2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 11, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

100 Mile House Wranglers

D. Barnett

Softball teams

J. Wickens

Steveston Historical Society

J. Yap

Tla’amin treaty

N. Simons

Bullying prevention initiatives and work of Tad Milmine

J. Thornthwaite

Kohan Reflection Garden in New Denver

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

B.C. Hydro management and dividends to government

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

Investigation and oversight of New Coast Realty transactions

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Mark

B.C. Lottery Corporation management of casino transactions

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Points of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

S. Robinson

Hon. P. Fassbender

V. Huntington

G. Heyman

M. Elmore

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 17 — Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Polak

G. Heyman

J. Thornthwaite

G. Holman

A. Weaver

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. Polak

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2016

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

K. Conroy

[ Page 12011 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the House today are Morris and Dalene Yelland. Morris and Dalene are from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. They are the uncle and aunt of my wife, Michele, who’s also joining us in the gallery today. Michele and I will have been married 42 years in August. The only thing that bothers me is that when I look at her every day, she looks younger, and I look older. I’ve determined that the elderly part on me is because of the pressure from the opposition.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

V. Huntington: This morning I had the pleasure — as, I think, the Opposition House Leader also had the pleasure — of speaking to students from Simon Fraser University’s Political Science Student Union. I understand they will be going on a tour of the building after question period. I hope the House makes them feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: April is Parkinson’s Awareness Month, and it’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House representatives from the Parkinson Society of B.C. Established in 1969, the society aims to ease the burden and, ultimately, find a cure for the disease through advocacy, education, research and support services.

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurological disorder resulting from the loss of dopamine in the brain. It’s characterized by motor symptoms, including tremor and balance problems. In 2013, there were 12,847 British Columbians with Parkinson’s.

Joining me for a meeting this afternoon and here in the House today are Jean Blake, the CEO of the Parkinson Society of B.C.; Dr. Martin McKeown, who’s the director of the movement disorder clinic at the UBC Brain Research Centre; Kristen Sundvick, research assistant at the movement disorder clinic; Paddi Wood, who is a person living with Parkinson’s disease. Her husband, Brian, and her daughter Kate are here. And supposed to be here but, unfortunately, unable to come is Steven Pohello, who also is a person living with Parkinson’s disease, a very close friend of mine and a great advocate for advocacy on behalf of Parkinson’s.

Would the House join me, please, in making them feel very welcome today.

C. James: I have two constituents who are visiting in the gallery today. I believe it’s the first question period for one. I’m not sure about the other. I think that for both of them, it might be their first time. They’re both incredibly active in our community. Would the House please welcome Paul Jorjorian and Allen Godfrey to question period.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have two guests in the House today, Wolfgang Richter and Nick Gudeville. Wolfgang and I had lunch today, and we spent most of the time talking German, because he is a fellow countryman. We talked about our experiences coming to this country. I would like the House to make both my guests feel welcome.

N. Macdonald: I just noticed, up in the gallery, a good friend from back in his Kootenay days, Troy Sebastian. He’s had a leadership role, and continues to have, with the Ktunaxa. He’s here studying law and will do fantastic things going forward with that degree, I know. To welcome Troy Sebastian, I ask you to join me in making him welcome here.

[1340]

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to introduce a class from Simon Fraser University of political science students. I had the opportunity to speak to them this morning about the work that we do. They’re here to learn about the parliamentary system and to watch question period and all of the issues that flow from that. I would ask the House to please make them most welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House are two great people from Bridge Lake in the Cariboo. They have lived there for quite some time. They’re great community volunteers. Today is one of their birthdays. We have with us Manfred and Helga Zeiner. It is Helga’s birthday. I ask this House to welcome them and wish Helga a happy birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

100 MILE HOUSE WRANGLERS

D. Barnett: It gives me tremendous pleasure to share the great news that in my hometown, the 100 Mile House Wranglers are this year’s winner of the Cyclone Taylor Cup.

This means the Wranglers are the B.C. Junior B hockey champions in only their third year of existence. They defeated the host, Victoria Cougars, yesterday in a thrilling championship game that was decided by a 5-4 score, their third straight win by a single goal.

This means the Wranglers are on their way to Regina to represent British Columbia at the Keystone Cup, which is the Western Canadian Junior B Championship, with teams from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northern Ontario. The Wranglers play their first game Thursday afternoon against Thunder Bay, Ontario.

[ Page 12012 ]

The season has been a dream come true for 100 Mile House, the Wranglers’ players and coaches and owner. He says he’s not the owner, but he is — Tom Bachynski. First, they won the 20-team Kootenay International Junior Hockey League playoffs before travelling here to Victoria last week for the four-team B.C. championships. The Wranglers have energized the whole community, with game after game of exciting hockey played in front of noisy capacity crowds. I know because I was there for some of them.

I ask you all to join me in throwing your support behind the 100 Mile House Wranglers as they try to bring the western Canadian Junior B hockey championship back to B.C.

Go Wranglers, go.

SOFTBALL TEAMS

J. Wickens: I had the pleasure this weekend of attending Coquitlam’s fourth annual celebration of softball. It was a fun event, where the opening ceremonies commenced with a parade of all of our Coquitlam minor softball teams. It included the singing of our national anthem by Mark Donnelly and a special appearance by Bob the Bear from the Vancouver Canadians.

I was so excited and proud to be able to watch my six-year-old little girl play alongside her new friends. I was happy to see older girls teach younger girls the skills of running around the bases, throwing and catching the ball and running and sliding.

I have played softball since I was my daughter’s age, and what I know is that being a part of a team can be transformational for our young people. When you’re young, you learn the importance of working with others for a common goal. When you learn the importance of sportsmanship and that winning with integrity is far more fulfilling than winning without it, I believe it builds your character, and it teaches you about what is really important in life.

Nelson Mandela said: “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.” I couldn’t agree more. We are so incredibly lucky to have groups like the Coquitlam Minor Softball Association bringing together volunteers, coaches and families so that girls and young women can be a part of a team, make lifelong friends and learn the valuable lessons that sport can teach.

I am looking forward to my new role as a mom on the benches, and I ask the House to join me in thanking the hard-working volunteers of the Coquitlam Minor Softball Association for all that they do for our community.

[1345]

STEVESTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY

J. Yap: As much as we like to look ahead to the future, it’s important that we always reflect on our past. Locally, groups like the Steveston Historical Society help us do just that. Since 1976, the society has worked hard to preserve and promote the rich history of our community, which began nearly 100 years earlier with the arrival of the Steves family from New Brunswick and evolved into a bustling village of canneries filled with First Nations, Chinese, Japanese and Euro-Canadian workers.

The community has been through decades of boom and bust, from a thriving fishing industry to the expansion of local farming, from the Great Depression to Japanese internment. The stories of Steveston’s past are captured in the heritage character and waterfront that many visitors today enjoy and in the many initiatives and projects of the Steveston Historical Society.

Most recently the society initiated the redevelopment of the Steveston town square, which will create park areas and accessible spaces that are adaptable for a variety of year-round activities. What’s more, the Japanese heritage of Steveston will be honoured by adopting a Japanese-garden approach to the materials.

Congratulations to president Loren Slye and his board, executive director Sarah Glen, the city of Richmond and others who have played an instrumental

part in this project, which will be completed at the end of May and officially open to the public on June 4. I know the Steveston community will make great use of this space, which pays tribute to our past and helps residents and visitors make the memories of tomorrow.

TLA’AMIN TREATY

N. Simons: I’d like to take this time to inform members of this House of an historic event that took place in my constituency this past weekend.

On Saturday, the Tla’amin Nation celebrated the treaty they signed with the province of B.C. and Canada. Hegus Williams — hegus meaning the old and the new name for chief or community leader — spoke about his hope for the future of his community, invoking the memory of his father, the first chief elected under the Indian Act.

It began with a ceremony outside the nation’s new legislative building, a beautiful wood and glass structure just off the highway leading to Lund, in front of which are five totems, each with specific messages and meanings, paying respect to the ancestors and giving hope to the young, and welcoming visitors.

Following the totem unveiling, about 800 people gathered at the Evergreen Theatre, where chiefs from across B.C. and other parts of Canada came to celebrate the historic achievement, including Sechelt Chief Calvin Craigan and Klahoose Chief James Delorme, among others. Speeches, dancing and drumming entertained everyone who assembled.

Key witnesses were called forward to remember and tell of the events they witnessed, including Sophie Pierre, former chief commissioner, and former mayor of Powell

[ Page 12013 ]

River Stewart Alsgard, who is widely credited with being a leader in municipal First Nations relations.

The treaty was in the making for 22 years, and the pride of the accomplishment was clear on the faces of all those who came together.

A key comment came from Grand Chief Ed John, when he pointed at the empty chairs of the recently departed ministers and said: “This is not just Tla’amin’s treaty. This is the treaty of Canada and of British Columbia as well.”

In other words, the honourable implementation of the treaty is required for it to be considered and seen as part of the reconciliation process. Also required is an indication that the 41 percent of First Nations who are actively involved in some process of treaty are in a process that will result in positive outcomes. That can be done through the appointment of a chief treaty commissioner.

In a move made last year, the province suspended the appointment of George Abbott prior to him taking on the role, and the role has remained vacant.

BULLYING PREVENTION INITIATIVES

AND WORK OF TAD MILMINE

J. Thornthwaite: B.C. is a leader in bullying prevention and was the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop a comprehensive approach to this important issue. Initiatives like the ERASE Bullying strategy have helped schools throughout the province focus on prevention and early intervention to resolve problems before they escalate and to ensure that students have a safe, inclusive learning environment.

Our efforts are also supported by programs like Bullying Ends Here, which was started by Tad Milmine in November 2012 after the suicide of Jamie Hubley, an Ottawa teen who was bullied relentlessly for years.

[1350]

Tad, who himself was a victim of bullying, shaped Bullying Ends Here into a one-hour presentation aimed at exploring all forms of bullying and cyberbullying. By relating his story, as well as Jamie Hubley’s, Tad is able to show students that they are not alone in how they feel and to empower them to reach out and ask for help.

Bullying Ends Here is a registered charity, and all donations, as well as revenue from the sale of Tad’s book, go towards helping those who need it most. Since starting almost four years ago, Tad has spoken to students in every province and will soon be making his presentation to students in Amsterdam. Last year alone he spoke to more than 95,000 Canadian students and was recognized by the Senate for his amazing work.

