Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 116

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Volunteers

J. Tegart

YANA organization and support for families travelling for medical care

R. Leonard

Sparwood and District Fish and Wildlife Association

T. Shypitka

Bhimrao Ambedkar

R. Singh

Harold Zinke

J. Martin

Shipbuilding and industrial marine sector

M. Dean

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and impact on fuel supply and prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and response to Alberta legislation

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and natural gas industry

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Horgan

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and impact on fuel supply and prices

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Trans Mountain pipeline and transport of oil by rail

J. Isaacs

Hon. G. Heyman

Trans Mountain pipeline and export of lumber by rail

C. Oakes

Hon. B. Ralston

Trans Mountain pipeline and export of grain by rail

I. Paton

Hon. B. Ralston

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Holding Pattern: Call Wait Times

for Income and Disability Assistance , April 2018

B.C. Utilities Commission, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31,

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Public Service Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Public Service Amendment Act, 2018

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

D. Barnett

Contents listing updated11:25:52, Hon. S. Fraser, “IHon. Chair, ’m” changed to “Hon. Chair, I’m”

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us today up in the gallery…. Christine Harris is here. She is

the mother of Lindsey Longe, who died in supportive housing at age 30 in

2012. She’s hosted Lindsey’s Legacy for Life, a barbecue in the Downtown

Eastside, for the last five years and does a lot of advocacy around

standards in supportive housing. She lives in Red Deer, Alberta, and has

come here to observe our Legislature today. She’s working in adult education

and is a full-time student. She’s a busy lady and a great advocate. Would

the House please join me in making her feel welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: It is not Groundhog Day, but I would like to introduce a delegation

from Simon Fraser University who are with us in the House.

Joining us today are Andrew Petter, the former MLA for Saanich South,

elected from 1991 to 2001, he’s now the president of SFU; Fiona Robin, the

chair of the board of directors for SFU; their staff, Sobhana Jaya-Madhavan,

Nicole Rogers, Ashley Fraser and Heather Sanders; and, most importantly, the

students. Larissa Chen is an undergraduate student in the health sciences.

She’s a student senator. She’s a 2018 RADIUS fellow and former SFU Student

Society president. Melissa McGregor is a graduate student, the director of

external relations and an SFU Graduate Student Society alumnus.

SFU, as you know, is a valued post-secondary partner with amazing

campuses in Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby. I’m an alumnus, so I have a bias,

2006 criminology. Go, SFU, go. Go, Clan, go. They’re doing great things in

this province. They’re moving the dial on truth and reconciliation in

action.

Would the House please join me in welcoming their

delegation.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you have a great degree from a great institution.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce two grade 12 students from Claremont who

are here today, Myrika McDonald and Elyssa Sunray. Myrika and Elyssa, you

may have seen in the media, were here in March on the steps of the

Legislature making the case for lowering the age to 16 for voting in B.C.

These two young women are very interested in politics and in how they can

make a difference, and it’s really wonderful to have them here today. Will

the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to introduce a group of grade 10 students, 19 of them,

from a social studies class at Reynolds High School in my constituency. I

think that all members of the House will be pretty familiar with Reynolds

secondary by now. We’ve had a lot of introductions from that school in this

House. Members were enthralled by the students who performed at Pink Shirt

Day recently on the steps of the Legislature.

They have distinguished alumni, some of whom sit in this very chamber,

who frequently talk about Reynolds secondary. I want to add that it is a

truly magnificent school with a tremendous culture in the school around

social responsibility, a tremendous sports school with an award-winning

soccer academy, great arts programming, music and….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Fleming: Pardon me?

It truly is the best high school in the southern region of Vancouver

Island. So I would ask members of the House to make Ms. Alecia Jones, their

teacher, and all the students who’ve joined us in the gallery most welcome

here today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Today I’d like to introduce three of my most favourite constituents

from Stikine, who have travelled over 1,000 kilometres north of here to come

to be with us today in the gallery: one of my constituency assistants,

Shelley Worthington, who’s part of the Smithers constituency office; her

husband, Dr. Don Chinnick, who runs a chiropractic practice in Smithers —

both of them lived in Driftwood, just outside of Smithers; and my wife,

Anne, who’s down from Hazelton today. Would the chamber please make them

welcome.

J. Rice: It’s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a

visiting delegation from the parliament of Kenya. The Senate Committee on

National Security and Foreign Relations is visiting British Columbia to

learn about disaster reduction and preparedness.

The members of the committee joining us in the gallery today are Sen.

Johnson Arthur Sakaja, Sen. Moses Wetangula, Sen. Fatuma Adan Dullo and Sen.

Anwar Loitiptip. Accompanying the senators are Dr. Imbenzi George, honorary

counsel general, and Ms. Rose Moody, secretary to the delegation. Would the

House please join me in making them feel welcome today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today, as part of National Volunteer Week, we are joined by a number

of Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer award winners that have distinguished

themselves through their extraordinary contribution to the

communities.

I’d like to introduce to members Carolyn Miller for her work with

emergency social services; Dave Merritt, our Search and Rescue award winner;

Nick Tarasiuk, who is here to accept the award for his wife, who sadly

passed away, Babs Tarasiuk; Larry Joe, our emergency radio communications

winner; Brian Brinkhurst, the winner of Road Rescue; and Linda Anhillard and

his daughter Anne Spray, along with Andrew Spray, for the Lifetime

Achievement winner.

I’d like to ask members of this House to join me in recognizing the

great sacrifices that B.C.’s public safety lifeline volunteers and their

families make each and every day. Please extend them a warm

welcome.

A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure to stand in the House today and introduce a friend

and a family member, a relative. We share a nephew together. Travis Hall is

a councillor for the Heiltsuk Nation in Bella Bella and also electoral area

B director of the Central Coast regional district. We’re welcoming him to

the great Lekwungen and Saanich territory. Could the House please make him

feel very welcome today.

A. Weaver: I, too, would like to join the member for Victoria–Swan Lake and

welcome a school, Reynolds, to this Legislature. I, too, recognize the

importance of Reynolds High School.

One of the things that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake did not

mention is that Reynolds has a long tradition of fundraising in the Tour de

Rock, and every single year — year after year after year — they beat Oak Bay

High School in that fundraising challenge. I wish to congratulate Reynolds

yet again this year, raising over $75,000 for cancer in their Tour de Rock

performance.

I welcome them to the House. I, too, am pointing out that Reynolds is

the high school of our Premier.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE

ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement

Amendment Act, 2018.

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

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Family Maintenance Enforcement

Amendment Act, 2018. This bill makes needed changes to improve the

effectiveness of support enforcement by granting authority to the

director of maintenance enforcement to direct the cancellation of the

driver’s licence of someone with significant child or spousal support

arrears. The bill also eliminates a requirement for the filing of

sensitive information contained within a family law agreement or order

in the land title office.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

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

[10:15 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEERS

J. Tegart: Sue, Kiara, Joyce, Phyllis, Andy, Carol, Tom, Vicky, Karma, Ben,

Josh, Richie, Peter, Jerry, Alice, Robin. The list could go on, well

beyond the two minutes that I have available to me to speak today. These

names are but a few of the volunteers that are celebrated during

National Volunteer Week in Fraser-Nicola.

ASK Wellness, Tiny Tots, Rotary, Lions, PACs, health and wellness

committees, elder councils, foundations, friendship centres, Communities

in Bloom, first responders, coaches, seniors groups are just a few of

the organizations that make our communities a place to call

home.

