Hon. J. Sims: The letter dated March 4 relates to her six- week employment as a constituency assistant. When the March letter was received by the chief of staff to the Premier, he met with the executive director of caucus, which is the appropriate thing to do. The allegations…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. Members, please allow the minis- ter to respond. Hon. J. Sims: The allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support them. The matter was dealt with by caucus, as she was not a government employee.

This is an HR matter, and the members across the way know it to be, but they are confusing the issue. Mr. Speaker:The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supple- mental. J. Tegart:Well, let me provide some clarity. The whistle- blower attempted numerous times to raise what are extremely serious concerns. But instead of investigating these serious allegations, she was fired, and the concerns were simply covered up. The Premier has been aware of these serious allegations since March 4. What steps did he take? Hon. J. Sims: I keep believing I am communicating clearly, but let me do it one more time.

This was a constitu- ency assistant. Constituency assistants are not government employees, and the constituency assistant’s last day at work, according to her own information, was on February 22. She wrote a letter on the fourth of March, after having worked for me for six weeks. When the letter was received, the chief of staff to the Premier met with the executive dir- Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9417

ector of caucus, because it’s the executive director of caucus who deals with constituency staff. The allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support them. The matter was dealt with by caucus because that is the right place for it to be dealt with. This is an HR matter, and my colleagues across the way know it to be. VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND POLITICAL FUNDRAISING ISSUES M. Polak:It’s not just an HR matter. It is also a matter of confidence and whether or not people can have confidence in this minister in terms of fulfilling her role.

We know from the email chain that’s been mentioned that Ms. Sattar, as the fundraising chair, also played a role in coordinating the visa sponsorship letters. That’s question- able, certainly. But now we also know from a further letter — this one that was directed to Elections B.C. — that Ms.

Sattar was also involved, quite actively, at the constituency office and with constituency staff in developing what I can only describe as rather questionable fundraising practices involving an awful lot of crossover between the riding asso- ciation and the constituency office. [2:35 p.m.] I’ll read in part from this, that this included a fundraiser organized by Rabina Sattar “to get the Chinese money. ” It is described in the allegations as a cash-for-access event. That’s consistent with activities that we’ve known the minister to be a part of in the past and that she’s apologized for.

Certainly, there are more and more questions every day to be answered. I need — we all need — to hear from the minister how on earth she can justify that kind of behaviour between her rid- ing association and constituency office. Hon. J. Sims: Let me state that I help people because it’s my job as a representative. I’m an MLA. I do not take money for it. I’m offended that the opposition would spread these unfounded accusations, especially given their record of tak- ing massive corporate donations themselves. Our government banned big money and brought in the strictest political financing rules in Canada.

And no such fundraising event was held or planned that my colleagues across the way talked about. Mr. Speaker:The House Leader for the official opposition on a supplemental. M. Polak:Well, unfortunately for the minister…. I won’t hold it up, because we’re not allowed to have props, but here on my desk, I have the program for the evening. In addition to that, we also have screen grabs of communication about it. So there was, indeed, an event being planned. One more day, one more series of questions that need to be answered. The minister already has a history of break- ing the rules.

She has apologized for her fundraising beha- viour in the past. She has apologized for breaking FOI rules in the past. Now, we know that not only is this about an abuse of FOI but also that we have to wonder if the Premier can continue to have confidence in this minister. The Premier, last time, expressed profound disappointment himself. I have to ask the minister. Is there any reason she thinks that the Premier should still have confidence in her as a minister? Hon. J. Sims: Outrageous innuendos, implying things that are happening. I know the rules around fundraising.

I know the difference between constituency and riding. Let me assure you that my focus is on providing the very best service for British Columbians. I do the work as a represent- ative. I do not take money for that. [End of question period.] Petitions S. Sullivan:I would like to table a petition of over 400 names out of 24,000 people very concerned about surtaxes on property. The petition is organized by a group called STEP UP and titled “Say no to new provincial surtaxes. ” S. Furstenau:I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S.