Perhaps the most moving part of this story is the 36 messages Tad has received from parents over the years thanking him for saving their children’s lives. That’s 36 youth who are alive today because of his powerful, resonant one-hour presentation.

I ask the House to join me in thanking Tad for his commitment to ending bullying and empowering those who are suffering. Bullying isn’t a rite of passage or something everyone has to go through. Tad has proven that by reaching out, raising awareness and sharing stories of our own struggles, we can do more than make things better. We can save lives.

KOHAN REFLECTION GARDEN

IN NEW DENVER

K. Conroy: In 1942, Canadian citizens of Japanese heritage were forcibly resettled in the B.C. interior. The New Denver camp, now known locally as The Orchard, was one of the largest, home to over 4,000 internees during World War II.

In 1989, the Slocan Lake Garden Society chose to honour these citizens by creating the Kohan Reflection Garden on land at the south end of the camp along the shore of Slocan Lake, a peaceful place to contemplate and to enjoy the beauty of the plantings and their setting.

The garden, from conception and design by local horticulturist Ray Nikkel to the planting of the first tree by Mrs. Kamegaya, has been developed by local fundraising, government grants, employment programs, contributions from countless residents and visitors and, most notably, the generous support of the village of New Denver, the site proprietors.

The garden is upgraded and sustained through countless efforts of the garden society and volunteers and residents who continue to nurture and maintain it weekly. The concept is that of a strolling garden where visitors can experience many different opportunities for contemplation and reflection.

The original tea house and cherry trees are the focus around which the garden was created. Developed over time, the gatehouse, lanterns, stone wall, lily ponds, water basin and bridge form the hardscape for surrounding plantings, notably azaleas, rhododendrons, grasses and several varieties of Japanese maples.

The garden is host to many international visitors, photographers and practising artists. As well, it is a popular venue for weddings, concerts, art exhibits and memorials. I have been at a number of events there and have, at times, just gone to have my lunch or have a restful break, enjoying the stunning beauty of the lake and the gardens. Kohan garden is open year-round. Entrance is by donation.

I want to thank all of the many volunteers who have developed and continue to take care of this beautiful garden. If you ever get out to New Denver, please stop by and enjoy the beauty while honouring the history of the Japanese in this province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vernon-Monashee begs leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 12014 ]

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a very special person in my life today, a lady who was recently nominated as Woman of the Year by Vernon Women in Business. She is my long-suffering wife of 31½ years. I would like to make my wife, Janice, welcome to the House.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND

DIVIDENDS TO GOVERNMENT

J. Horgan: It’s no surprise to members of this House and members of the public that the B.C. Liberals have been turning B.C. Hydro into a cash cow over the past number of years. They have been characterizing the dividend as earnings by the Crown corporation, even though a former Auditor General said it gave the appearance of profitability where none existed.

Between 2011 and 2014, $1.1 billion has been transferred from B.C. Hydro into general revenue on behalf of the B.C. Liberals’ bottom line. But what’s new is that last week the Minister of Energy finally admitted to the practice and acknowledged that for the past number of years, and for two years going forward, 100 percent of the money that’s transferred from B.C. Hydro into general revenue will be borrowed money. So $863 million will be borrowed by B.C. Hydro on behalf of its ratepayers and transferred to the B.C. Liberal government.

[1355]

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Does he really believe that he’s protecting ratepayers when he asked the utility to borrow money to shore up the B.C. Liberal bottom line?

Hon. B. Bennett: That’s a good opportunity for me to explain to the public and to the members on both sides of the House that this particular policy, this dividend policy, has in fact been around in B.C. for about 25 years. In fact, it began when the Leader of the Opposition and my B.C. Hydro critic…. I could be wrong about the timing, but I believe they were both advising Premiers and Energy ministers at the time. At the time when they created this policy around dividends, they were actually quite proud of themselves.

Their former party president, Mr. Sihota, said in Hansard — I’ll quote him; he’s a very articulate individual: “We have placed a challenge in front of B.C. Hydro saying that yes, there are some dividend obligations to the provincial Crown. We’re proud of initiating that kind of reform with respect to rate restructuring in British Columbia.” The policy that they are so critical of they in fact created.

On the other side of the ledger…. This government, on this side of the ledger, actually created a policy to back away from those dividends….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t know why they think that’s funny. It’s the right thing to do.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t know why they think that it’s funny. B.C. Hydro has its marching orders. Starting in 2018, they will pay $100 million less a year until the dividend goes to zero. We did that. The B.C. Liberal government did that. We did not create the policy, but we are going to get rid of it.

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

J. Horgan: St. Augustine is in my mind again. Earlier this week, someone referred to: “Give me chastity, but not just yet.” I think that speaks perfectly to the Minister of Energy, who goes down memory lane, as is the tendency of the B.C. Liberals, not wanting to live in the here and now.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

J. Horgan: The question to the minister was not about 1980. It was not about 1990. It was about the time that the member for Westside-Kelowna, who wasn’t from there earlier on, became Premier of British Columbia. Since that time and going forward, she will have asked B.C. Hydro to borrow several billion dollars that they don’t have. Who’s going to pay for that? Will it be the member for Westside-Kelowna? I highly doubt that. It’s going to be the ratepayers that support B.C. Hydro.

The challenge we have here is that the minister doesn’t want to be responsible for what he did yesterday. I’m apparently responsible for things that happened 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, but that minister is not responsible for what he did yesterday.

My question to the minister: how much more will B.C. Hydro ratepayers have to pay to meet the obligations that he has made to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the fact of the matter is that when the NDP was in government, they borrowed money to pay dividends. They did exactly the same thing that B.C. Hydro has done from time to time. They don’t have to borrow money every time to pay dividends, but they have had to borrow money to pay dividends. We recognized, immediately following the 2013 election, that we had to

[ Page 12015 ]

find a way to correct the practice that was created by these folks on the other side of the House back in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: It was a practice that needed to be addressed. We’ve addressed it. We’ve done, actually, four different things.

[1400]

First of all, we got B.C. Hydro’s operating costs down. We found almost $350 million over three years so that they could take some pressure off rates with their operating costs. We dealt with executive salaries. We dealt with water rentals. Tier 3 water rentals are going to disappear in 2018, and as I said earlier, dividends are going to drop by $100 million a year starting in 2018.

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

J. Horgan: Some of the other things that the minister is doing. He’s paying $17 million of ratepayers’ money to IPPs to not deliver power to B.C. Hydro, because we’re swimming in it. We’re buying power at $60, $70, $80, $90 a megawatt hour when the market price is $35. The great business people on that side of the House have been buying more power than we need for a decade, and now they’re telling them: “Don’t deliver it. We’ll pay you anyway.” That’s the business acumen of the people on that side of the House.

Deferred debt. It’s not really debt. It’s just debt that we’re going to put to one side.

The minister said three years ago that we were going to bring that down over time. It’s going up and up and up. In fact, he admitted last week that over the next two years, another $1 billion will be borrowed because they have to give money to the Minister of Finance to meet their obligations fiscally.

Now, I think that is a bit sideways, and I think that people that depend on B.C. Hydro will be looking back on the 28 percent rate increases with some fondness because there’s no other direction to go but up on this B.C. Liberal watch.

A simple question. I’m hopeful that, for a guy who is steeped in the 1990s, perhaps he can get to 2016 and 2017. Tell the people of B.C. how much more they’re going to have to pay for their hydro because you can’t manage a peanut stand.

Madame Speaker: I’ll caution all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: I find that when I’m communicating with the opposition, I have to really make a serious attempt to use plain language and be as simple as I can because…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question.

Hon. B. Bennett: …they clearly don’t understand basic business.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just take your seat.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’ll take another leap at trying to educate the opposition. My critic — who may decide to pursue this later this afternoon in estimates — and I went back and forth on this, and I tried to explain it to him, unsuccessfully, on Thursday.

When you’re looking at a balance sheet or a statement of income and expenses, you need to look at both the income and the expenses. In the case of the biomass program that B.C. Hydro has…. Incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that renewable energy is “junk power.” The way that particular program works is that…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …when there is inexpensive power available to B.C. Hydro that they can utilize for ratepayers, particularly in the spring when you have the spring freshet, they will turn down electricity from the bioenergy producers. That is part of the contract. They will pay the fixed costs. Last year this program saved the ratepayers of British Columbia $8.6 million.

A. Dix: Well, there you go. According to the Minister of Energy, the freshet is in March. The government has lots of power. They’ve got a lot of power. They can name Phil Hochstein head of the Turkey Marketing Board, but they can’t move the freshet two months.

I mean, it is laughable. It’s laughable that this minister blames this incompetence on the NDP.

[1405]

Of all the Premiers in the history of B.C., only one has claimed $2 billion in dividends from B.C. Hydro, and 100 percent of that has been borrowed — 100 percent. That’s the record of this Premier and this Minister of Energy.

You may ask how they do this, hon. Speaker. How do they do this? It’s called deferral accounts. Take all the deferral accounts in the history of all the governments of British Columbia. That’s 4 percent up to 2004 — Liberal,

[ Page 12016 ]

NDP, Socred. That’s 4 percent. Then you take the rest of it, 96 percent of the deferral accounts. That’s these guys. They’ve increased 40-fold. They’re borrowing money and claiming it’s income.

The Minister of Energy said this. He was going to make B.C. Hydro operate like a commercial corporation. What commercial corporation on earth behaves so irresponsibly?

Hon. B. Bennett: In the spirit of trying to keep it simple for the opposition, because they do struggle to understand this stuff, let me….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: I assume there are some folks over there that have had a real job. I don’t know that many of them have, but I’m assuming that some of them have.

It’s a little bit….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

Please proceed in a parliamentary fashion.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s a little bit like a mortgage. When you buy a house…. Presumably, some of the members on the other side have gone through that exercise. If you pay…. Well, I shouldn’t use a number, because where I live, the number would be a lot lower than where many of the members on the other side live.

When you buy a house, you don’t pay cash for it, typically. I doubt that anyone in this House, with the exception of maybe the member from Capilano over here, who may at some point in his life have paid cash for a house…. You get a mortgage, and the total amount gets amortized out over 20, 25 years.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: One of the members on the other side said it’s confusing. I don’t know how to make it simpler than to compare a deferral account — a regulatory account, which is the proper name for these accounts — to a mortgage. They are amortizing costs.