We all know them, those quiet unsung heroes that step up and

volunteer hours of time to make things happen, often not even asked,

just there. In times of trouble, filling sandbags. In times of joy,

cheering on the hockey team. In times of celebration, putting out the

chairs, baking the goodies, serving the drinks and then staying to clean

up the hall.

They are our neighbours, our youth, our seniors, our community

leaders. They understand community service. They give unconditionally,

and they make our communities a better place to live.

Please join me today in thanking the volunteers in our communities

that keep the heart of community strong and caring. I urge all members

and everyone listening today to take some time during National Volunteer

Week to say thank you to a volunteer near you.

YANA ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT FOR

FAMILIES TRAVELLING

FOR MEDICAL CARE

R. Leonard: As we know, it is National Volunteer Week. I would like to

highlight just one of the volunteer organizations in Courtenay-Comox

that operates with an awfully huge heart: YANA. It stand stands for You

Are Not Alone.

It was founded in 1986 by Sandra Williams, after her family’s

journey with the grief of separation as it dealt with their daughter

Roberta’s health problems, which took her far away to Children’s

Hospital in Vancouver. She and her family and friends were determined to

help others, in the belief that when a child is ill, the whole family

needs care.

Fast-forward to today. Sandra is gone, but a strong board of

volunteers and only two part-time staff, Marcie Dumais and Ocean Varney,

continue to grow YANA beyond expectations. Last year they helped 161

local families, up 28 percent over the year before, with nearly 400

medical stays in their four fully furnished apartments close to

Children’s Hospital or in accommodation funded in Victoria, Nanaimo and

elsewhere.

At this year’s jam-packed annual fundraiser, the Big Love benefit,

one family’s story was highlighted. This family suffered the loss of

their first-born and subsequently had twins that also needed medical

care away. Sadly, one of the twins didn’t make it. But after seven

months, always together, both parents brought home a healthy child — a

long, tough journey made bearable with YANA’s support.

In the past 30-plus years, You Are Not Alone has been there for

thousands of such families, with accommodation and an allowance for

living expenses, thanks to the hundreds of volunteers and our very

generous community. Many of its volunteers have themselves been helped

by YANA, proving that giving brings its own gifts.

SPARWOOD AND DISTRICT

FISH AND WILDLIFE

ASSOCIATION

T. Shypitka: A couple of weekends ago I was given the honour and privilege to

attend a banquet for the 100th anniversary of a collection of some of

the greatest wildlife and habitat conservationists in the province of

British Columbia.

In 1918, a group of fish-and-wildlife-minded folks got together

and formed a conservation group called the Michel-Natal Rod and Gun

Club. Their goal and values were to work with local businesses,

organizations and government agencies in order to protect, maintain and

enhance the wildlife, fisheries and environment in their backyard of the

beautiful Elk Valley.

[10:20 a.m.]

In 1966, the club changed their name to the Sparwood and District

Fish and Wildlife Association. The name had changed, but the values

didn’t budge.

The banquet also incorporated an awards ceremony that recognized

members for their personal hunting accomplishments and celebrated youth

achievement in fishing, hunting and conservation.

This group, like so many other rod and gun clubs in my area,

improves our habitat, cleans up campgrounds and riparian areas. The list

goes on and on. This club’s newest initiative is an elk migratory study

that will help their survival in an effort to reclaim higher population

numbers. A shout-out to Dave Beranek for his coordinating

efforts.

Make no mistake about it. Hunters are conservationists, and they

put their money where their mouth is. While some people that are

geographically removed from these beautiful areas and our province make

uneducated decisions on what hunters are and what they do for wildlife,

I can assure you that these people are the boots on the ground that we

need to make the best decisions when it comes to an all-inclusive

wildlife and habitat enhancement plan. These stewards of the land put

more time into wildlife and habitat recovery in one week than most of us

will do in a lifetime.

Congratulations to the Sparwood and District Fish and Wildlife

Association for 100 years of successful conservationism and making our

back country a better place to be.

BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR

R. Singh: This past weekend a towering South Asian social justice activist,

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, was remembered by my constituents. Many of you may

know of Dr. Ambedkar, as the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds had previously

acknowledged Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions in this House.

Dr. Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891, in Maharashtra, India, in

a family of an oppressed community. In a caste-ridden society, he had to

endure discrimination as he grew up. Despite many challenges, he was

able to complete his education and went to the U.K. and the U.S.A. for

higher studies. His hard work earned him the reputation of a well-read

scholar who rose to become a law minister and the architect of the

Indian constitution.

Throughout his life, he continued his struggle against caste-based

oppression and became an undisputed leader of the so-called

untouchables. Nevertheless, he also raised his voice for gender equality

and denounced sexism within Indian society.

The values for which Dr. Ambedkar stood make him relevant in this

part of the world too. Dr. Ambedkar’s legacy has been celebrated and

acknowledged in the UN. A museum has been created in London, U.K., and

his busts have been installed at Columbia University, the London School

of Economics, York University, Simon Fraser University and many other

parts of the world.

On his 127th birthday anniversary, I want to commend his followers

for keeping his legacy alive in Canada and request the House to join me

in acknowledging Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to social

justice.

HAROLD ZINKE

J. Martin: Each and every one of us, so privileged and so fortunate to serve

in this House, have in our respective ridings outstanding constituents

who make significant contributions to their community in their own

unique and special manner. In Chilliwack, we are blessed to have such an

individual in Harold Zinke.

Harold is one of Chilliwack’s most recognizable faces, a person

who was formerly on social assistance and once on the verge of

homelessness. Harold is Chilliwack’s street ambassador and a familiar

sight downtown with his trusty wheelbarrow and an ever-present, friendly

smile. For almost 20 years, Harold has kept the streets of downtown

Chilliwack spotless, and he routinely assists with the setup and the

takedown of Downtown Chilliwack Business Improvement Association

events.

His contributions to the community, which I am proud to represent

and I am proud to call home, have not gone unnoticed. Harold was

recognized as Employee of the Year at the 2007 Chilliwack Chamber of

Commerce Business Excellence Awards. He was also named the Citizen of

the Year by the Optimist Club of Chilliwack that very same

year.

[10:25 a.m.]

Affectionately known as the mayor of downtown Chilliwack, whether

he’s keeping the streets clean, washing windows or watering outdoor

plants, Harold Zinke is just one more reason that Chilliwack punches

above its weight.

Will the House please join me in recognizing one of Chilliwack’s

very finest, Harold Zinke.

SHIPBUILDING AND

INDUSTRIAL MARINE

SECTOR

M. Dean: Esquimalt has been home to shipbuilding and ship repair since the

Royal Navy first established a dry dock in the Esquimalt Harbour in

The current facility, the Esquimalt graving dock, was built in

1926 and is the largest non-military, hard-bottom dry dock on the west

coast of the Americas. Owned by the federal government and used by a

variety of private industrial marine companies, the facility contributes

an estimated $183 million to the local economy and supports an estimated

1,350 jobs providing good, family-sustaining wages.

Seaspan’s Victoria shipyards is one of the main companies

operating out of the Esquimalt graving dock, with a full project

pipeline through to 2021 and expected to employ between 600 and 1,000

workers. They deliver on projects that require the use of cutting-edge

technologies and demonstrate the long-term benefits from the B.C.

industrial marine sector, both through individual projects and under the

umbrella of the national shipbuilding strategy. Overall, the industrial

marine sector is an important component of the B.C. economy,

contributing over $880 million to provincial GDP.

This week shipbuilding and the industrial marine sector are in the

spotlight in Victoria, which is the host city for the 2018 conference of

the Canadian Institute of Marine Engineering. This event attracts

participants and exhibitors from across North America and Europe and

provides an opportunity to highlight the depth and breadth of B.C.’s

thriving industrial marine sector.