Furstenau:In addition to the Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake, who I introduced before question period, Matthew Nefstead, the lawyer, is with the group as well. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call committee stage debate on Bill 31, Police Amendment Act.

In Commit- tee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), and in the Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Health. [2:40 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31; J. Isaacs in the chair. The committee met at 2:44 p.m. 9418 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Chair, we’re ready to go here. I have staff here, and we’re ready to hear the member’s questions.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. M. Morris:I’ve provided an amendment here. [SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out: 2

Section 38.06 (3) is repealed and the following substituted:

(3) The chief civilian director may not appoint a person under sub- section (2) if the person (

a) is currently a member of a police force or law enforcement agency outside British Columbia, (

b) is currently a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or (

c) was a member of a police force in British Columbia at any time during the 5-year period immediately preceding the appoint- ment.] On the amendment. M. Morris:Basically, I’ll just sum it up. It’s eliminating

section 2 of the bill, where it reverts back to the original state after a two-year period of time. [2:45 p.m.] I just want to just explain my concerns around this par- ticular part of the bill. I honour the fact that the intention of the IIO is to become fully civilianized and be a fully civilian- ized organization that provides these kinds of investigations and this kind of support for the public. I think that’s import- ant. The optics are important. The public deserves to know that there’s a fresh set of eyes that are independent of a police department that sit on an investigative body like this.

I look at a couple of different sections in the existing stat- ute. The issue that I have…. It was made clear during the process, when we had the committee looking into the IIO a couple of years ago, that perhaps led to these amendments — concern from police organizations, for sure — that the expertise in the IIO was missing. When we consider the fact that we have a member’s livelihood at stake when they become a subject member under this statute and the IIO is looking into one of these incidents…. Unfortunately, some- body has lost their life or somebody has been seriously hurt, perhaps.

But the implicated member — his or her livelihood is at stake. The stress that’s involved by the extended and protracted investigations done by this particular unit, the stress caused not only to the member himself or herself, but the added stress on the family because they don’t know what really is going to happen at the end of the day as well…. I think it needs to be taken into consideration here. That’s one of the things that we looked at on the committee itself. Part of the recommendation…. I’ll go back to the report that we put in, back on February 23, 2015.

I’ll quote from the recommendations that the committee made at that time. “In exceptional cases, the chief civilian director have the dis- cretion to appoint investigators who were former police or law enforcement members in other jurisdictions or in Brit- ish Columbia within the past five years in order to provide special expertise to complete effective investigations…. ” The part that was added to this particular recommendation to provide that level of oversight: “ And that, in such exceptional cases, the chief civilian director be required to notify the Ministry of Justice and provide a justification for the appointment. ” So we know that it’s not going to be done carte blanche.

This particular part of the recommendations was put in there just so that it wasn’t a free-for-all in appointing members of police forces within that five-year limitation.

The other part of it that I’m concerned about with the bill in its existing form without this amendment is that under subsection 38.06(5) of the Police Act, it says: “The chief civil- ian director may retain consultants, experts, specialists and other persons the chief civilian director considers necessary to enable or assist the chief civilian director in exercising powers or performing duties of the chief civilian director under this Act. ” So he or she has the authority to appoint whatever expertise he or she requires to get those investiga- tions conducted.

If we revert back to the way the act states right now, where you can’t hire somebody within that five-year period of time, we’re excluding a lot of expertise that this

section provides the ability to hire. By excluding those investigators who have been out for less than five years from the pool of expertise, I think we could be making a mistake here. Having been heavily involved in criminal investigations in the past, it doesn’t take very long for your level of expertise and information that you have that you make your decisions on to become dated because things change so quickly.