When B.C. Hydro spends $2.4 billion a year on capital, largely because no money was spent by B.C. Hydro on infrastructure in the 1990s, they don’t pay cash for everything. These projects all have a life, and some of these projects have a life of decades — several decades. So they amortize the amount out, and that’s why you have these regulatory accounts. It’s not that complicated.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: I asked the minister last week if any other utility had an account like the rate-smoothing account at B.C. Hydro. It’s called a revenue acceleration account. What it does is it creates revenue out of thin air so that the company can record a higher profit in the near term. That’s its purpose. It’s not borrowed against anything. It’s intended to make up for their incompetent management of B.C. Hydro. That’s what it’s intended to do.

Without that…. I know the minister didn’t like the previous Premier, and he took a cheap shot about the current Premier earlier. Let me say this. No other utility in Canada behaves this way. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Energy talk about B.C. Hydro as if it operated like all the other businesses.

[1410]

You know what the share of equity of deferral accounts is in Manitoba? It’s 10 percent. You know what it is in British Columbia? It’s 121 percent. That’s the difference between a corporation run in the interests of the people of the province and a corporation run in the interests of the governing party of the province.

How can the minister, who said that this practice of borrowing dividends is like the ratepayer loaning money to the taxpayer and then effectively pretending it’s profit, continue to justify this measure? Why should anyone believe he’s going to get rid of them in 2018, when what he said in 2015, he hasn’t kept up with in 2016?

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope the member doesn’t get a complex, but I’m going to have to say again, as I said last week in estimates: he’s just wrong again. Other Canadian utilities that do use regulatory accounts are Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Power, Ontario Power, Hydro One, Nova Scotia Power. In fact, other utilities, public utilities in this country, do use regulatory accounts, the same as B.C. Hydro.

The other thing I would say to the member, respectfully, is that if he would go to the website and look at the ten-year rates plan — I hope he’s done that, but maybe he hasn’t — he would see that there is a commitment in that ten-year rates plan for 24 of the 26 regulatory accounts to be paid off. That’s 89 percent of the balance of regulatory accounts, and the majority — $4.1 billion — will be paid off over that time period.

The member consistently disparages the crown jewel of Crown corporations in this province. Regardless of who happens to be in government, regardless of what political parties are in government…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[ Page 12017 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: …we should be proud of the crown jewel of Crown corporations in this province.

Forbes magazine just stated that B.C. Hydro is Canada’s number one employer. Now, I wouldn’t expect anyone over there to read Forbes magazine, but that’s what Forbes magazine stated. B.C. Business said that B.C. Hydro has the most influential brand in all of British Columbia.

I don’t know why the members can’t accept the fact that B.C. Hydro actually does — not perfect — a pretty good job, and they’re getting better all the time.

INVESTIGATION AND OVERSIGHT OF

NEW COAST REALTY TRANSACTIONS

D. Eby: A secret recording of a training session has revealed that the owner of Metro Vancouver’s New Coast Realty, which is home to 445 real estate agents, is training those real estate agents in fraud and deception.

Now, in January, I wrote to the Real Estate Council of B.C. about this firm. They acknowledged my complaint and never wrote again. In February, I wrote to the independent real estate advisory group. I asked them to audit New Coast. They told me they don’t have the legal power to do so. Despite notorious unethical and illegal behaviour, the Real Estate Council says they won’t be auditing past New Coast home sales, just future sales.

Why is this government tolerating a system where there’s nobody who will audit past sales by a firm like New Coast Realty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve said this before in the House and will repeat it again for the member and the House in its entirety. The government expects that members of the real estate profession will conduct themselves in accordance with both the law and the professional conduct guidelines by which they are pledged to abide.

I’m not going to comment on the specific case, which, the member knows, is very much under review by the council. But I will say this. British Columbians are entitled to expect that a self-regulated profession like the real estate community is regulated and that the public interest is being properly protected.

[1415]

They’re entitled to expect, for every transaction for which a British Columbian signs a listing agreement, that the realtor they retain conducts himself or herself in accordance with professional conduct guidelines and the law and, most importantly, acts in the best interests of that client, which is paying a substantial fee and commission for that service.

The Real Estate Council, as the member knows, is conducting a specific review. It is also in the midst of work that I am hoping to receive a report on — in fact, will receive a report on — later this week. We’ll receive an indication of the steps and the findings of the council to this point.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Well, the minister says that New Coast Realty is very much under review by the Real Estate Council. Let me give him an update on what’s happened. Despite repeated allegations and complaints of fraud over a period of months, including secret bonuses taken from but not disclosed to clients, not a single realtor at New Coast has had their licence suspended by the council.

Forget suspending licences in the public interest; the council is failing on the basics. They don’t even respond to complaints about New Coast Reality. Four months and I haven’t had a response to a complaint from the Real Estate Council. Well, they acknowledged receipt, so I guess that’s something.

Why is the Finance Minister so convinced that the Real Estate Council is doing a good job on New Coast Realty and on widespread allegations of fraud and illegal conduct by this firm?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I have said in the House and what I have said to this member is that in fulfilling its obligations under the relevant statutory provisions, I am aware that the council has taken steps against individual companies, individual realtors. It has imposed sanctions in the past — suspensions, cancellations of licences and the imposition of monetary fines.

One of the questions that the council has been charged, along with the superintendent, to provide specific advice on to the Real Estate Council and to government is whether those sanctions, as they have been imposed and as they exist in the relevant statutory instruments, are sufficient to deter that small percentage of the real estate profession who seem to have lost sight of what the primary obligation is.

I’ll await their report. The government has said, and I will say here again: “The government will take steps accordingly.”

M. Mark: New Coast’s owner is training his real estate agents to lie about the values of their homes. The owner told his agents: “The first offer will never be the best offer. I am sure about this. But you have to say the first offer is the best offer.” New Coast does this to try to resell the home again, for a second commission.

Does the minister agree that this is the kind of conduct that should lead to a full audit, and can he explain why that audit isn’t happening right now?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is no place in British Columbia — nor in the, dare I say, noble profession of real estate — for conduct that is intended to defraud or mislead members of the public or clients. The council exists within the ambit of the self-regulated real estate profession to ensure that the public interest is protected.

[ Page 12018 ]

To the extent that additional steps need to be taken to enhance their ability to protect the public interest, the government is willing to take those steps. I think it is appropriate, though, at this stage, to allow the superintendent and the council to complete the work they have been assigned, to examine that work and to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken that will guarantee the public interest is protected and that people can have confidence that the realtor they retain is acting in their best interests.

[1420]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: New Coast also trains their agents to tell clients to offer $50,000 in bonuses to the buyer’s agent, which is what they then secretly pocket half of. The owner notes in his training that it’s best to sell only to other New Coast agents so that they can defraud their clients more easily. Again from the owner: “At this time, if you are dealing with other companies, be careful with issues that could violate the rules. If the other agent is from our team, it can be easily arranged, right? Bonus is so awesome.”

We need a fraud investigation by the police. Will the Attorney General demand that a police investigation take place immediately?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member and her colleagues have focused upon an important incident and an important transaction or series of transactions. It would, however, be incorrect to leave the impression that the Real Estate Council has not taken this matter seriously and is not employing its resources and its personnel to examine, investigate and take specific steps.

The council has imposed, I’m advised, significant conditions on this particular real estate company, conditions that are designed to protect the public. They have ensured or directed the appointment of a new managing director and attached conditions to the training that can take place. There is a quarterly audit, I am advised, that has been ordered — a series of steps that signals, to me at least, that the Real Estate Council takes seriously its oversight and the public interest role that it plays.

That having been said, the council and the superintendent are also undertaking this additional work that we are awaiting. I will say again that if the real estate sector is at a point where it can no longer discharge its duty as a self-regulating profession on behalf of the public, the government is prepared to step in and do it for them.

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION

MANAGEMENT OF CASINO TRANSACTIONS

C. James: In October 2014, the Minister of Finance audited the B.C. Lottery Corporation. In that audit, they found “a significant increase in unusual or suspicious financial transactions reported.” In 2015, the B.C. Lottery Corporation deployed a new anti-money-laundering computer system, claiming the results of this new system would “increase capacity, improve accuracy, reporting and identification of high-risk persons and patterns of activity using data analytics.”

But this new system failed to detect Mr. Mancini, the landscaper who claimed to have won over $2 million from slot machines in B.C. casinos and who is now being chased for that $70,000 from the Solicitor General, who says this man laundered money through B.C. casinos. Mr. Mancini was not caught by the new computer system. He was caught by a traffic police officer.

Could the minister tell us how much this system cost and why the system failed to detect Mr. Mancini’s activities?

Hon. M. de Jong: It won’t surprise the member to know that I’m not going to comment specifically on a case that is still the subject of investigation and before the courts. But I will say this. I don’t think anyone has been shy about acknowledging the temptation that exists for those who are engaged in criminal activity to utilize lawful gaming activities as a conduit to launder that money, which is why — it’s interesting that the member poses the question today — the Solicitor General and I were very pleased to announce the formation of the new Joint Illegal Gaming Investigations Team.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: If members are interested in the important distinction and dimension to this that did not exist previously under the team, this is about more than investigating whether someone is conducting an illegal card game somewhere off premises.

This is a team that will work with 22 dedicated police officers and four gaming policy enforcement branch people and will root out organized criminal activity in our casinos and root out those who seek to launder money through our lawful gaming premises, the casinos of British Columbia, so that British Columbians who decide to take advantage and avail themselves of this legal, lawful form of entertainment can know that the people they’re sitting at the tables with are not criminals and are not laundering money through British Columbia casinos.

[End of question period.]

Points of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

[ Page 12019 ]

Secondly, when I put my glasses on, I realized I gave an incorrect number in the very last answer. I think it was my fifth answer. I said $4.1 billion, and it should have been $1.3 billion.

A. Weaver: I, too, would like to rise and raise my right of privilege with respect to comments made by the Minister of Energy and Mines earlier in question period.

Madame Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and in this chamber, it is continued committee stage debate on Bill 17.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

section 36 (continued) .

S. Robinson: It’s good to be back here and continuing committee stage on Bill

Section 36 says: “Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act, the population of an election area is to be taken from the most recent population estimates issued annually by the director under the Statistics Act (British Columbia).…” If the minister can just describe where, specifically, the population estimates will come from, that would be helpful.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We did canvass this in the last session, but I will. Rather than using census data, which is only done every five years, B.C. Stats does a review on an annual basis. They publish the results of that. Those are posted on the website. They are updated every year, and those are the stats that are used to determine population.