I wish to welcome these visitors to our province and to highlight

the important work of B.C. companies in support of the national

shipbuilding strategy and our province’s vibrant industrial marine

sector.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

A. Wilkinson: In Ottawa on Sunday, the Premier met with Premier Notley and the

Prime Minister. Nothing came of it.

Yesterday the House of Commons held an emergency debate about the

Trans Mountain pipeline. In Edmonton, the NDP introduced legislation to

restrict the export of petroleum goods to provinces, including British

Columbia. In Saskatchewan, the government has promised similar

legislation to cut off roughly 300,000 barrels of refined petroleum

products coming to British Columbia from Saskatchewan.

It’s clear that the Premier accomplished nothing in Ottawa. He’s

increasingly isolated as the western provinces effectively gang up on

his agenda. So when will this Premier accept that negotiation is the way

we do things in Canada, and it’s much more effective than running things

through the courts?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question today. We did go to Ottawa. We

did speak with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the

Premier of Alberta about a range of issues.

The member is quite right that Alberta has introduced legislation

in their Legislature as recently as yesterday, which was characterized

by the Calgary chair of resource law at the University of Calgary as: “I

can’t for the life of me understand why Alberta would want to do this.

It’s a ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ proposal, I think.” I would be

inclined to agree with that, and I’m surprised that the Leader of the

Opposition doesn’t.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Once again, we see the Premier dodge the issue. He’s created this

problem, and now he’s relying on obscure professors from Calgary to

defend his position.

[10:30 a.m.]

British Columbians shouldn’t have to pay for the Premier’s

political ambitions. Our neighbours and our most important trading

partner are introducing legislation that will have dramatic, damaging

effects on British Columbia, and the members opposite make fun of this.

We’ll see when the members think it’s funny when fuel prices take a jump

in British Columbia.

The Premier knows that the little plan that was announced today by

the Attorney General to sue Alberta for discrimination would take years

to make its way through the courts, if it ever proved to have any merit

at all. In the meantime, British Columbia businesses, British Columbia

individuals and British Columbia families have the sword hanging over

their heads of a dramatic boost in fuel prices. What is the Premier

going to do to solve that problem today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would diminish

experts in the field. I’ll throw another one at him — not an obscure

expert but Andrew Leach, energy economist to the government of Alberta

until he took up a position at the business school at the University of

Alberta.

He said the following. This is an Albertan now: “I’m pretty sure

that the only things this bill will do are (1) set a dangerous

precedent, (2) fail to pass any challenge before the NEB, (3) cause

chaos for Alberta shippers, refiners, traders, etc., in the

interim.”

I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t want to

join with the Green Party and the NDP to support the interests of the

people of British Columbia, but surely to goodness, he would understand

that even the people of Alberta see this as a cockamamie way to do

business by cutting off your nose to spite your face.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It is hard to contemplate a Premier who has the Prime Minister of

Canada, the official opposition federally, the Saskatchewan conservative

party currently in government, the Alberta NDP and the Alberta United

Conservative Party ganging up on his misplaced agenda, and the best

thing he can do is quote some obscure Albertan about how this is their

fault.

Premier, come to your senses. You’ve got to recognize…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: …that you’re talking about discriminating against Albertans on the

speculation tax, and woe is British Columbia. Suddenly we’re the subject

of discrimination from Alberta.

Solve this problem. You created it. Get on your feet, and solve

the problem that you’ve triggered with governments across

Canada.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the member on the other side wants to call

other people obscure and diminish their credentials on matters that he

believes he’s superior on. That’s fine. That’s his opinion.

Again, I’m going to stand with British Columbians each and every

day. If I’m being supported by energy experts in Alberta as well as the

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who have said, “At first

glance, it could have economic consequences on our industry and

Alberta’s economy, including potential employment….”

If I’m getting support from the Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers about discriminatory legislation, if I’m getting support from

Alberta academics and not the Leader of the Official Opposition in

British Columbia when I stand up for British Columbians, I think that’s

passing strange.

J. Johal: Without Alberta’s energy, B.C.’s economy would come to a

standstill. About 80,000 barrels of gas and diesel are imported from

Alberta each and every day. Energy analysts predict gas prices starting

at $2 a litre if the Alberta NDP use their new legislation to turn off

the taps.

The Premier created this crisis. Will he fix his mess before gas

prices hit $2 a litre?

Hon. J. Horgan: On Saturday of last week, life was carrying on in British

Columbia. We were in court, as civilized people will be, with a dispute

between parties. That’s a reasonable place for the government of British

Columbia to be.

On Sunday, we had a press release from Texas, and chaos ensued. It

was not a press release issued by this government. It was not

provocative action by this government. We have not introduced

legislation restricting the transmission of goods between provinces —

whether it be wine, whether it be gas, whether it be petroleum products.

It’s the government of Alberta that’s done that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: We have not introduced legislation. The member knows it. To have a

consultation with British Columbians is something that’s foreign to

those people on that side. That’s why they’re over there.

Interjection.

[10:35 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Johal: This government caused this problem. It’s everyday British

Columbians that are being affected. Gas prices are already the highest

they’ve ever been, and now the Premier has picked a fight that will mean

higher prices for groceries, gas for the car and other basic

necessities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: I ask again: will British Columbians have to pay $2 a litre for

gas before the Premier admits his mistake?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know if the member’s point was better made by yelling it,

but I continue to hold the position and I continue to believe that the

government of British Columbia has every right and, in fact, an

obligation to defend the interests of British Columbia, and that’s what

we’ll continue to do.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

RESPONSE TO ALBERTA LEGISLATION

A. Weaver: I find it remarkable that I sit here and listen to the official

opposition defend the interests of Alberta over the interests of British

Columbia.

Yesterday we saw the Alberta government, as was mentioned,

introduce legislation intended to directly punish British Columbia for

trying to protect our country’s coastline and coastal communities from a

threat of a diluted bitumen spill. If that was used…. Members opposite

should know this. It would be illegal if used to raise the price of gas.

Constitutional lawyers have ruled on this. It would be illegal for them

to do this, and the liability that Alberta taxpayers would take upon

that would be unbelievable.

Frankly, the same Albertans should realize…. Where do they get

their natural gas from to actually power the oil fields? They get it

from northeastern British Columbia. They should know better than to do

this. This latest move was precipitated by Kinder Morgan’s imposition of

a May 31 deadline to achieve certainty before going ahead with the Trans

Mountain expansion.

In response to the legislation, the Attorney General said

yesterday….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: If you let me actually ask it, I would. Thank you very much,

members opposite.

This is what the Attorney General said: “If there is anything in

this legislation that even suggests the possibility of discrimination

against British Columbians, we will take every step necessary” to

protect the interests of British Columbians.

My question is to the Attorney General. Given the Premier of

Alberta’s previous remarks suggesting that this legislation was intended

to give them the tools to target B.C., can you please specify what

specific actions you’re planning to take in response?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question and for his commitment to

British Columbians.

We’ve reviewed the bill. We believe it’s unconstitutional and

illegal, on its face. It’s especially so, if that’s possible, given the

context of the comments of members of the government of Alberta about

the purpose for which the bill was introduced.

There are three options available to our….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: There are three options available to our government in terms of

responding to this. One is, before the bill passes, we could refer it to

our courts. After the bill passes and receives royal assent, we could

challenge it in court as unconstitutional. In the incredibly unlikely

event that the government of Alberta actually thought that they had the

authority under the law to use this act, we could be in court on an

injunction to stop them from doing so and to challenge it and to sue the

government of Alberta.