When we look at the amount of jurisprudence that’s emanating from every court level in the country on a routine basis that could change in an instant how an investigation is done, I think that needs to be taken into consideration. [2:50 p.m.] The other part of this as well and sort of one of the other recommendations that was made in the original report that I didn’t see in this particular bill, which would have provided a level of oversight as well, was the fact of the recommenda- tion that we had in that same report: “That the Police Act be amended to require a comprehensive statutory review of the independent investigations office by a special committee of the Legislative Assembly at least once every six years. ” Again, that would have been another level of oversight.

It should eliminate the fact that this arbitrary two-year period be placed in this particular act. So the amendment that I’ve put forward is basically eliminating

section 2 of this partic- ular bill, Bill 31, striking out just the numbers on the sub- sequent sections there and amending the

schedule to elimin- ate that particular piece in the schedule. I don’t think an arbitrary time limit of two years does the IIO any favours. It doesn’t provide the public with the necessary expertise in the IIO. I know there are some good Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9419

investigators involved in that. I know they have training programs involved with the IIO to bring them up to speed. But this provides that extra ability to go out and find the technical requirements that are necessary for these kinds of investigations. I’ve seen these where an investigator will attend the scene and examine the evidence, seize evidence. Of course, there’s all kinds of jurisprudence, and there’s direction on how that’s done.

But the investigators also have to be finely trained enough so that when they get to that line and they realize that something could be criminal in nature, the entire aspect of that investigation changes — the requirements for various warnings under the charter, for the collection of evidence, for treating witnesses and suspects and whatnot. The whole element changes when you cross that line, and these folks need to have that level of expertise to understand that.

In order to be accredited and to get to that level of expert- ise, having somebody that has recent and extensive criminal investigational experience work beside them, as an appren- tice, for a period of time until they become fully functional on their own is, I think, something that should be considered by the minister here. That’s one of the reasons why I put the amendment forward and would like to see it stand. Hon. D.

Eby: With respect to the member’s proposed amendment, the effect of the amendment would be to strip out a key provision of the act, which is the intention that the IIO become, ultimately, a civilianized body. I understood from the member’s remarks at second reading that this is something that he supported in principle, and his issue, as I understand it, is with the two-year period. He thinks it should be longer.

Well, actually, with this amendment, it appears that he thinks it should be forever, that, essentially, the goal of civil- ianization of the IIO is not one that is achievable, if this is what his amendment is aimed at. Now, I agree with the member. I think it’s certain that the most qualified criminal investigators in British Columbia are police. They do these investigations. They have many years of experience doing these kinds of investigations. There is an exception to that, unfortunately. There were two….

This act, the IIO, didn’t show up because someone thought: “Let’s take investigations away from the most obvi- ous qualified investigators. ” It came out of two very high- profile public inquiries. The first was the Frank Paul inquiry, and the second was the Robert Dziekanski inquiry. I agree with the member. The expertise among police in doing homicide investigations, in doing death investigations — unparalleled. Y et for some reason, in these two invest- igations, the investigators failed to use the videotape of the incidents to form their conclusions — in both cases.

There was videotape of Frank Paul being dragged out of the VPD cells, yet the investigator’s report said he walked out under his own power. In the Dziekanski case, there was videotape of what happened at the airport. The RCMP account of what happened — completely at odds with that. [2:55 p.m.] The reason for that, in my opinion, is that it is very dif- ficult for police to investigate themselves in these kinds of things. That is what the record shows from these public inquiries.

With the support, actually, of some very significant people in police, this agency was established to take the responsibility for these very serious investigations into a separate body. Broadly, it supported the idea that these not be police officers that have a history in British Columbia, who potentially have no other members or have a rela- tionship with a particular force, but that these be, ideally, people who don’t have that kind of record in terms of rela- tionships and daily interactions that can lead to those sorts of problematic investigations. That was the idea behind the whole thing.

The member wants to take that out with his amendment. I guess I don’t have to say it, but I will: I don’t support it. I support the goal of civilianization for the IIO, but I also recognize, as the member does and as many people do, that the IIO is not there yet. Civilianization is a work in progress. Ontario has struggled, as well, with their Special Investigations Unit and critiques of the investigations that have been done there. This provision, these amendments as a whole, this pack- age, is aimed at addressing a difficult issue.