S. Robinson: I have another question that has to do with subsection (2). “The minister responsible may determine the population of an election area (

a) if the population of an election area has not been established by a Census of Canada, or (

b) in other prescribed special circumstances.” If the minister can perhaps give an example of what a special circumstance might look like.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I clarified previously on this, an example would be a community that has wards, like Lake Country, where there isn’t the same data available as we might have for other communities. It allows the minister to make sure that that information can be verified. The other thing is a new community, where stats don’t exist at the time. Again, the minister can determine what methodology would be used to verify the numbers that would be used for the population.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what system he would use to verify the number of residents in a municipality like Jumbo?

[1435]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate that the member wants to get the reference to a community in. The member knows clearly there are no residents there, and the minister’s well aware of that, so that process has been used to determine the population.

In those cases where there is a new community, whether it’s research or surveys that are done, the minister, through this, because it is enabling, will have the ability to ensure that we do as robust a job as possible to determine the numbers.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

S. Robinson: In

section 37(a), it strikes out “jurisdiction area,” some of the language. If the minister can explain why we need to strike out just that term “jurisdiction area” — why it’s no longer of any value.

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the keys in reviewing this legislation was to make sure that the language in the amendments that are being made is in keeping with the Community Charter, on one hand. The other thing is that, taking out “jurisdiction area” and putting in “election area” — there are communities where there are two jurisdictions that are part of an election area. This just further clarifies what is being referred to in terms of the limits, and it is the election area that may comprise two or more jurisdictions.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand. When the minister uses the word “jurisdiction,” how was it used previously? If you’re going to eliminate it, what word are we using instead of “jurisdiction area”? I’m just trying to make sure that there are no gaps here.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, perhaps for a little more clarity for the member, this is to ensure that the expense

[ Page 12020 ]

limits that are set align with the complexity that we may have between two areas.

I’ll use an example. The school district of Surrey encompasses both the city of Surrey and White Rock, so in order to make it fair across the election area, the reason for doing this is changing the language to “election area,” rather than “jurisdiction.”

S. Robinson: I appreciate the explanation. I come from a similar situation with a school board, school district 43 — three cities and two villages — so I appreciate the language change and have a better understanding of that.

Now, in

section (b), it repeals paragraph (

d) and substitutes…. Talking about the authority to make regulations around third-party advertising rules to non-election assent voting advertising, can the minister explain what’s being substituted here and how that’s going to affect the legislation?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The change here provides the ability to make regulations for third-party advertising in relation to non-election assent voting. It does not include expense limits, because expense limits do not apply to non-election voting.

S. Robinson: Just so that I can be clear. When we have non-assent voting, the sky is the limit. So an interest group in a community might want something to happen, and then we can have another group that might not want something to happen, and it goes to assent voting. They don’t have to track in the same way that other groups might. I just want to make sure I understand as I explain it to my constituents.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The principle behind this in non-election or non-candidate elections is the fact that parties have the freedom of expression to get their message out there. It really becomes an issue of how strongly any organization may feel about a particular issue and a desire to make sure that the public hears that. Because it is not tied to a candidate and it is an assent-voting process, then they have the ability to spend whatever they feel is appropriate to get that message out.

S. Robinson: I’m just thinking about this principle of fairness and a level playing field. We’ve certainly heard a fair bit about that in the House. I’m trying to wrap my head around examples where this could be skewed. There could be this sense of not having fairness.

For example, there might be some large corporate agenda — I don’t want it to sound as sinister as that sounds — some corporate push to do something. Let’s say it’s cell towers, because that’s certainly been an issue in my community. I suspect it’s been an issue in the minister’s community. There might be a handful of neighbours that are very concerned about having a cell tower constructed near a school. This is exactly an issue.

If a community decides to take it to assent voting just to get a feel for what the community wants…. At this point, we know that corporate dollars can seem like perhaps not an endless pit…. But there are certainly some substantial corporate dollars that could be put into encouraging the community to vote one way, and this handful of people might have a much harder time getting word out.

If I understand correctly, then neither of these groups is required to follow any expense limit whatsoever. Is that what this piece of legislation says?

[1445]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The whole purpose of these expense limits is to, really, deal with elections of people who choose to want to represent communities and make the ultimate decisions, perhaps in zoning and all of the things that affect the community. When it comes to a particular issue, clearly we are not including that in this legislation. It does come down to, I think, the opportunity for people to gather together or for organizations to put their case out there, and we’re not suggesting limits. That does not mean that they do not have to report what they have invested in getting that message out.

We feel comfortable that the changes we’re proposing in this legislation deal with candidates and third-party organizations as it relates to those elections for people who choose to want to represent a community.

S. Robinson: It’s a little unfortunate, given the opportunity here to level the playing field. When the special committee for local elections financing was tasked with studying the issue, key principles that we were to develop included access and fairness. The principle of fairness was certainly the most common principle that guided the committee’s work and that the committee heard from everybody. I don’t think that there was any presenter that didn’t speak about the principle of fairness.

Here we have some change to the legislation, so there was an opportunity to actually create it here. Was there any particular reason why assent voting wasn’t included? I don’t imagine it would’ve been that difficult to use some of the formulas that we’re going to be talking about in

section 38 — to include that in assent voting. The idea is that based on fairness and access, anyone can organize a campaign, not just for people but for ideas and for values and that that was the value of people using their voice.

Here we have a piece of legislation that doesn’t really make sure that fairness is included. I’m just wondering if the minister has any last thoughts about how fairness isn’t captured in this piece of legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Being very familiar with the process that led to the changes that are before the House,

[ Page 12021 ]

it was absolutely…. The task force recommendations dealt with election of candidates. The special committee made no recommendations on assent voting. Our focus is clearly delivering fairness and equity when it comes to the election of candidates, and that is the only purpose of this legislation.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

S. Robinson: I understand that these are brand-new sections, so I would like to go through them fairly closely. Can the minister just describe this

section 38, particularly the first part, 100.1? What, specifically, is happening here with this piece of legislation?

[1450]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The purpose of this

section within the legislation is to, by regulation, set the third-party expense limits, as we have been talking about in a lot of the discussion so far.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain why the decision was made to set it in regulation and not in legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As we have canvassed earlier, the purpose of this is to give the flexibility that…. Indeed, if in future elections — the next one being in 2018 at the municipal level — there is learning that comes out of that and feedback that we might get from UBCM and other people from the next election cycle that would suggest that changes should be made as a result of experience, having it in regulation and having that flexibility allows us to do that.

S. Robinson: In 100.1(1)(

b) it says: “…for the purposes of

section 41.7” — which is the attribution of value of directed advertising — “respecting the basis on which third party advertising must be attributed, including prescribing factors or principles to be considered when attributing third party advertising.”

Can the minister tell us where these factors or principles will come from?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member knows, having been a part of the special committee that was struck on this, the principles behind this, as relates to third-party advertising, are to ensure that fairness, transparency, neutrality and accountability are at the foundation of this. It is important through this that all of those are attributed to meet the principles that I’ve just mentioned.

Those are the basic principles. The regulations and all of the other elements that come are based on the input that we’ve had from the stakeholders and from the committee.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear that the minister will be using those principles that the committee worked so hard to identify and pull together into some coherent fashion. But I’m sure he can appreciate that it’s not listed here anywhere in this legislation. So it’s really important to understand, I think, that when you say principles, there’s some understanding about what principles, because it’s meaningless unless there’s some context for that. So I’m pleased to hear that those will be used.

Given that the decisions will be made by order-in-council, it’s really hard to know what sort of…. We don’t get to see what the process was like and if these principles were followed. I’ll be certain to watch and see how this plays out.

[1455]

The other question I have is for 100.2 — if the minister can describe what this

section of this legislation does and changes in local elections legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I believe the member was referring to 100.2 It is the same answer in terms of the answer I gave as we talked about expense limits for candidates. Those same criteria and the same process are being applied here in this section.

S. Robinson: Well, my understanding is that the earlier one was third-party advertising limits. And this one — the way I read it — is expense limits for candidates? Okay, thank you.

I have a question about (

b) in this section. It says: “respecting the expense limit for a candidate referred to in

section 4 (2) [candidate running in multiple elections].” Can the minister explain how this will work, what the expense limit for a candidate referred to in

section 4(2)…? This is about a candidate running in multiple elections. What would the math look like?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know that the member is aware…. We’ve seen it, not necessarily just in our jurisdictions but in other parts. What we recognize clearly is that there are instances where candidates may want to run for separate offices in two jurisdictions. There may be candidates who want to run for two offices within the same jurisdiction. The flexibility that this allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to look at practices and to make regulations as a result of experience…. The key to that is the flexibility to deal with learning as we move along.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand this. This is about creating an opening for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make rules around how to manage the situation. We certainly did hear how it will further complicate with an expense limit. It sort of becomes more complicated when people are running in two different jurisdictions or for two different offices in the same jurisdiction.

[ Page 12022 ]

Right now, it looks like there’s no legislation that says that you can’t do that. So we’re leaving it open in legislation. At some future point down the road, there may be some rules that will come out. But we have no idea, at this point, what they’re going to look like.

[1500]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly, this does not deal with the issue of whether people could or could not make the decision to run in multiple jurisdictions or for different offices. This strictly deals with the expense limits as a result of that decision. The flexibility that this provides is that once we have a learning out of that, we’ll be able to determine whether or not some of the regulations should be either brought into place or changed.

V. Huntington: With regard to

section 38, 100.1, and the manner in which 100.2 discusses form and manner of obligations with regard to the electoral organization and candidate, in 100.1, where you’re establishing limits for third-party advertisers, where is there the understanding in this act about the way in which third-party advertisers are to report on their limits? There’s nothing here that indicates any obligation to report, and I wonder if the minister could discuss that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member knows, but those provisions already exist in LECFA, which was passed in 2013. This simply makes it very clear that they must report under the provisions that are already in LECFA.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could point me to where it assures they must report. Is he speaking to 100.1?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Staff has informed me it’s in

part 3 of LECFA, in

section 51.

S. Robinson: I’m reading 100.2(c). It says: “prescribing a form for a campaign financing arrangement for candidates and elector organizations.” When I read it, it’s like prescribing a form. Is that like a form as a written form or…? I’m just trying to make sure from a language perspective. I think I know what it’s trying to get at, but perhaps the minister can explain what that is. It doesn’t read quite the way that I thought it should, so I’m trying to figure out what that means.