We think that they are very unlikely to use this, given the

analysis, and we think they know it. It is a bill for political purposes

only.

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

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY

A. Weaver: I want to build upon this in light of the fact that members

opposite are putting at risk our natural gas production in northeastern

British Columbia that goes to Alberta. I’d like to pick up on

that.

In addition to the development and discovery of new shale oil

deposits, we’ve seen profound technological shifts and the rise of

renewable energy in markets around the world, not least in Asia. And

what are the supposed targeted markets for this pipeline?

[10:40 a.m.]

Kinder Morgan is playing one jurisdiction off against another. I

reiterate: our natural gas producers in northeast British Columbia have

the single-largest buyer of their natural gas being Alberta. Members

opposite are putting that at risk with their rhetoric supporting

Alberta’s illegal behaviour.

One week since they issued their ultimatum, they’ve managed to

secure taxpayers to prop up their government. Commitment….

Interjections.

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

Leader, proceed.

A. Weaver: One week since they’ve issued their ultimatum, they’ve managed to

secure taxpayer dollars to prop up their project, commitments that the

federal government will steamroll community and First Nations opposition

and further punitive legislation that sets a dangerous precedent for

interprovincial trade. Canada needs a leader right now who is not going

to let Kinder Morgan play one jurisdiction against another.

To the Premier: despite Alberta’s posturing, will you assure this

House that you won’t get dragged into a tit for tat with Alberta where

nobody wins?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. It is not my intention nor is

it the intention of my government to be provocative with other parts of

the country. That’s not what I believe how cooperative federalism works.

I happily went to Ottawa at the request of the Prime Minister to meet

with him, his Finance Minister as well as the Premier and leader of the

government of Alberta. We had a candid discussion and discovered that we

had a difference of opinion.

In Canada, that’s okay. It may not be okay to the members on that

side of the House to disagree periodically, but the Canadian fabric will

not be torn because we don’t have the same points of view from day to

day to day.

I believe that the important thing for us all to do is to stop

with the yelling, stop with the bluster and hope that cooler heads will

prevail. I believe, also, that the courts are the appropriate place for

this action — not political posturing and not grandstanding but making

sure that reasonable people can put their points forward and have a

determination by a third party, rather than reckless politics like we’re

seeing from the other side.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

P. Milobar: On March 12, the Environment Minister dismissed my questions about

Alberta’s threat to drive up gas prices as “fearmongering…about events

that clearly will not take place.”

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: Yesterday he said: “Don’t worry; we’ll take Alberta to court.”

This from a minister who takes months just to decide what court to go

to.

To the minister, how many months or years does he feel it’s

appropriate for consumers in British Columbia to have to pay $2 a litre

for gas?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I believe it’s irresponsible for the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson to come and to suggest that we’re paying $2 a

litre for gas. We’re not. The Premier of Alberta has said she does not

want to proceed with the legislation. I believe she shouldn’t have

tabled it in the first place. We disagree. That’s okay, because this is

Canada, where we — I would hope — would be civilized in our discussion

and our debates around issues as contentious as this one.

I don’t believe we’re aided in any way whatsoever when members on

the other side of the House put fear into the minds of British

Columbians when what we’re doing is standing up for British Columbians

and ensuring we have the right and ability to protect them should there

be a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill. That’s the root of the issue,

and that member is being overly provocative, just like many others on

that side of the House.

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

P. Milobar: Myself and our caucus are going to keep standing up for B.C.

families and businesses, who shouldn’t have to pay $2 a litre. We will

continue to stand up for B.C. families and businesses, who shouldn’t

have to pay $2 a litre for gasoline. This will mean higher prices for

gas, higher prices for groceries and other basic necessities.

The Premier and this Environment Minister created this mess. When

will he fix it?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member is just incorrect. I find it passing strange

that the people of British Columbia do not have the support of the

official opposition. But we can count on, apparently, the Canadian

Energy Pipeline Association, which said: “We’re concerned that the

measures being considered in Bill 12 could have long-term unintended

consequences for industry and the public at large.”

That’s a reasonable thing to say when a government introduces

provocative legislation with the sole express purpose of hurting another

jurisdiction. Why in the world do the people on that side of the House

not get that?

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

TRANSPORT OF OIL BY

RAIL

J. Isaacs: Oil by rail through B.C. is increasing because pipelines are at

capacity. Yesterday Premier Notley said she will use her new legislation

to send more oil by rail: “It will still be shipped. It will just be not

as safe and more expensive.”

Does the Minister of Transportation really believe that a pipeline

is less safe than oil by rail?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s disappointing that the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain

wasn’t listening or paying attention when we elaborated in this House

and in the media that we intend to protect British Columbians’

environment and economy from the risk of spills of petroleum products

generally, by whatever mode of transportation they’re carried. The

specific regulations that are out for consultation now address shipment

by pipe, by rail, and earlier regulations covered other

matters.

The point of our regulatory regime is to protect British

Columbia’s environment, our economy and our interests from the threat of

a diluted bitumen spill. That’s a real threat. The federal government

has acknowledged that. That’s why they’ve committed $45 million to

research to look into the behaviour of oil in different aquatic

environments, to the best ways to prevent a spill and to the best ways

to recover.

The opposition would have us give up our rights to protect British

Columbians’ interests. That’s not surprising. We saw that for the last

16 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: The Minister of Transportation and the Premier are clearly on the

record that the province can’t limit the transport of oil by rail.

Blocking the Trans Mountain expansion will only increase the volume of

oil that travels by rail through communities like Maple Ridge, Pitt

Meadows, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody.

Again to the minister, why is he choosing to support oil by rail

through these communities instead of expanding pipeline

capacity?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, we’re determined to exercise every inch of our jurisdiction

under the constitution to protect British Columbia’s environment and

economy and interests from threats, from pollutants, including petroleum

products. The opposition apparently is only too happy to give up rights

to protect our interests.

The old government for 16 years said nothing when oil-by-rail

shipments grew to a peak between 2012 and 2014. In fact, the former

government gave up British Columbians’ ability to control rail when they

sold off B.C. Rail after promising in an election that they wouldn’t do

so.

It’s fascinating to me, but I would say it’s disappointing to

British Columbians, that the opposition has suddenly taken an interest

in the risks posed by the transportation of bitumen by rail now, but

they did nothing about it when they had the chance to do so.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

EXPORT OF LUMBER BY

RAIL

C. Oakes: B.C. softwood lumber exports to the United States are down 20

percent from last year because our mills can’t get their product out by

rail. The Minister of Jobs knows this is a problem.

[10:50 a.m.]

Here is what he wrote to the federal government: “Lumber mills and

other industries…are being seriously impacted by the lack of rail

service.”

To the Minister of Jobs, in light of his own comments, why is he

choosing to support an increase in oil by rail shipments rather than

expanding pipeline capacity?

Hon. B. Ralston: I met with members of the northeastern chambers of commerce — from

Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Fort St. John — and they expressed real concern

about the shortage of railcars that was damaging their ability to export

grain from that region. In addition, I also toured — in Prince George

recently, last week — the Canfor pulp mill, where they had a six-month

supply of pulp in their yard due to the shortage of railcars.

There is a serious crisis in CN Rail. In fact, the president of CN

Rail resigned, and the company issued an unprecedented apology for their

inability to deliver railcars.

I’m concerned, as the minister responsible for trade, about the

damage to our reputation in terms of on-time delivery of the basic

commodities that British Columbia produces in such abundance. That’s why

I wrote to the president. That’s why I wrote to the federal Minister of

Transport.