One is that the police generally support this idea of civilianization, as I understand the member does and as I do. Y et civilianization, in terms of training, major case management and other pieces, was not put in place when this body was struck by the previous government. So we’re in a situation where, unfor- tunately, we’re really back to, in some ways, the beginning of this organization again — a rebirth, if you will. Part of that means we have to bring on additional people that have experience in major case management and in investigations, just as the member says. Police are able to do this work.

It is a compromise, and the compromise is for a two-year period. There’ll be a significant number of people, hopefully, hired during this period that have that experience. They will continue their careers with the independent investigations office, and they will contin- ue to provide the support, the mentoring and the training that the member is talking about.

Ultimately, the independ- ent investigations office is working on civilian training, and ultimately, there will be, as more and more provinces move to a civilian model, training across the country and exchange of people who are civilian investigators very well qualified to do this kind of work. There’s just a shortage of people who meet the require- ments under the act right now, so this two-year period is trying to strike the balance. I don’t support the member’s amendment to give up on civilianization. I don’t support the suggestion that we go longer than two years.

Two years should give the IIO the time to do the hiring that they need, to bring in a critical mass of people to support with the train- ing, with the goal of civilianization. 9420 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

M. Morris:Just so the minister is clear…. I think we’re on the same page. They were just talking a little bit about the technical aspects of this. I’m not supporting that this amend- ment exist in perpetuity. What I’m saying is that it should be there to allow the IIO to hire that expertise, because every once in awhile, there will be a requirement to hire somebody with a specific skill set from the criminal investigative side of things that is more modern than perhaps the individuals that are doing the job already. Keeping the amendment, under

section 1, as the basis for doing that I think allows the civilian director to do that, at the end of the day. If I’m going to be proven wrong in this, and if there’s an abuse of this particular process, we’re not…. Right now we’re suggesting that the chief civilian dir- ector report to the minister whenever he does hire some- body within that five-year period of time. But if, at the end of the day, that other amendment that we were recommending, that another review be done every six years…. Legislatively, that would catch that.

That would give that opportunity to ensure that any of the deficiencies that are found, any of the abuses that we might see in the process, where individuals are hired where per- haps there were other qualified people on the civilian side of things to do the job…. They would have that opportunity.

I’ll just say it one more time — and I hear the minister say he doesn’t support this: I just think that we are limiting the ability of the chief civilian director to hire the talent neces- sary to complete these technically elegant investigations in a timely fashion, to satisfy the public but to protect the mem- bers that are involved in it themselves. [3:00 p.m.] This is their job; this is their livelihood. This is the rest of their life that is at stake, based on the quality of the invest- igators they have. It’s their families, it’s their mental health, and it’s everybody that’s attached to that. I’ve seen it.

I’ve wit- nessed this many, many times. For people that are subject to these kinds of investigations, it is a load of stress on the fam- ily. I think this is one way to ensure that those investigations are done properly and quickly, as quickly as possible. It does give the chief civilian director the opportunity to have these options. The Chair:Members, the question is the amendment to

section 2 proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. [3:05 p.m.] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 37 Cadieux Bond Polak Lee Stone Coleman Wat Bernier Thornthwaite Paton Ashton Barnett Y ap Martin Davies Kyllo Sullivan Morris Stilwell Ross Oakes Johal Rustad Milobar Sturdy Clovechok Shypitka Hunt Throness Tegart Stewart Sultan Gibson Letnick Thomson Larson Foster NAYS — 44 Chouhan Kahlon Begg Brar Heyman Donaldson Mungall Bains Beare Chen Popham Trevena Sims Chow Kang Simons D’Eith Routley Ma Elmore Dean Routledge Singh Leonard Darcy Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan James Eby Dix Ralston Mark Fleming Conroy Fraser Chandra Herbert Rice Malcolmson Furstenau Weaver Olsen Glumac Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved. [3:10 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: I neglected to introduce the staff assisting me: Sherri Lee, the director of criminal justice policy, and Sarah Mason, senior policy analyst in the policy and legisla- tion division. I very much appreciate their assistance. I move that the committee rise and report the bill com- plete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:11 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon.