Hon. P. Fassbender: When a candidate, should the act pass, decides to run under an electoral organization, there will be a specific form that will be developed, and that will ensure consistency throughout all of the local elections.

V. Huntington: Given that

section 100.1 is referring so specifically to third-party advertisers, why is there no specific obligation, as there is in 100.2(c)? Why was there no specific obligation placed on the third-party advertisers prescribing a form for a campaign? Is there an obligation under the act the minister commented on?

[1505]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Third-party advertisers are not associated with an individual candidate, so that is why it is carried forward in the act in this way.

V. Huntington: Perhaps the minister, for my edification…. I suppose I should know this. Could he explain to me how third-party advertisers are regulated in terms of advising that they are going to be a third-party advertiser, whom they’re advertising on behalf of, what electoral organization they intend to support and how the percentage…?

Apparently, if I’m understanding this right, “establishing an amount based on a prescribed percentage of the expense limit for a prescribed class of candidates,” if you don’t know what your candidates are or what the expense limits are…. No, that’s the wrong way of putting it.

How do you organize the third-party advertisers? How do they become responsible to the process and to the system? Whether it’s an electoral organization or a candidate, who are they supporting, and how is it regulated?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I would direct the member to

part 3 of LECFA. This simply sets the expense limits, but the other issues that were raised are contained and clearly outlined in LECFA under

part 3.

S. Robinson: I have a couple of questions on (

e) and (

f) of this section.

If the minister can just describe what these two pieces will do in terms of the election expense limits legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The purpose of this is to respect the principle of neutrality, and it also will help to ensure that how the expense limits for a candidate are shared within the EO is respected in this as well.

S. Robinson: What caught my attention in these two pieces was this idea of termination of campaign finance arrangement and terminating an endorsed relationship.

Does that currently exist in the legislation — the terminating of the relationship?

[1510]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Campaign financing arrangements are new in this legislation. Therefore, this allows for those regulations to be set as a result of that.

I should say that this was done as a result of the input in terms of ensuring that the transparency is there as well.

S. Robinson: I’m just trying to sort out the requirements now of elector organizations. They’re going to be

[ Page 12023 ]

reading this legislation and trying to figure out what they need to do in anticipation of the regulations. If I understand correctly, there’s going to be some more paperwork for them to fill out. I’m assuming it’ll come through Elections B.C.

The way I’m reading it is that they’re going to have to include information about the length of the relationship when the formal relationship will end, at some point, because it says here: “…prescribing the form and manner of the termination of the campaign financing arrangement and the information that must be included in the termination, establishing the process for termination, including the notice requirements, and respecting the restrictions on or obligations of a candidate and an elector organization following the termination.”

So elector organizations can expect some paperwork that provides a parameter around the relationship — a beginning of a relationship and an end of a relationship — and they should be prepared to receive some information about that. As I try to imagine what that might look like…. Is that just for the campaign, so that, essentially, what you can expect is that the relationship will be terminated on election day? Or is it for the entire four years that they’re elected that they are in relationship with the elector organization?

You can continue to spend money into the next election — you have to report it — but not get captured under the expense limit. I’m thinking of Vision, for example, having a fundraiser three years before their election. They might be spending some money. They’re still in relationship with their party, with their elector organization. But they’re not formally in a campaign period.

I’m just trying to figure out what the minister sort of imagined this might look like.

[1515]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This does not define the length of a relationship. A relationship, as the member has said, can be ongoing. But there are instances, quite honestly…. We saw it in the recent federal election where candidates were declared, began campaigns, and then, for whatever reason, a decision was made to drop that candidate.

There is a reporting responsibility for the period of time that that candidate was a supported candidate, but the limits within this legislation clearly attach to the campaign period, not the relationship. Any expense limits that have to be reported are during that campaign period, which I know we have canvassed previously.

S. Robinson: So (

e) specifically is about the campaign period and about the financial arrangements, but (

f) is about the endorsement relationship ending. Those would happen, I would imagine, simultaneously. I’m just trying to make some sense of the distinction. One is clearly about the financial arrangements, and the other one is about an endorsement relationship ending. Perhaps the minister can explain why you had to have both of these in the legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This does clearly indicate that if a relationship ends within a campaign period, yes, indeed, there will be a requirement to file certain papers that assure the transparency and the openness in reporting as a result of that termination. That is the intent of this.

S. Robinson: It looks like there are two sets that would need to be reported. One is an endorsement, and the other is a campaign finance arrangement. Essentially, there are two filings. Am I reading that correctly?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, this is clearly a requirement that Elections B.C. will have to determine the reasons for an endorsement or a candidate no longer being supported by an elector organization. There are many reasons why that might be. Some could be illness; some could be other reasons. Elections B.C. will clearly require forms to be filled out that give those reasons for either of those two circumstances.

S. Robinson: I can appreciate that you would want that, from a transparency perspective. But can the minister think of an example? I’m sitting here trying to think of what…. Why would you need both? I could picture that you would need….

If somebody is ill, the relationship, essentially, would be ended. They’re no longer eligible, or they can no longer run for office. So the elector organization is terminating the relationship and might pick up a different candidate or might not, and you’d want people to know. Or there may be a parting of ways. But here we have two different…. One is about a financial arrangement.

I’m trying to figure out: would you continue to have a financial arrangement but not have an endorsement? I think that is not likely. Would you continue to have an endorsement and a financial arrangement? I would think that that’s not likely. I’m just trying to understand why there are two separate clauses here rather than just one that says: “We’ve ended the relationship, and here’s the paperwork.”

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Perhaps I’ll start with the really simple answer that might help. One is about the relationship between a candidate and an elector organization. The other one is about the money. The reason you need both is that the reasons for the endorsement and the relationship with the EO and the candidate may be terminated for a variety of reasons. A candidate may choose, at some point, that any of the dollars raised would be given 100 percent, and the expense limits, to the EO. So each one of them may have unique elements to it.

All this allows is to make sure there is the openness and transparency on both the endorsement, and the reason it

[ Page 12024 ]

might end, and on the dollars and how they’re being applied or have been applied.

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

S. Robinson: I do have a couple of questions about some of these

definitions. I’d like to draw the minister’s attention to the “final campaign financing arrangement.” I don’t recall seeing this anywhere in the legislation. I’ve seen “campaign financing arrangement” but not “final campaign financing arrangement.” Perhaps the minister or his staff can direct us to where that comes up in the legislation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Because we need to cross-reference this with the legislation, if I can suggest that as soon as I get the answer from legislative counsel, we come back to it.

S. Robinson: I’m happy to come back to it. I’ve just been going through the legislation. I can’t see anything that says “final campaign financing arrangement.” I want to make sure I understand the context.

[1525]

I do have one other comment on this section. That’s (l), “shared third party advertising.” It says here in the definition it “means third party advertising sponsored jointly by 2 or more third party sponsors, such that a portion of the total value of the third party advertising attributed to each third party advertising sponsor under

section 33…is third party advertising of each of the third party sponsors participating in the third party advertising.”

Is there any way that the minister can provide some clarity about what this particular definition means?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Perhaps an example is the best way. If the Victoria cycling coalition and the Saanich cycling coalition decide to run an ad to say, “We urge you to support those candidates that support cycling in our communities,” they would have to share the cost of that ad under their expense limits.

S. Robinson: That’s helpful. There are certainly lots of “third party” comments in the legalese, so sometimes it’s hard to make sense of which third parties we’re talking about.

Under this definition, it doesn’t speak to the example that the minister used last week, which is…. If one party has larger font than the other, does the legislation ensure that it’s balanced so that the negotiation about how it’s shared is appropriately allocated? Does that also exist in the legislation? I do recall the minister describing that for elector organizations, they have to be apportioned appropriately. Is it the same for a third party as well?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The whole intent is that it is shared fairly and equitably between those advertisers, and it is exactly the same as we talked about with candidates.

In answer to the question that we had set aside, it is in 63.4(

b) and 68.25(b).

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

S. Robinson: In 40, it talks about transition. I just want to make sure I understand what this is about and that the example I have in mind is where this applies. If there’s a by-election between now and the 2018 general election, should this legislation pass, the old legislation will continue, but this won’t actually be enacted or the expectation for expense limits won’t actually be used until the 2018 local elections.

[1530]

Hon. P. Fassbender: That is, indeed, the case. As the member knows, our commitment is to ensure that those that are interested in local governments and UBCM clearly understand in the education that we need to do prior to the next general municipal election.

Sections 40 to 49 inclusive approved.

S. Robinson:

Section 49 is about the Vancouver Charter. I actually have an amendment that is on the order paper. I am proposing the following:

SECTION 49.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

49.1 The following Division is added to

Part 1:

Division 8.1 — Power to Make Contribution Limits

Campaign Finance

65.1

(1) Council is permitted to enact a bylaw or bylaws in order to

(

a) establish maximum limits on campaign contributions to candidates or elector organizations;

(

b) establish a limit or a ban on a contributor class; and

(

c) establish fines or penalties, including disqualification, for violation of a bylaw enacted under this section.

(2) Enactments and amendments of bylaws under this

section are prohibited within a campaign period.

(3) For the purpose of this section,

definitions are as established in the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act . ]

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: This comes from the fact that we can all agree in this House that spending in the Vancouver elections has become ridiculous. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has certainly spoken out against it, as well, when she was on council. We’ve certainly heard from people throughout the city of Vancouver and from outside Vancouver who’ve expressed some serious concern about the kind of spending that goes on.

I’m proposing: at least, at a minimum, let’s give city of Vancouver the power to do what they feel that they need to do. They have elector organizations that are repre-

[ Page 12025 ]

sented. There is the Green Party. There are people from NPA, as well as Vision. All are very, very interested in having the authority to at least make their own campaign financing and election decisions.

What I’m proposing is that they be given the power to make contribution limits. While we have an expense limit here before us, people certainly recognize that contribution limits weren’t considered at all and that those ought to be considered for the city of Vancouver. When someone makes a $946,000 contribution to one party, we recognize that the principles that the minister and I have been talking about are not being adhered to in this case. It’s not equitable, it’s not fair, and it means that people don’t have the same kind of access in the principles of democracy that we both want to uphold.

In this case, with this amendment, we would provide to the city of Vancouver, under their own charter, the power to make contributions. In this case, council would be permitted to enact a bylaw or bylaws in order to establish maximum limits on campaign contributions to candidates or elector organizations. That means they can decide, as their own organization, as their own body, to say: “We’re only going to accept this kind of limit because we think it’s important that everyone have equal access.” And part of equal access is a contribution limit.