I’ve since had a meeting with a senior official at Canadian

National Railway who has assured me that they are taking very determined

remedial steps to bring back the on-time delivery of B.C. commodities,

which is important for the health and strength and future prosperity of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: Well, yes, I would agree that we have a serious crisis. Why are

you making it worse? Furthermore, you talk about reputation. What are

you doing in this government to make the reputation of British Columbia

worse?

Let’s see what other people are saying about this minister’s

choice. Here’s a media headline from April 6, 2018: “Outrageous

Hypocrisy as B.C. Minister Calls on Ottawa to Solve a Rail Bottleneck

While Fighting an Alberta Pipeline.”

Again, to the minister, why has he chosen to support oil by rail

when he knows his choice hurts B.C. forest-dependent families, their

communities, softwood producers, and it’s an important part of British

Columbia’s economy?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for her question. I’m surprised that a member

coming from a forest-dependent community such as Quesnel would minimize

the impact of the shortage of railcars on the forest industry — those

exports that come from the mills in Quesnel.

Certainly, Canadian National Railway has recognized the problem.

They made a change at the top. The CEO resigned. The company made an

unprecedented public apology, and they are taking steps to bring back

the kind of on-time rail service that’s necessary. They’ve leased 200

locomotives from other jurisdictions. They’ve changed their logistics

system.

That’s really important for on-time delivery of B.C. commodities,

which the resource economy, which is so much a part of our prosperity,

depends upon, and that’s why I was committed to make those suggestions

to the federal Minister of Transport. I’m pleased that CN Rail is acting

on that.

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

EXPORT OF GRAIN BY

RAIL

I. Paton: Rail shipment delays are also causing difficulties for B.C. grain

producers trying to get their product to market. Pipelines that carry

oil are at capacity, and the increase in oil by rail takes space that

could be used by our farmers.

Against the best interests of farmers in this province, why has

the Minister of Agriculture chosen an increase in shipping oil by rail

instead of expanding pipeline capacity?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The grain industry is really an important part of our agricultural

economy here in British Columbia. When I met with those chambers of

commerce in northeastern British Columbia, they certainly stressed that.

Grain does not get transported in oil cars.

CN, at the urging of many affected parties, including the federal

Minister of Transportation, is taking the remedial steps, leasing more

locomotives, changing the logistics system of the turnaround time for

their railcars. Also, they’re hiring more staff at Canadian National

Railway to deliver the kind of service that’s expected for the important

trade that goes from British Columbia to Asia, ports around the world.

That’s something that I’m working on, and I’m very proud to have pushed

the government to action on this file.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, grain producers have no other options than rail to get their

product to the market, but we do have safer alternatives for oil. The

Trans Mountain pipeline would free up rail capacity for increased grain

shipments.

Again to the minister, why has she…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, Delta South has the floor.

I. Paton: …chosen to support oil by rail when she knows her choice hurts

B.C. farmers?

Hon. B. Ralston: The problems in the grain industry are being addressed by CN Rail.

Certainly, they’re taking a number of remedial measures, under

tremendous pressure across the country — from the federal Transportation

Minister, from the federal government, from chambers of commerce in

northeastern British Columbia. They are all asking for remedial steps to

be taken by CN.

They have begun a process, back in October, of leasing more

locomotives, obtaining more railcars and hiring more staff. The winter

was a particularly difficult one, yet that’s not the place that they’re

looking to, to assign blame. They have reviewed their procedures, and

they are taking steps to develop and to expand the rail network which we

depend on. That’s really important for the growth of our

economy.

What we’re doing here on this side of the House is not serving the

1 percent of the population that the previous government did. We’re

serving all British Columbians in all industries, in all parts of the

province, building prosperity. That’s just what we’re doing.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Holding Pattern: Call Wait Times for Income and Disability

Assistance from the Office of the Ombudsperson.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual

report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

Hon. G. Chow: I would like to ask leave to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Chow: I’d like to ask the House to welcome a group of grade 10 students from

David Thompson Secondary School, one of two secondary schools in my riding

of Vancouver-Fraserview. They are led by teacher Mr. Chris Ascher and

volunteering parents. I’d like to ask the House to make them feel

welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued debate on committee stage of Bill 13

and, in Committee A, continued — continued, continued — debate on the estimates

of the Ministry of Environment.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

The Chair: Calling the committee on Bill 13 to order. I understand

yesterday members had some difficulty hearing the questions and

answers. Maybe I’ll ask Hansard to raise the volume of the Minister

of Health’s microphone.

section 3 (continued) .

T. Redies: We were talking about some of the issues around privacy with

respect to Bill 13. We’d like to continue that line of questioning for a

little while.

Could the minister please explain to us what internal processes

will be in place within the Merit Commissioner’s office to make sure

that private information is protected and not released in any

way?

Hon. A. Dix: Just to say that this is part of what the Merit Commissioner does

already. The Merit Commissioner has a lot of experience is this area

because the merit reviews done by the Merit Commissioner require the

similar need to protect confidentiality. This will be up to the Merit

Commissioner, but the Merit Commissioner is very well placed to ensure

the privacy of individuals.

T. Redies: I asked what specific processes were in place. I understand the

Merit Commissioner is very capable, but I guess I would like a little

bit more colour around the specific processes in place to make sure that

private information is protected.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I think, specifically, the Merit Commissioner, as I say, engages

in this now. So when

an act very clearly states that personal

information is not to be released, and it’s the purpose of the act to do

a broad policy and practice review of just dismissals in the province of

British Columbia, the Merit Commissioner is well aware of that. In fact,

this is the guiding principle of that. I would assume that the Merit

Commissioner would set up — as she does now, in the case of merit

reviews — similar processes to ensure that private information is not

released.

Really, it’s the purpose of the legislation, and the Merit

Commissioner knows this well. It was the purpose, as presented by the

Ombudsperson, that this not be reviews of individual cases but reviews

of broader government policy. That is what the reports will be about.

That’s how the Merit Commissioner is being directed. That’s something

that the Merit Commissioner is well familiar with, because she and her

office do this already.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Will anybody other than the

Merit Commissioner be reviewing these sensitive cases?

Hon. A. Dix: It would be just the Merit Commissioner, of course, because the

review of individual cases…. The Merit Commissioner might well be in

discussion with, for example, deputy ministers and so on about

circumstances in the scope of her review. But it’s the Merit

Commissioner, and the Merit Commissioner alone, who’s responsible under

this act and these changes to do these broad reviews. The Merit

Commissioner is obviously reviewing, in this case, an average of 25

individual cases, if it was an average year, and doing practice and

policy recommendations to government based on those reviews.

That would involve her, of course, discussing potential issues

with members of government. For example, you could imagine a particular

matter was the subject of a deputy minister’s responsibility. The deputy

minister would not be the subject of the review, but it would be the

actions of the government that would be reviewed by the Merit

Commissioner. It’s the Merit Commissioner doing the review as an

independent officer of the Legislature.

T. Redies: Just to clarify that further, I understand that, obviously, they

would be speaking to the ministers who would be involved in the case.

But will there be anybody else within the Merit Commissioner’s office

who will be reviewing these files, or is it just solely, as the minister

said, the Merit Commissioner that will look at these files?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, clearly, staff under the direction of the Merit

Commissioner…. It wouldn’t be the Merit Commissioner personally, but her

office, for which she is responsible, who would be doing it. The Merit

Commissioner is appointed, of course, by the Legislature. Then her

staff, which she is responsible for, would be conducting these reviews

with her, just as they do in the current merit process.