D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019. [3:15 p.m.] Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9421

Committee of the Whole House BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; J. Isaacs in the chair. The committee met at 3:16 p.m. J. Rustad:Could I request a five-minute recess, please? The Chair:A five-minute recess has been requested. Granted. The committee recessed from 3:16 p.m. to 3:18 p.m. [J. Isaacs in the chair.] Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved. On

section 30. [3:20 p.m.] P . Milobar:Just to be clear, I’m not sure about the mem- ber for the Green Party, but I have no questions on this bill. They were all answered in the briefing and in second read- ing. So if you want to do everything as a block, I have no objections to that. The Chair:Thank you, Member. Sections 30 to 49 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:21 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 17 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 Bill 17, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019. [3:25 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30; J. Isaacs in the chair. The committee met at 3:26 p.m. On

section 1. J. Martin:Thank you, and welcome, Madam Chair, and the minister and the staff. On

section 1, can the minister tell us how lawful con- sumer leafleting won’t be used as a stalling tactic to unduly intimidate? Hon. H. Bains:To the member: I think, when you’re talk- ing about the changes here, we are bringing ourselves up to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, which, during the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518 v. Kmart Canada, 1999…. The court ruled that consumer leafleting constitutes an exercise of freedom of expression protected under the Charter. As the code definition of picketing encompassed consumer leafleting, it was overly broad and unconstitutional.

So the proposed new definition, designed to meet the constitutional requirement…. This is to exclude consumer leafleting and to provide clear guidance to employers, workers and unions on what constitutes picket- ing for the purpose of the code. J. Martin:Can the minister explain why, in this section, there is no definition of “construction, ” as was recommended by the panel? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. H. Bains:When we sent this report out for further consultation, no stakeholder asked that the definition should be there. But those who did said that it was not inclusive enough.

It excluded some of the sectors from construction. [3:30 p.m.] The way we are doing it…. We are leaving it out, because construction has been defined already by the labour rela- tions jurisprudence over the years. We know that the labour board is the right place to continue to work on that area, defining what construction is and what construction is not.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. 9422 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

J. Martin:Can the minister explain why he’s adding a new provision that he “must appoint a committee of special advisors to undertake a review of this Code” every five years, when he can already do this with the existing provisions in

section 3 of the code? In fact, the minister can appoint a committee of special advisers that could provide him with an evaluation every 12 months if he chose. In other words, there’s nothing preventing the minister from properly utiliz- ing the review process as is. Hon. H. Bains:First of all, that was the recommendation of the panel. And the reason is, Member, that just because the language was there for 27 years…. No review took place.

I think the panel felt — because of the changing nature of work these days, how work is changing so fast — that there should be, at least every five years, a review to reflect the changing nature of the world, of workplaces. The needs of the workers change. The needs of the employers change. We see the economy changing. So I think they are saying that we should be doing at least five years, rather than leave it like what happened for 27 years, where nothing was reviewed.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Martin:Thank you for the previous response from the minister. On

section 3, why is the provision in

section 6(1), which provides for the right of a person to communicate on any matter — which I note is being amended in the next

section of this amendment bill — being removed? It appears that through the earlier amendments that provide for “lawful consumer” and the amendment here that removes the right of a person to communicate on any matter, the government is actually broadening a union’s ability to communicate, while simultaneously limiting an employer’s ability to communicate. Hon. H. Bains:I think the panel was very clear. The panel heard from all stakeholders.