This would also establish a limit or ban on a contributor class. There has certainly been lots of conversation about the imbalance that comes to democracy when you have very powerful and wealthy corporations and unions that can contribute large amounts of money to election campaigns.

Certainly, we’ve seen it with local government, where people are very, very concerned, where developers have a vested interest in the outcome of who’s on council. It makes a significant difference in their ability to build their projects, and they have a vested interest in making sure there’s a particular outcome. If we were to ban those contributions, then we wouldn’t have some of the skewedness. We wouldn’t have some of these concerns. Democracy, I think, would be richer for it and better for it.

The other thing that this amendment would do is it would establish fines and penalties, including disqualifying those for violating this bylaw. I think it would just provide some fairness to a system where there’s a perceived lack of fairness. It would provide some access to a system where there’s a perceived lack of access.

[1535]

Some would even argue that if you’re just a regular person in Vancouver and you’re not connected to those elector organizations that have the ability to generate huge revenue, your voice gets drowned out. While we’re bringing in expense limits, others would argue that because the limits are so high, you don’t have the capacity to raise the funds. If we can find a way to limit who contributes and the amount that any individual can contribute, then that would make for better democracy.

It also happens, which we’ve certainly heard…. People keep saying it’s a Vancouver issue. While this is a proposal for Vancouver, because that’s at a minimum, I don’t think anyone should be deluded that it only happens in Vancouver. It happens everywhere.

There are certainly some concerns in other local governments, in other jurisdictions. They are very, very concerned about the lack of ability to make sure that there’s a level playing field. At the end of the day, that’s what everyone wants. They want a level playing field. They want everyone to have the opportunity to participate. When we have big money in local elections, it means that there isn’t a level playing field.

I have to say, having been in local government…. The first time, just trying to break in, it was very, very difficult. There were some folks who not only outspent me but outraised me — money — and it became very, very difficult to compete. Once I was elected, it became a little easier, because you know what? Developers were very, very eager to support those who were already on council. But those who they didn’t have a relationship with, they weren’t going to support them. How is that equal? How is that fair? How is that access?

I really do think that it’s good for democracy, particularly when we think about Vancouver and how outrageous it is and how outraged Vancouver residents are. I would encourage every member in this House who represents constituents in Vancouver…. I would hope that they would rise and speak to support this. There has been a very loud call from the residents of Vancouver to speak up against the influence of corporate and union donations in local government elections.

It’s a serious problem, and I really hope that the minister and members on the other side of the House will take this under very serious consideration.

I will take my seat because I know that there are others who would like to speak to this amendment.

V. Huntington: The member has said almost everything that I would say. I think the amendment is a very important one, if only because Vancouver operates distinctly. It operates under its own charter, and most importantly, Vancouver wants the ability to make these bylaws, to enact these bylaws.

Vancouver itself understands that there is a problem it is having in its elections, that there is a lack of balance for the different people running in the election. It wants to set limits so that people feel they have free and honourable access to the election process. At the moment, they do not. I see no reason why this government wouldn’t respect Vancouver city and its desire to have its charter amended, to give it the authority to democratize the electoral process in the city.

I strongly urge this government to consider the request from Vancouver and to consider the necessity to begin to set limits on contributions if we’re going to preserve a fair and equitable process.

[ Page 12026 ]

G. Heyman: I rise to support the amendment. It’s an important amendment. It’s no surprise that this government refuses to consider the request and the will of the city of Vancouver or, in fact, other municipalities across the province that wish to see some fairness and equity brought to local election campaigns in terms of limits on contributions, in terms of limits on contributions from particular contributor classes. But it should be no surprise.

[1540]

It was just last week, in fact, that this government said a resounding no to a motion brought forward by this side of the House to bring the same matters to bear in provincial elections. We moved that motion, and we have moved this amendment, through the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, because we believe that things have simply gotten out of hand and are dangerously close to undercutting people’s faith in the democratic process.

We have seen in other jurisdictions and in the last municipal elections in Vancouver huge, huge amounts of money spent on a civic election and huge, single-person contributions to the election campaigns of individuals. When one side does that, the other side must match, or there is no hope to compete.

That’s not what citizens in Vancouver want. That is not what the council and government of Vancouver want. That’s not what UBCM thinks is appropriate. If, as is obviously the case, this government has no intention of addressing the issue with respect to provincial elections, despite the fact that there is growing support across the province…. One would understand why, with their massive fundraising efforts, they wouldn’t want to put any constraints on themselves.

But in the city of Vancouver, it’s been clear. Citizens want it. Government wants it. They’re supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There should be limits on campaign contributions. There should be some reasonable limits on what gets spent in an election campaign. There should be the ability of the city of Vancouver to limit and eliminate contributions from unions and corporations, yet this government continues to say no. It’s not appropriate, and that’s why I support this amendment.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the amendment moved by the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville. This issue of the power to make contribution limits, particularly in the context of the Vancouver Charter…. Certainly, this is at the core of the need for reform in terms of managing political contributions, donations, and really restoring respect for democracy and ensuring that there is accountability and that citizens in Vancouver can be assured that the democratic practice and municipal elections are on a fair and level playing field.

During the last municipal elections, and certainly over the last two rounds that I’ve participated in and spoken to many candidates and citizens, this has been one of the very key features and big concerns that individuals have right across British Columbia, in particular in Vancouver, because it is characterized by really incredible amounts of donation amounts and really astounding amounts spent on the municipal campaign trail.

It’s highlighted by the nearly $1 million contribution of one individual in our last municipal election that is really in contrast and really a stark example of the need to bring in controls and to impose limits in terms of donation contributions for municipal campaigns.

We heard, also, from the Minister of Justice, when she was on city council, speaking in favour of bringing in limits for political contributions during municipal elections — so certainly during that time. With those recommendations coming forward from the Minister of Justice and MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview, certainly those are perspectives and opinions that the minister could also take into account and address the shortcomings of this bill in terms of ensuring that our electoral process, that our municipal elections, have the confidence of British Columbians.

[1545]

It is a stark example of what needs to happen and the direction we have to move to ensure that it is not just lip service around ensuring that there is accountability and that election spending and contribution limits are addressed but that we have to deliver on that principle. It sets us apart in terms of any other jurisdiction you look at. This amendment speaks to that fundamental concern and the importance of ensuring that we have the ability to really rein in this out-of-hand and incredible…. Really, there are no limits. The sky is the limit; $1 million is the limit in terms of a single contribution.

This is supported not only by citizens but also by the city government, the Vancouver council and mayor. It’s also supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We really see that we have wide-ranging support. It’s the government who’s offside on this issue — offside not only with the Vancouver city council and the Union of B.C. Municipalities but offside with citizens and really on the wrong side of this issue.

I believe very strongly in this issue. It has been articulated again and again, repeatedly, from elected officials in Vancouver, political commentators, political scientists, individuals and citizens. It is a gaping hole, a gap and a shortfall in terms of this bill.

I’m speaking strongly in favour of this amendment, for it to pass to ensure that we restore a respect for democracy in our province in municipal elections and to allow for the reining in of these out-of-control contributions for political campaigns.

A. Weaver: I, too, want to rise to show unanimous support for this amendment on the opposition side of this House. I speak, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head but also as the leader of a third political party in British Columbia, the B.C. Green Party, to say that we en-

[ Page 12027 ]

tirely back this amendment. This government has gone off the path of democracy. It is now supporting — and it already turned down an earlier amendment — essentially a free-for-all in terms of electoral spending, happening at the municipal level, as well as the provincial level.

Allowing Vancouver to actually set the bylaws is critical. That is the single biggest problem in terms of electoral expenses in the province of British Columbia — what happens in Vancouver. When you have a single individual that can essentially write a cheque and fund an entire campaign, how is that actually helping our democracy? Are we asking Mr. Trump to come up here and write a cheque and run a campaign? This is the kind of mentality that this is promoting: the Trump-style level of politics, where an individual with deep pockets can essentially dictate the will of the masses.

I cannot understand why this government continues to pretend that it’s representing the will of the people when it introduces legislation that is so egregious in terms of not representing the will of the people and then turns down or does not support attempts to try to bring this legislation towards the centre, to represent people instead of unions or corporations. Why is it that the government continues to resist this? I don’t understand it.

Again, I just want to emphasize that I wholly support this amendment. My colleagues in the B.C. Green Party, outside of this Legislature, support this amendment. We’ll work with the official opposition to ensure that this continues to be an issue that leads into the 2017 election campaign and to hold this government to account for their inability to represent people and for their corporate cronyism in representing their vested interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians.

[1550]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the member bringing the amendment. It is another way to approach the same issue that’s been debated during committee stage on this bill and in other forums — question period, and so on.

The one thing that I know, coming from a local government background and having watched the task force that was put together…. I think that if there were any people who had a very in-depth look at this issue from a number of perspectives — and there are many — the task force is one of the groups that was able to do that.

I know that some people’s definition of democracy is that it can be thwarted by people who want to support candidates or elector organizations or the process through their commitment. Remember that democracy means that people need to know who’s supporting who, but I think it is inappropriate to suggest that democracy does not continue because of the financial support for candidates who are seeking office.

I think we have debated this. Clearly, we have not brought forward any limits in terms of contributions in this legislation, because we believe that the democracy goes both ways. People should have a right to support whomever they want to whatever extent they want.

What we have said is to ensure that during the campaign period — which is what this legislation speaks to for the most part — there are limits on what can be spent. What happens before that is democracy and is the right of people. Quite honestly, if someone wants to write a cheque to a particular candidate who they believe represents what they think is important for the community that they live in, that is important.

I also reflect that the task force was concerned that if they had different rules in the city of Vancouver and not the same rules in other communities — and I appreciate the members opposite would like to see contributions eliminated — it would create confusion.

We live in a very densified community. I suspect there are people who live in Burnaby that don’t know where the Burnaby-Vancouver border is. Quite honestly, I believe there are people, sometimes, who are not sure who they are voting for and what election they’re running in.

I think what’s really important here are the principles we’ve built into the election. That is transparency. It is accountability. It is ensuring there are limits during the campaign period that are appropriate for the communities, based on the criteria that we’ve clearly outlined.

I think it is very important to remember that democracy is something where even, as the member just said, in the United States, we might not like the process. We would like it less if people like Donald Trump weren’t allowed to run because someone didn’t like them or didn’t like the fact that they could finance their own campaign.