The Merit Commissioner has a staff. I think we discussed yesterday

that the budget is between $1.1 million and $1.2 million. She has a

staff that assists her in her duties, but it’s the Merit Commissioner

who’s responsible and her office that does the work.

T. Redies: Will the Privacy Commissioner be reviewing any of the reports

prepared by the Merit Commissioner under this act?

Hon. A. Dix: The Privacy Commissioner would have no special authority under

these actions. This is another independent officer of the Legislature.

The Privacy Commissioner always has authority, under the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to protect the privacy of

individuals, but in this case, they have no specific

authority.

[11:10 a.m.]

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister. We have talked a little bit about the Merit

Commissioner’s capacity, that there are approximately 25 cases per

annum. Do we know if the Merit Commissioner will be hiring any dedicated

information-and-privacy-focused staff to help prepare the

reports?

Hon. A. Dix: As I think we discussed a little bit yesterday, the Merit

Commissioner will be determining what the work involves. Should it

require additional resources, as we discussed yesterday, the Merit

Commissioner will make the case for those resources, as you do within

government.

The Merit Commissioner, because the Merit Commissioner deals with

matters of personnel in government and the merit process within

government, already has many of those obligations around privacy and is

very well experienced at it. That’s at the core of the Merit

Commissioner’s function, as it stands now. I would expect that to

continue.

With respect to new resources, that will be an issue for the Merit

Commissioner to determine as the legislation is enacted.

T. Redies: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I appreciate his

patience with us asking about these questions. I think, for all of us,

the important issue here, other than having the process in place, is to

make sure that the private information of people is protected in these

very sensitive situations.

I had another question. The bill says the report will include

“references to particular instances.” However, it then says that

personal information related to non-compliance and the identity of the

ministry of agency must not be included. I guess what we’re trying to

understand is how one would list a breach of procedures without

specifying who it was, what they did, who the agency or ministry was and

what the result was. How do you make the report with sufficient

information to be relevant?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, the questions have been excellent. I think this

process is important not just for members of the House, but it’s

important for people who are going to be dealing with and looking at

this legislation in the future that the issues are clarified. I very

much appreciate the questions that the member is asking.

With respect to this issue, this is the core balancing act of the

recommendation of the Ombudsperson, of the legislation, which is, of

course, that the Merit Commissioner has to report out on specific issues

or specific cases — for example, when appropriate practices and policies

of the government haven’t been followed — but to do so in such a way as

to not identify — for example, that it would be, for the sake of

argument, the Ministry of Transportation or whatever ministry it would

be which conducted that — that process so as to affect the

confidentiality of people involved.

The process is that you’re reviewing, let’s say, 25 cases. The

Merit Commissioner is reviewing those 25 cases, looking at whether

practices and policies were appropriately followed and then identifying

issues when they were but has to identify them in such a way — and this

is the balancing act of the legislation of the recommendation — as not

to identify the individuals or the ministry involved.

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I just want to clarify a

little bit about the scope here, because I still am a bit confused by

what the Minister of Finance said when she introduced the bill and what

we’re talking about here.

If I may, I’d just like to quote from the minister’s

Hansard file. What she said is that “these reviews should

only take place once the completion of all opportunities for that

individual to challenge the just cause have occurred.” Then we’re also

talking about kind of a broad report about multiple cases and

recommendations coming out of that. I guess from my perspective…. Is it

both individual cases and broad recommendations, or is it just broad

recommendations?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: As we discussed in

section 2, and we had a little bit of the

discussion under 5.13, the purpose is to say that the investigations

can’t start until, essentially, the grievance process has ended. Right?

So they’re not a second grievance process or an alternative to the

grievance process. This is a review that would lead to broad

recommendations by government about the way in which government’s

practices and policies are followed — or what those practices and

policies should be in the case of just cause dismissals.

Of course, the Merit Commissioner is looking at individual cases.

That’s the evidence. But the Merit Commissioner is making broad

recommendations to government about the process that’s followed. It’s

not a second opportunity to litigate individual cases. There are

processes for that that are both legal and internal, in some cases, to

collective agreements. On the one hand, it’s not that. But what it is,

is a broad review of how the government deals with just cause

dismissals, in order to ensure that the absolute best practices are used

by government.

T. Redies: Sorry to belabour this point, but are we talking…? If an

individual’s case does come to the Merit Commissioner after all the

other proceedings have been exhausted, which I appreciate, will the

Merit Commissioner be tabling a report on any individual case, or will

that case just become part of the overall, broad

recommendations?

The reason I’m asking this is because, if it’s an individual case

that is tabled, it’s quite easy, oftentimes, to understand who actually

is involved and that. That’s where I’m going with my

questioning.

Hon. A. Dix: The Merit Commissioner won’t be bringing forward reports on

individual cases, but the Merit Commissioner will clearly be looking at

individual cases, because that’s the sum of the evidence, and making

recommendations about them. The Merit Commissioner might say that in a

case, the proper procedures for investigations were not followed, and

that these changes need to be required. So that’s the sum of the

evidence.

The member is absolutely right to focus on this point. It’s the

main challenge, the main balancing act, faced by the Merit Commissioner

— the main balancing act, recommended by the Ombudsperson — which is not

to create a new process to deal with individual cases but to have the

Merit Commissioner look at what government is doing as a whole, the sum

of the cases but also the individual cases, and make recommendations

with that.

The member is absolutely right to make this point, which is that

this is the key balancing act of the legislation. It will be a challenge

for the Merit Commissioner, but we’re confident that the Merit

Commissioner, based on the Ombudsperson’s recommendation, will be able

to follow through on it.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that, finally, for

me.

In terms of the report itself, will this report be tabled in the

House like other annual reports?

Hon. A. Dix: The Merit Commissioner currently tables a report on merit. This

report will be synchronized with that and tabled at the same

time.

T. Redies: Who will be responsible for implementing any recommendations that

arise from these reports? Will that be the Minister of Finance? How will

the implementation of the recommendations be monitored for progress and

completion?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The principal responsible within government would be the Deputy

Minister for the Public Service Agency. So yes, the Minister of Finance,

as an extension of that.

There would be annual reports. Clearly, if the government was not

responding to the Merit Commissioner’s report, they would be hearing

from the Merit Commissioner — and others but the Merit Commissioner, in

particular.

S. Bond: Just to confirm that…. I appreciate the minister’s responses. It

is a balancing act. It is about trying to protect incredibly personal

information and do the review at the same time.

Today we want to make the point and have the minister acknowledge

that there will be a very disciplined approach and that, in fact, when

we look at that balancing of privacy, it will be a significant priority

as this process is designed.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member makes a very important point. It is that as

part of this process, there are no remedies for employees. This makes

the privacy consideration even more important, because an employee who

has lost their job for just cause…. Obviously, however one might feel

about that — I’m sure as an employee, you wouldn’t feel good about that

— we have to ensure that their rights are especially protected

here.

This process is designed to improve what government does going

forward, but it doesn’t provide remedies for a particular employee. So

that makes the point that the member is making around privacy all the

more important in this case — to ensure that the privacy rights of

employees are protected.

That’s why in the legislation, there are specific provisions

around personal information — for that very point. The member’s point is

an excellent one and one that the Merit Commissioner will be taking very

seriously.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Bond: We thank the minister for the responses. Make no mistake about it.