I think almost everyone agreed that the decision to join a union or not to join a union should be solely of the worker and that no one should be influen- cing that decision or stop them as far as joining a union, by coercion, by intimidation. The language that in 6(1) was there…. That would allow, somehow, when you read that along with

section 8, the next one…. The first one says: “Except as otherwise provided in

section 8, an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer must not participate in or interfere with the form- ation, selection or administration of a trade union…. ” [3:35 p.m.] So when they recommended that the language that was there was too broad…. That allowed an employer to engage in anti-union activities and approach, and that caused a lot of problems for both sides. There were all kinds of unfair labour practices as a result of that, so they are making it much, much clearer, with language that used to be there before 2002.

They are saying that the workers’ right to join a union should not be impeded by someone trying to coerce them or intimidate them. The previous language was quite vague. It allowed that to happen, so they are tightening the language. That gives the opportunity to the worker to make their own decisions rather than being influenced by anybody else.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Martin:This is fairly detailed, what I’m going to ask, so please bear with me on

section 4. In lieu of an employer being able to provide information, it would default to the board. How does the minister expect the board to provide information in a timely manner to an employee looking for a quick response, especially if the time frame for representation votes is being reduced from ten to five business days? Is replacing the employer with the board an equitable sub- stitute?

That would now require a person to call the board, likely after they’ve left work, likely having to leave a message for someone on the board to return their call and then, hope- fully, being able to take the return call, either when they’re at home or if it’s on their mobile, this being a convenient time and, ideally, in a private setting so the person can engage in a conversation. It would seem far more likely that a person would pop in after work to ask a question of their employer and be on their way than go through this call-to-the-board process. Hon. H.

Bains:I think when the panel was hearing and taking presentations from all different sides, they actually wrote, on their page 8, to address exactly what the member is asking. I’m going to quote that, and I hope that that will help the member. They said: “We agree informed employee choice is important, and we under- stand an employer’s interest in responding to employees’ questions about the certification process. However, the interests of employers and employees are distinct and not aligned.

It is difficult for employ- ers to provide objective, neutral information that best assists the ex- ercise of employee choice. The board is a neutral body and, therefore, is better able to provide that information. To fulfil that role, the board will have to update its existing information guidelines and website, provide information in different languages and have more informa- tion officers available. ” I think that’s what they recognized.

Also, Member, you know that freedom of speech does not actually work here if an employee wishes to join a union and there is no such opportunity for employees to have that debate without consequences. Those who would openly talk about a union, they know, and it’s recognized in the history, that those employees end up losing their jobs, in most cases. Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9423

[3:40 p.m.] I’m suggesting — and I agree with the panel’s report and their research — that the interests of employers and employ- ees are distinct and different. Therefore, an employee cannot rely on information provided by the employer. The labour board is neutral, and that’s where you will get objective information without any slant, one way or the other.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. J. Martin:On

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

section 14 of the code, why have sections 10, “Intern- al union affairs, ” 11, “Requirement to bargain in good faith, ” and 12, “Duty of fair representation, ” been removed as pro- hibited acts when a board is considering certifying a trade union despite a failed representation vote? Hon. H. Bains:Member, this

section talks about, as was recommended by the panel, that if an employer violates those sections and they’re found to have violated, then there is a remedial certification that applies there. A board may give them a remedial certification. What sections 10, 11 and 12 talk about…. They’re talking about something different. That doesn’t apply to this

section here. Sections 10, 11 and 12 talk about internal union mat- ters — fair representation and internal union matters. Those are dealt with somewhere else. The board may rule…. If the union is contravening those sections, then the board will make a decision accordingly and deal with those issues at that time.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. [3:45 p.m.] J. Martin:Why has the government opted, once again, to deviate from the panel’s recommendation to provide differ- ent rating provisions for the construction sector compared to all other sectors? Hon. H. Bains:This was very clear. I think right now, if you look at it in construction, the raiding is allowed every year. But the panel heard from stakeholders. They came back with a recommendation in one area. They came back with a recommendation that it should be the third year. If the col- lective agreement is three years, then it’s on the third year.