That would be a travesty to democracy. We may not like the individual or the candidate or their principles, but the principle of democracy has to apply across the board, and that includes those people who want to support candidates.

Through the expense limits in this legislation, we believe we respect that openness and transparency and accountability. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.

The Chair: It’s the amendment proposed by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

Division has been called.

[1555-1600]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

James

Dix

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Conroy

Fraser

Huntington

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Bains

Elmore

Wickens

Shin

Heyman

[ Page 12028 ]

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

Simons

Macdonald

Weaver

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 43

Lee

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Bernier

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Foster

Dalton

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Sections 50 and 51 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN

FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 21, intituled the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak: This bill repeals and replaces certain sections of the Environmental Management Act in order to introduce provisions that will enable a new spill preparedness, response and recovery regime in British Columbia. This new legislation is one step in ensuring that British Columbia has world-leading practices in place to deal with environmental emergencies.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Preparedness helps to prevent spills. Planning for emergencies in advance saves time and costs, reduces the risk of poor decision-making due to uncertainty or lack of knowledge and can help to limit the impacts of a spill. New preparedness requirements will ensure that industries or businesses that may present a risk of a spill will have response strategies and procedures in place for their operations, including drills and exercises to test those strategies.

It is critical that in the event of a spill, the right people and equipment are in place to respond quickly and effectively. Currently, there is a patchwork of contingency planning requirements in place for different industries. The intent is to have a consistent standard for contingency plans across the province and across industry sectors.

The extent of the damage resulting from a spill depends on many factors, including the type of substance spilled and where it is spilled. The proposed amendments expand and build upon existing spill response provisions in the act that emphasize the polluter-pay principle. The new requirements are intended to ensure that the right actions are taken at the right time by a person who spills and that the person pays for those actions.

The actions include limiting the immediate damage caused by the spill, cleaning up the spill and monitoring and addressing the longer-term impacts through recovery actions. Currently, the act addresses remediation of con-

[ Page 12029 ]

tamination at a site. New recovery provisions ensure the legislation also addresses harm done to different species, their habitats and the overall ecology of the affected area.

While in the majority of cases, full environmental restoration at a site is possible, in some situations, complete environmental restoration at the site of a spill cannot be achieved, or the environmental benefits are small compared to the high cost to achieve them. For such situations, these amendments will allow mitigation and offsetting measures at other locations to ensure that the environmental damage caused is compensated for on a like-for-like basis with a beneficial conservation outcome.

[1610]

The new framework will retain the authority of the government to take direct action in response to a spill, if necessary, and to recover the costs of such actions. There are times when government may have to step in to respond, either at the spiller’s request or where the spiller is unknown or where additional actions are necessary to ensure an effective response to the spill.

However, a new feature of these amendments is that the government will have authority to recover costs, not only from a spiller but also from the owner of the spilled substance, if the owner is a different party than the person who had possession or control of the substance at the time it was spilled. These new provisions will help to reduce the chances of British Columbians having to pay for the costs of responding to spills.

A major element of this legislation is that it sets out a two-stage certification process to recognize qualified preparedness and response organizations that have the capability to respond to spills anywhere in British Columbia. Response organizations have a specific role to play in responding to spills. They can bring technical experts together who know how to respond to challenges posed by particular substances or circumstances.

A certified preparedness and response organization will have specialized equipment and staff on standby. Government will know the capability of the organization and will have certainty as to the availability, resources and competency in the event of a spill.

Potentially, a certified preparedness and response organization could offer many services. A certified organization could also play a significant role in preparedness before a spill ever happens — for example, as a source of expertise providing training and facilitating knowledge-sharing across business sectors so that the various sectors have access to information and the collective opportunity to learn from incidents. This could help different businesses to work towards improving their own preparedness measures.

The proposed amendments also provide for the possibility for future regulations that would require businesses presenting a risk of a spill to have an arrangement with a certified preparedness and response organization as part of their preparedness efforts.

Finally, these amendments provide greater transparency, accountability and participation. There will be greater access to information regarding spill preparedness response and recovery and increased opportunities for active collaboration and communication with local governments and First Nations so that local communities can provide input into preparedness and planning processes.

The amendments also provide for the opportunity to review the framework on a regular basis, to see how well the spill preparedness response and recovery regime is working and to identify improvements. The implementation of this comprehensive spill preparedness response and recovery regime will require a collective effort from industry partners, different levels of government, First Nations, regulators and others. This collective effort, together with the initiatives enabled by these new amendments, will help ensure that world-leading practices are in place for British Columbia.

I’m pleased to present this bill, and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues in second reading.

G. Heyman: I will note that I’m the designated speaker on this bill.

We know that nothing concerns British Columbians more, in many instances, in communities than the risk posed by spills of hazardous materials, whether it’s on land or at sea or whether it’s on land with a potential to contaminate waterways, affect fish, affect drinking water or, ultimately, to move into the oceans.

It’s clearly important that the government address these concerns by bringing in new measures, and this is clearly what the government is doing with Bill 21, the Environmental Management Amendment Act. The government, I believe, and the minister also are proposing this bill to address what they said was their insistence on a world-class and world-leading spill response regime in preparation for any transport of hazardous goods — in particular oil, whether in the form of bitumen or other forms, from Alberta.

While we may question what it actually takes to determine the difference between world-leading and absolutely essential actions, we will be supporting this bill, because it is a very significant move forward, and it’s important.

[1615]

It’s important to set up new mechanisms and new requirements for industry to address potential spills — to prepare for the spills, to ensure the polluter-pay principle is enshrined and to give British Columbians a sense that we’re moving ahead and moving forward on the measures that this bill is introduced to address.

We will, of course, differ on some aspects of the bill, whether it could be stronger in places, whether there should be less reliance in some areas on industry itself or more input from the public, stakeholders and governments on the preparedness and response; organizations’

[ Page 12030 ]

governance — whether, in fact, there should be more on-the-ground capacity of the government itself to enforce the provisions of the current act and the amended act. We will reserve the right to discuss those in committee and make suggestions, possibly move amendments to the bill. But in general, this is a bill that we will support, and I’m happy to speak to it.

As the minister noted, key new measures include provisions for detailed planning and spill response requirements. These will be, in large part, subject to regulations, which is appropriate in many instances. But as I move through my remarks in second reading, I will, in a couple of instances, raise concern that perhaps too much is being left to regulation and a bit more could be included in the act and in enabling provisions that would add to the transparency and add to the assurances that British Columbians would seek.

The requirement for companies to pay for maintaining an adequate state of preparedness at all times, not simply the costs after a spill happens, through newly created preparedness and response organizations is an important step towards the polluter-pay principle and ensuring that there actually is some state of preparedness and readiness. We welcome that, although there are, perhaps, instances where we think it could go further.

As I’ve said earlier, government says that the legislation enables the achievement of their third condition on the five conditions for heavy oil pipelines in B.C. They’ve said that once fully implemented, these proposed amendments will ensure a world-leading spill preparedness and response regime, satisfying one of the province’s five conditions for moving heavy oil.

As I’ve said, world-leading is in some ways a subjective assessment when you actually look at the requirements for the most appropriate and effective response regimes, particularly in the case of diluted bitumen. It behaves much differently than other forms of oil with which we’re familiar and which may well require some very, very specific spill response requirements for which there are not a lot of examples around the world. It may be possible to lead the world and still not be effective.

I accept…. Well, I understand the government’s use of what has become a catch phrase, world-class or world-leading. Whether I think it’s the most appropriate one to use in this regard or not is perhaps irrelevant to the government’s framing of their own bill and how it meets their own conditions. But I will say that not only do we believe that B.C.’s oil spill response should be world leading; we believe that whatever level it’s at, it needs to be effective. It needs to be adequate. It needs to be tailored for the form of the material that is being spilled or has been spilled.

Bitumen may require a very different…. Assuming, in fact, that there are any pipelines whatsoever that move through British Columbia as a result of the various environmental assessments as well as the revised environmental assessments that the federal government may put on, we believe that we need to assure British Columbians that everything that can be done will be done.

[1620]

We also need to assure British Columbians that, in the case of bitumen, everything that can be done is actually adequate.

The legislation enshrines the polluter-pay principle through the category of regulated persons. Individuals, or corporations, who are responsible for a spill will be required to clean it up. It’s worth noting that parties who present a spill risk above a certain threshold, to be defined in regulations, will be required to meet new spill preparedness requirements.

I understand that perhaps the most effective way to set these thresholds is through regulation. Certainly, that’s true if the thresholds need to be changed. We will pursue some more clarity on this threshold level in committee stage, because I think British Columbians want a bit more information than simply a statement that we will create the thresholds in regulation. I think it’s important for people to be able to see transparently at least what the government is thinking about in a number of instances, how they’re approaching the setting of threshold levels and what we can expect.

The legislation creates spill response and restoration requirements, including environmental restoration, as the minister has noted. It says that in the event that government itself must provide this work, the province will be able to pursue costs against the responsible person and the owner of the substance spilled. I think it’s probably incumbent on the government to provide a bit more clarity to this House and to British Columbians about what mechanisms will be able to be used to pursue costs and how, in fact, we can be assured that the responsible parties will actually have the capacity to cover the costs.

We have seen around the world at different times some very, very, very expensive cleanup operations for which money was not set aside in any form whatsoever to cover the costs of that. I think British Columbians would expect that we not be on the hook for cleanup costs. Clearly, the legislation doesn’t think so either, but it’s still important for us to be able to discuss what the mechanisms are, whether there will be deposits or bonds or any other mechanism that would allow government to have some level of certainty that in the case of extreme costs, those costs can be covered.

The minister has referred to preparedness and response organizations, or PROs. The PROs will be there to maintain a spill response capability throughout B.C. As I’ve said, we will have a number of questions about at what level it is appropriate for the response to be industry-led, as opposed to industry-governed. There is a difference.

Having industry be responsible for funding, for leading response, for creating plans that align with emergency preparedness and response is appropriate. But it may not

[ Page 12031 ]

be appropriate — in fact, I would argue it is not appropriate — to simply allow these organizations to be governed in some way that excludes oversight of the province of British Columbia, direct input from the province of British Columbia, from First Nations, from stakeholders, from municipalities. That is a significant difference.

Governance is going to be key in the faith that the people of B.C. have in these organizations, and I look forward to asking the minister some more questions specifically in that area.