We recognize that improvement undoubtedly is needed. I think the issue

is a measured approach, especially in the beginning, as we look at both

protecting privacy and the other issues.

section 4, we just have a few questions as we move through,

just to make sure that we have clarity about the necessity for some of

these other changes. In

section 4, this allows specified individuals to

have access to information from boards, commissions, agencies. Could the

minister describe for us who these specified individuals might be

anticipated to be?

Hon. A. Dix: What this states is…. These are the same organizations that are

covered by the Merit Commissioner’s existing authority, which is

everywhere where the Public Service Act applies — all of those

organizations. It gives the Merit Commissioner the ability to seek the

information and access to records on all of those agencies, boards and

commissions where the Public Service Agency applies.

This is easy for the Merit Commissioner because these are the very

same agencies that the Merit Commissioner does her other work

on.

T. Redies: Just a clarification. The new substitution allows individuals to

access information from boards as well. Are we talking about the boards

of Crown corporations? Could you just maybe give us some colour as to

what type of board you’re talking about there?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re talking about are the boards to which the Public

Service Act applies. Examples of those are the Agricultural Land

Commission, the B.C. Review Board, the B.C. Coroners Service, the B.C.

Farm Industry Review Board, the B.C. Pension Corporation, the Forest

Practices Board, Islands Trust, the Office of the Police Complaint

Commissioner and the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

T. Redies: Again, to clarify, this will not have any — what’s the right word?

— reach into the Crown corporations.

Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt the proceedings here. I’m

wondering if could have leave to make an introduction,

please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve got a great class from École des Grands-Cèdres, from Port

Alberni. They travelled all the way this morning from Port Alberni. I was

able to get them in my office just a couple of minutes ago, out on the

balcony. There are four chaperones, teachers and parents also, that are

along for the journey. Would this House please join me in making them feel

very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: On vous souhaite la bienvenue ici.

Debate Continued

Hon. A. Dix: The member is entirely correct. It’s just those agencies. The

Public Service Act doesn’t apply, for example, to B.C. Hydro. So it

doesn’t apply to them.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Bond: We certainly do want to welcome classes that visit. It’s a great

opportunity for them to see how public policy is created and debated in

a constructive way, and we appreciate that opportunity this

morning.

Section 6 talks about immunity protection. It’s an important

concept for independent officers like the Merit Commissioner. I’m

wondering if this simply extends current immunity provisions to cover

the additional work that the Merit Commissioner will take on as a result

of the changes — the creation of this process.

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, the member is correct. It extends the immunity to this new

work.

S. Bond: Maybe just, again in the same way, inadmissibility and the fact

that the Merit Commissioner cannot be compelled to give evidence in a

grievance procedure. Again, I think it’s important just to reflect,

because if someone reads that, they’re wondering: “Is that a new

provision?” Of course, there are individuals that are protected in that

way, so they’re able to do their work.

Once again, in terms of inadmissibility and the ability to prevent

the Merit Commissioner from being compelled, those are extensions of the

current situation for the Merit Commissioner?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes. It also ensures, under these new responsibilities, that…. One

of the reasons why we wait until the period after the end of grievance

procedures is to ensure that this doesn’t interfere in other processes.

In other words, the Merit Commissioner’s work is not brought into other

processes that would affect the rights of employees in

general.

The purpose of this is, as we’ve noted before, for the Merit

Commissioner to do these reviews, and therefore, her work won’t be

brought into grievance processes or other processes. That’s the purpose

of this. It’s to ensure that, in fact, there’s clarity between the Merit

Commissioner’s role and the existing processes that protect employees

and provide legal arrangements.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

[11:30 a.m.]

S. Bond: Well, I had to get up and ask a question about this. I can

remember that, certainly in my tenure as a minister, there would be

numerous members on the other side of the House, when we added

reg-making power or the ability to make regulation, because it’s done

not in the public eye….

I’m wondering. Here

Section 7 allows

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — which, of course, is code for cabinet —

to make regulations respecting any matter for which regulations are

contemplated in this act. That’s a pretty…. When we add reg-making

power, it covers wide swaths of potential.

Could the minister provide, perhaps, an example of what types of

regulation might be contemplated and why it’s necessary to include the

reg-making power here?

Hon. A. Dix: As the former minister and the member will know, what we try to do

in life is continually learn, and we’re all learning new things on both

sides of the House, in this period. The member and other members are

learning the value of question period, and we on this side of the House

are learning the advantage of sections like

section 7.

We don’t anticipate that there’ll be need for further regulation,

but it may be that the Merit Commissioner or the government sees that

there’s some regulation in the future that might assist in the way the

act is applied, so they’re giving the power to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that.

We don’t see any need for that at the moment, but need may

develop. Need may arise that would benefit from a regulation of

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that wouldn’t require, for example, us

returning to the Legislature and bringing legislative changes. That’s

the purpose of this provision of the act.

S. Bond: Yes, the minister is extremely accurate about what we’re learning

from one another. I know that, to be honest — and I’ve said this to him

— he has learned very well on this side of the House and is carrying on

his responsibilities on the other side.

I want to just accentuate the point, though. When we build in

reg-making power, it does cause questions about: is there something not

being covered in legislation that the government is anticipating

building through legislation?

What I’m hearing the minister say today — and maybe he could just

confirm for me — is that at this time, there is not an apparent need to

build regulation, but just in case, the power is being enacted here so

that the government wouldn’t have to come back and do that.

Hon. A. Dix: That’s right. There’s nothing anticipated at present.

I find myself learning every day and appreciating in new ways the

responsibility of previous Ministers of Health. Today I was asked a

question outside the House by the media about rabid dog saliva. One

learns new things every day about these responsibilities and new

appreciations, as I say.

In this case, though, there’s nothing anticipated by the

government in terms of changes. The intention, as we will see in

section

9, is to bring the act into effect on royal assent. We’re not even

requiring the act to be brought into force by regulation but rather by

royal assent. So we don’t anticipate any changes.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

S. Bond: First of all, that is a question I was never asked as a minister,

which the minister just got. That is new. That is new territory, and I

appreciate him sharing that.

I think that this is a significant response to a circumstance that

there are many, I’m sure, regrets about and the need to improve this

process.

Can the minister perhaps address

section 8 for a moment? I know in

some…. I remember a particular instance where we built in a five-year

review. Could the minister just speak to the thinking behind creating

this special committee?

[11:35 a.m.]

It will be a significant task. This basically requires the

Legislative Assembly to set up a special committee to look at this, to

see: did it work? Is it working? What can we do differently?

This is a very significant way of putting that in place when we

put it in legislation rather than just committing to it. Maybe the

minister could just walk through, briefly, the thinking behind the

five-year review. And then I’ll ask my other question about sub (

b) in a

moment.

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s important…. Sometimes when we pass legislation, we

have these debates in the House and we say that all other jurisdictions

are doing it and B.C. is joining those. In this case, British Columbia

is doing something that all other jurisdictions aren’t doing. We are the

groundbreaker.

It’s a response to a very important set of circumstances and, I

think, an outstanding report by the Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, who

recommended this. He’s recommended and he supports this five-year

review. Since we’re doing something new, and I think there’s real value

in it, as a very appropriate response to the events described in the

Misfire report, I think it’s very important that we look at

this — that we look at its value over five years.

It may be, in fact, in the interim period, that other

jurisdictions will follow British Columbia because the value of the work

will be shown. But I think it’s a useful process for a parliamentary

committee to look at this after five years to both assess its utility to

see the progress that’s been made and potentially make recommendations

about that process.