If it’s longer than three years, then the third year and every year thereafter. When we sent this for further consultation, we heard from the stakeholders that most construction projects last two years or three years. So if you put that provision in there that you could only raid in the third year, and the employees choose to change unions, it’s about employees. It’s about workers. It’s not about anybody else. If the worker chooses to change their union and their cer- tification, then they will not have that opportunity in con- struction, because most of those contracts are two years or three years.

Most of those projects are two years or three years. Compared to all other…. Y ou know, if you have a manufacturing facility, that is there forever. So every third year, for the stability, makes sense — the third year and every year after that. So for that reason, we are keeping it. After further consultation, we’re saying that in construc- tion, an employee can change their union every year. But they also came back that it should be in July and August. Now, the current language is the seventh and eighth month of the collective agreement. The seventh and eighth month could be in July and August.

The seventh or eighth — the collective agreement — could be in January or February, when hardly anybody is working in construction. Again, it’s the uniqueness of the construction industry. It is recognized not only here but across all jurisdictions in Canada. There are different provisions for construction in different places, so that’s why we’re suggesting that we keep July and August, because a majority of the workers should have the right to decide their representation vote.

So July and August are kept, but for construction, because of uniqueness, because of the short period of their projects, we’re saying that for that particular industry, the opportunity to change their union every year makes sense. J. Martin:I appreciate the response, Minister.

The Labour Relations Code Review Panel remarked: “ …raids are divisive and disruptive to employers, unions and employees. ” Hearing considerable support from unions and employers to reduce the frequency of raid, the panel recom- mended to reduce the frequency of the open period for the raids to the seventh and eighth month of the third year of the last year of the collective agreement, contingent on the length of the collective agreement.

As just stated by the minister, for the construction sector, to July and August of the third year or the last year of the collective agreement, depending on the length of that agreement. Can the minister explain how he can justify the amend- ment in this act allowing the construction unions to be raided in July and August of each year of their collective agreements? How is that not divisive to employers, unions and employees? Hon. H. Bains: There is no doubt that when workers decide to join a union, there is that debate that goes on.

When workers decide to change union and certification, there is that kind of uncertainty. There’s no doubt about that. [3:50 p.m.] When one union raids on another one, it is very divisive. It can be very disruptive, no doubt. That’s why we agreed with the panel’s recommendation everywhere else that if they are in a collective agreement that is three years long, then only 9424 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 15, 2019

the third year could you raid. But if it’s longer than three years, then the third year and every year after, we could do that. But in construction, because of the reason I’ve given you, most projects are two years or three years long, and those employees, those workers, then, will never have the opportunity to change union membership if they wish to. It is about those workers, and we heard from workers. We heard from the representations, and that’s why we’re say- ing the uniqueness of the construction, because of the short period of projects….

That’s why we decided that in that sec- tor, every year — which is the case today — makes sense. J. Martin:Can the minister cite the other jurisdictions in Canada that have a more frequent open season for raiding that applies solely to construction? Hon. H. Bains:I can tell the member that in other jur- isdictions, there are unique and separate provisions in the labour code. We don’t have that here. For example, there are other jurisdictions where they have sectoral bargaining, so they deal with issues differently, and our industry is, again, different.

That’s why, currently, in construction, raids are allowed every year. So that’s why I’m saying that we decided that we should keep it, after receiving further consultation — that we should keep construction a little bit different, but also agreeing with the panel’s recommendation to have that raid in July and August, when most of them are working. That’s the difference between other jurisdictions and us. J. Martin:Can the minister cite the specific data that was used to base this decision on to have more frequent open seasons for construction? What was it based on — what data? Hon. H. Bains: We listened.

This is the input that we received from those people who work in the industry. Those are the people who understand what goes on out there on a daily basis. [3:55 p.m.] Member, you know that when we put this panel togeth- er, they went around the province. They listened to every- one. They had their input from industry, from workers, from unions, from academics, from the law practitioners and all those. And they came back with a recommenda- tion.