New offences and penalties will be created. They will range, I believe, from $300,000 to $400,000 in fines depending on the offence and, potentially, could include a jail term for up to six months, although it is expected that the majority of penalties under the regime will be administrative in nature.

[1625]

I will look forward to asking questions of the minister to provide some more narrative around how decisions might be made or how the parameters of the discussion around application of penalties, whether they be incarceration or financial, were determined and also how this particular range of administrative penalty quantum was determined, whether it’s in fact likely to be adequate in all cases, notwithstanding the fact this is separate and apart from the costs of cleanup that will be borne by responsible persons.

These are the kinds of questions British Columbians will want to know because, in fact, we don’t just want to know that the costs of cleanup will be attributed to the responsible persons. Obviously, people would prefer there are no spills whatsoever. I’m sure the minister and the government would share that view. Being prepared is different from ensuring that people have great disincentives to cutting corners or engaging in risky behaviour in transportation of hazardous materials that could potentially be spilled.

In the realm of transparency, participation and accountability, ministerial authority will be given to create advisory committees to help the minister obtain advice from experts, local government representatives and First Nations. That’s a good step.

Having some more detail around the nature of these advisory committees would be exceptionally useful, as would…. The bill requires that the minister submit reports on the effectiveness of the spill response regime to the Legislature. Some more details around that, as well as the kind of frequency the minister is considering in this bill, as opposed to the statement that it’ll be defined in regulation, would, in fact, be useful.

The provision to ensure development of area response plans, or ARPs, and geographic response plans, or GRAs, is good. We will have more questions around exactly how that is going to be implemented or at least what the options being considered by the government and the minister are.

Let me speak to some issues that I think are some vulnerabilities in this bill, which, of course, we will pursue further in committee stage. Hopefully, the minister can provide answers. Perhaps the minister may consider some improvements to this bill, based on not just what we say on this side of the House but on commentary that has been made by interested parties who have been reviewing this bill for some period of time.

Let me start with the issue of professional reliance. The key question here is: whose interest is being protected? Is it the industry’s interest, or is it the public interest? I say that because we will see the creation of the PROs, or preparedness and response organizations. Industry must develop detailed spill response plans, but it is actually the PROs that will be responsible for spill response on the ground.

Now, I understand that that is a way of ensuring that polluters or potential polluters pay. It’s another way of saying that this is the cost of doing business when you’re transporting, producing or handling hazardous substances, so we want to ensure that you fund the response organizations. But this legislation actually means that the PROs will be industry-led, which means that both spill preparedness and spill response appear to be placed entirely under the watch and control of industry.

The legislation does not require that the governing body of the PRO will include any representation from local governments, First Nations, citizen groups or other expert stakeholders, and it does not require that decision-making structures will be established so the industry entities do not hold a controlling position on the governance bodies.

[1630]

That is, in my view, a fundamental flaw in the legislation. It’s not a significant one to move us to opposition, but it will be significant enough to see me and my colleagues make suggestions to the minister to consider amendments that would actually tighten up this aspect. There is, I think, considerable room for involvement of interested parties, knowledgable individuals, government itself and local governments in controlling and governing positions on the boards of the PROs.

One environmental organization has communicated and said that placing so much control of both planning and response in the hands of industry — and, specifically, the industry-funded PRO billed as a provincewide version of WCMRC — could foil efforts to build public trust from the outset.

While they agree that it’s true industry should fund both planning and response as part of implementing the polluter-pay principle and while it may make sense for industry to deliver the operational aspects of a spill response: “We have serious reservations about the PRO having lead responsibility for planning and ensuring readiness. Government oversight and certification may not be sufficient to ensure that the public interest comes

[ Page 12032 ]

first, particularly if the PRO ends up being led and operated by industry.”

Now, we are in this position because the capacity of the Ministry of Environment on the ground has been significantly reduced and compromised over the last decade and a half. I understand that, and this bill does nothing to change that. That is not necessarily the best way to protect the public interest in this instance.

If we look at neighboring jurisdictions in the U.S., funding is provided by industry, but states themselves take on the spill prevention and preparedness work. For example, they’ll conduct geographic response planning exercises and drills. In fact, the ministry itself, in its first intentions paper, published in 2012, similarly envisioned more of a leading role for the province than we see in this bill.

It would be useful information for the minister to provide a rationale as to what changed between 2012 and today so we can assess if the change is warranted, if it’s a productive change or if, in fact, it’s a change to simply reflect the unwillingness of the government to put more resources into its own ability to lead planning and response exercises, as opposed to allowing industry to both fund and provide the response capacity as well as be responsible for determining exactly what that should be — which, considering the fact that they’re going to be paying for it, has at least the appearance of a conflict, if not the reality of the conflict.

There are a number of ways to address this. One of those is for government, local governments, First Nations and others to have a governance role; ensure that they either engage directly in the planning of the various response mechanisms as well as the criteria; or to be in a position to review, with technical expertise, plans developed by industry and then say “yes,” “no” or “amend.”

It’s clear that that’s not in this bill, even though the intentions paper in 2012 included providing training for local government, first responders, more of a leading role for the province, collecting baseline information and even maintaining some provincial spill response equipment.

The other area that I believe is a significant vulnerability in this bill is that there are a number of important details that simply are unknown. They won’t be known until they come into effect through regulation.

[1635]

It’s a bit of a leap of faith to assume that important details that need to be known, both for public assurance and for us as legislators to fully understand what we’re voting for…. I’ll reiterate, in this case, that we will vote for this unless some of the response in committee stage leads us to believe that we’ve totally misunderstood what is in this bill. It is important for us to not have to take as a leap of faith that important factors will be addressed adequately at a later date.

This act says that many important features will not be developed until 2017. The minister has said government will consult with industry and other groups before developing the regulations for early 2017, but these features are paramount. They’re important for us to know and, frankly, if they were enshrined in legislation, as we believe they should be, they would ensure effectiveness.

A world-class spill response plan should not be created through simply a stroke of a pen, but it should be enshrined in law. When you create by regulation, you can also amend by regulation. We believe that they should be enshrined in law.

I don’t disagree with the minister that consultation is important, but consultation could have taken place before the introduction of the bill. The government first started talking about the bill four years ago, as I’ve said.

Let me just talk about some of the features that are being left to regulation that we believe are significant and that we should have more information about as we debate this bill.

Risk assessment requirements and methodologies. Training, drill and exercise standards and frequency. Notification timelines and response times. Response and cleanup techniques. Monitoring and long-term mitigation and recovery plans. Geographic response plans. Areas where the plans are required. What the plan has to cover and who will have input into developing the plan.

Finally, area response plans. What are the requirements for response strategies, equipment and resources, and who will have input into developing those?

To reiterate, we understand on this side of the House that you can’t define everything in legislation, and regulation has a role. But there is, with this bill, as with many government bills that have been brought forward, what we perceive to be an overreliance on passing a basic framework. And developing the important detail….

In this case, the important detail is what will reassure British Columbians that this bill actually has the teeth and potential effectiveness in addressing spills that we believe it has to have. It’s important that more detail than we currently see be before us. Unfortunately, it’s not in the bill.

The third vulnerability in this bill, I believe, is the lack of capacity of the ministry for monitoring and enforcement. There’s a lack of staff. There’s a lack of data. There’s a lack of capacity and ability to respond effectively.

This is now systemic within the ministry. It’s the result of years and years of staff cuts and capacity cuts. We’re left now in this situation where, in order to achieve goals of addressing and effectively both preventing and cleaning up spills, we’re relying entirely on industry.

[1640]

[ Page 12033 ]

I understand, and we understand, that this is an industry responsibility, that polluters must pay. But in order to assure British Columbians that this important principle of polluter-pay has meaning, it’s important that we, as government acting on behalf of the public interest in both resources and the environment and health and safety, actually have the capacity to determine if industry is doing enough, if the PRO is effectively being governed, if the plans are adequate, if they’re responding to change and if, in fact, they’re adequate to a variety of substances that could form the basis for the spill. So legislation is important, clearly.

As I said, I’m pleased to see this legislation, but without boots on the ground and the ability to properly monitor, enforce and respond, we question whether the bill can actually, truly be effective. We’re not the only ones who question that. Interested stakeholders have questioned it. Municipalities have questioned it. The public will question it.

I will offer an example. We uncovered some correspondence within the ministry in a 2014 freedom-of-information request that showed the province is currently unprepared to deal with a major environmental disaster. Now, I understand that part of the purpose of this bill is to address this in some measure and offer assurance to British Columbians.

But let me just simply say that the emails that we looked at clearly showed discomfort, on the part of the director of B.C.’s environmental emergency program and director of the environmental emergencies and land remediation branch, in the province’s ability to monitor and respond to events such as oil spills, mine tailings breach and, in fact, its very ability and power to hold polluters responsible.

Let me offer a quote from Graham Knox, the director of B.C.’s environmental emergency program. “We could point to hundreds of spills on an annual basis where gaps occurred or improvements are needed.” This was in response to Jim Hofweber, the executive director of environmental emergencies and land remediation, who was requesting additional information on spill response.

The email went on to say: “Compiling such a report, however, would involve significant staff resources that we currently do not have.” So to give this bill life and to ensure that it’s effective, I think the government needs to address the fact that in its haste to reduce the size of the public service in order to support its reduction in taxes — most recently for people who didn’t even ask for a reduction in taxes, in the wealthiest 2 percent of British Columbians — they have cut the ability to respond. They have cut the ability to monitor and protect our environment, and they have cut, ultimately, the ability to give this act life and meaning.

The director of B.C.’s environmental emergency program went on to outline what he called a sampling of examples of existing gaps or deficiencies. The most troubling examples highlight the government’s apparent lack of enforcement power for a polluter-pay model. For instance, he cited an incident where CN Rail advised the ministry of “a small spill at a railyard in the Lower Mainland. Ministry staff subsequently discovered that there was actually a collision between locomotives, and substantially more fuel was released than reported and that the spilled materials were moving off site.”

In this instance, staff eventually uncovered the gap in information, but there are lots and lots of spills. There are, as the director said, hundreds of spills on an annual basis, and there simply are not the boots on the ground, the capacity of this government, to actually monitor and ensure effective enforcement.

One more example was the April 2011 Goldstream River disaster, where a Columbia Fuels tanker truck crashed off the Malahat highway on Vancouver Island and spilled its contents into the river. Mr. Knox said that that spill “ex