When they put that together, their report, we sent it out again for further consultation so that we get the infor- mation and the input from people who actually work in those industries, all kinds of different industries that are covered in the labour code. That’s the input we received: that construction is unique. We all know construction is unique, different than manu- facturing plants. Other jurisdictions, again, because of the uniqueness, have different provisions in their labour code. That’s what we considered.

We considered the recommend- ations and the suggestions from those who live, work and make their living in construction. J. Martin:Projects don’t get raided; companies get raided. Companies typically have ten, 20, maybe 30 projects going on simultaneously. Has the minister taken into account the degree of instability and problems that are presented with an annual open season allowing for such frequent raiding? Hon. H. Bains:Member, today they can raid every year.

So when the recommendations came — that in construction, a raid could take place in the third year in a collective agree- ment that is three years long, and in every year thereafter, if the collective agreement is longer than three years — we received the input, and we were advised that this is a mistake. This is taking the opportunity from those members who wish to change a union. In construction, they will not have that opportunity — or very little opportunity, if the projects are only two years long or three years long.

I think that’s the issue here, and we are trying to address that issue through consultation and through the input that we received from those people who work in the industry. J. Martin:With respect to the projects that come under the community benefits agreements — where there are no- raid agreements between the unions, presumably because it would be disruptive — what impact are the changes to raid- ing going to have on the major infrastructure projects that come under the community benefits agreements? Hon. H. Bains:What unions agree among themselves is up to them. The labour board has nothing to do with that.

If those unions wish to raid each other at some point, then the labour board will make their decision, based on the labour code that we are talking about. [4:00 p.m.] J. Martin:Hypothetically, could an independent union, or a union that is not covered under a community benefits agreement, raid during one of those projects? Hon. H. Bains:If one union decides to raid another union or the members decide to change unions, whether there’s a community benefits agreement or not, they have that oppor- tunity. Then the labour board will have that application, and they will deal with it according to the law. G.

Kyllo:I propose to introduce an amendment to Bill 30, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019. The Chair:Proceed. G. Kyllo:The amendment that I’m moving…. Bill 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, is amended as follows: [SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: 6

Section 19 is amended (

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9425

(1) Subject to subsection (1.2), if a collective agreement is in force and is for a term of 3 years or less, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit appro- priate for collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the unit (

a) during the seventh and eighth months in the last year of the term of the collective agreement, or (

b) during the seventh and eighth months in each subsequent year of any continuation of the collective agreement.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (1.2), if a collective agreement is in force and is for a term of more than 3 years, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit appro- priate for collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the unit (

a) during the seventh and eighth months in the third year of the term of the collective agreement, or (

b) during the seventh and eighth months in each subsequent year of the collective agreement or any continuation of the collect- ive agreement.

(1.2) If a collective agreement is in force, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees primarily engaged in construction work in a unit appropriate for collective bar- gaining may apply to the board to be certified for the unit during July and August in each year of the collective agreement or any continu- ation of the collective agreement., and

(1) Except in the case of construction, (

a) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of 3 years or less, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargain- ing may apply to the board to be certified for the unit during the seventh and eighth months of the last year of the collective agree- ment, and (

b) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of more than 3 years, a trade union claiming to have as members in good stand- ing a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bar- gaining may apply to the board to be certified for the unit during the seventh and eighth months of the third year of the agreement and thereafter in the seventh and eighth months in each year of the collective agreement or any continuation., (

b) in by repealing subsection (2) by striking out “subsection (1)” and substituting “subsections (1) to (1.2)” .and substituting the fol- lowing:

(2) In the case of construction, (

a) if a collective agreement is in force for a term of 3 years or less, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing a ma- jority of employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining may apply to the board to be certified for the unit in July and Au- gust of the l

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190515pm-Hansard-n258
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190515pm Hansard n258
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a7359d2f602d59d6852e05078311ef549613ba3e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).