We thought, and I think the Ombudsperson agrees and other people

agree, that this would be a good way to look at this and approach this,

given that this is a small but groundbreaking process of government —

for us to review it as a Legislature in five years.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. Certainly, the Ombudsperson, I think, was

thoughtful about that. Not that we have disagreement about that. It is

just a very substantive way of reviewing a process. I can understand the

jurisdictional implications if others are contemplating looking at a

model like this.

I guess, having said all of that, sub (

b) then talks about a year.

So, from my perspective…. We’re talking about a five-year period where

the Merit Commissioner basically begins this new process, looks at

approximately 25 just cause cases. I wonder why the long timeline. The

Ombudsperson did, and took a very extended period of time to look at the

inherent issues and challenges that we were trying to

address….

Does the minister have any concerns that…? It does say “within one

year,” but I’m assuming there would be…. If there are any concerns about

the process and how it works, that is a long time for a legislative

committee to be basically discussing: is this working?

Are there any concerns? And would the minister be working to move

that forward much more quickly than a year?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member makes a good point. Of course, that would be

the authority of the special committee itself. It’s partly — what’s the

right term? — the idiosyncrasies of B.C. legislatures. Sometimes, if

it’s an election year, things get pushed back. So this gives a year, but

it doesn’t say it has to be a year. It’s within a year. Clearly, the

special committee would take its charge from the legislation or from the

Legislature and then do the review in the time that the members of that

committee see fit. But that would be within a year.

I think the member is quite right that that could be a one-month

review or two-month review. But it would be a maximum of a one-year

review, giving the committee sufficient time not to be in some way

jammed by the law if other circumstances intervene. That’s really the

purpose of it.

S. Bond: I certainly thank the minister for that response. I think we

understand the need for some flexibility.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m sure the minister probably agrees with me on the fact that I

don’t think we want to see a royal commission on a process that’s been

in place for five years. It’s really a touch-base to say: “Is this

working? Does it reflect not only what the Ombudsperson recommended but

what British Columbians expect to see with this kind of

change?”

I think if there’s motivation to move it more quickly, that would

hopefully be the case. I did want to, on behalf of my co-critic, thank

the minister and staff for their response to this. As we both mentioned

in our opening comments, we recognize the importance of this and thank

the government for pursuing it and know there are other recommendations

that still require work.

We look forward to seeing the outcomes of those in the days and

months ahead, but we do appreciate the process to date and bringing this

bill to the House. We think it’s important, and we do appreciate the

answers that have been provided to us.

Hon. A. Dix: I thank the critics for the opposition for their questions. I’ll

say, just on the final point, the substantive point the Finance critic

for the opposition made, that I absolutely agree with that point. I

think that the special committee would act promptly and wouldn’t take

excessive time to review that, nor would they be required to. This just

gives them the flexibility to do their work on their own

timetable.

Saying that, I support the passage of the section.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be reported complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:46 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. H. Bains: Before we start, I’d like to introduce my staff. Trevor Hughes, my

deputy minister, is to my right. Michael Tanner is on my left, director

of labour policy and legislation. We also have John Blakely in the back

here.

J. Martin: Good to be back again, and happy to spend some time with the

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018. I don’t have an awful lot of

inquiries of the minister and his staff, but there are a few areas where

I would like to seek clarification.

The first for the minister is the discussion around “eligible

occupation.” I’m sure the minister, like myself and probably many other

members of this House, has received an awful lot of correspondence from

constituents and stakeholders about who actually qualifies under the

eligible occupation. I know there’s going to be some further inquiry

about that from my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

I’d like to begin by asking the minister to discuss the process

that he and his team went through when they were selecting those that

would and would not be identified as an eligible occupation under this

act.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you for the question from the critic. The eligible

occupations, as is described in this bill, are the first responders, as

you call them. They would be included as correctional officers;

emergency medical assistants, which captures paramedics; firefighters;

police officers; and sheriffs.

We have the ability in this bill…. Other occupations may be

prescribed by regulation at a later date. I want to assure the member

that we were ready to go with these ones. This is just the beginning;

this is not the end. We couldn’t wait any longer, so I thought that we

would proceed with these occupations immediately.

[11:50 a.m.]

Those are the ones identified here in the bill, and we will

proceed with them. We have the ability to add others. I will be engaging

other groups of members who, every day, go to work and face similar

challenges that these first responders face.

First responders. Why we’re moving so quickly on this…. As you

know, they face these traumatic incidents every day as part of their job

— every day. Not to say that others don’t, but these are the ones that

we’re proceeding with right now and leaving ourselves enabling language

in here to add other occupations.

I will be meeting with them soon, after we finish here. We will

sit down with them, see how we can make sure that the Workers

Compensation Act and the Workers Compensation Board provide them the

support that they need when they need it, whether it’s a mental

disorder, mental health disorders, or for the traumatic incidents that

they face in their workplaces. We will be identifying those. Many are

quite obvious; others may not be as obvious.

We will be working with many, many groups and their

representatives, because at the end of the day, my goal is to make

workplaces in British Columbia the safest in the country by having

strong enforcement regimes. Then treat these members, the workers, if

they are hurt at workplaces, if they develop illness at workplaces —

that they get the support that they need. That’s my goal, and we’re

going to move quickly to make sure that every worker gets the support

that they need, gets the help that they need for workers

compensation.

J. Martin: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister please go through the

criteria that will be employed, if some of these other groups are going

to define themselves, in determining that they are within the identified

eligible occupations, what the decision-making process is going to be

and how public that process will be?

Hon. H. Bains: Good question, again. Like I said, as soon as we leave here or we

pass this bill, I will be consulting with many of those groups. They

have the expertise, because they live and work with all of these

traumatic incidents in different areas. I don’t have all of that

information, so I will be relying, largely, on those groups who will be

presenting their cases to me. As we move along, as we collect all that

information through consultation, we will be developing, perhaps,

criteria — or see if some groups need to be added and at what

time.

Again, I want to assure everyone, all those workers: you are not

lost on my mind. This is just the beginning. We have all the information

about these groups. I’m collecting more information by talking to many

of those groups. I have some meetings already scheduled with many of

those groups who would be like to be included.

Through those discussions, we will develop a pathway. How do we

help all those workers who go to work and face traumatic incidents at

their workplaces?

Noting the hour, I ask that the committee rise and report progress

and ask permission to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: At 11:57 — we left a couple of minutes on the table there this

morning — I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I’d like to call Committee of Supply,

Section A, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

estimates, to order.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for kicking off yet

another day of estimates. I have a couple of quick follow-up questions,

and then I’ll be turning it over to my colleague for some more

regionalized questions until the lunch break.

Just seeking some clarification on something the minister said in

question period today. The minister indicated that there has been an

increase — we’ve canvassed this extensively, even yesterday and previous

days, and even four weeks ago now, when we were in estimates — in oil

shipments by rail. The minister, up until question period, had been

quite insistent, including yesterday, that there is no data that the

government has for the increase in shipments of oil by rail.

I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe shed some light on

where the information was received, between yesterday’s estimates and

today’s question period, that he was confident enough to stand up in

question period and indicate that there has been an increase in rail

from 2012 to 2014.

[11:10 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: On May 6, 2014, the Vancouver Sun reported that the

number of railcars transporting crude oil and petroleum products through

British Columbia increased 200 percent from 2012 to 2013.

P. Milobar: Yesterday at about 4:10, according to Hansard , the second

paragraph of the minister’s answer to me was:

“The second point the member said is that there’s a steady increase

of transport by rail. Again, as I’ve stated previously in the House,

we’re unaware of any steady increase in rail traffic or rail transport.

We simply don’t have the information on increases or decreases, because

we didn’t have the regulatory authority until last fall. Now that we

have it, we’re obtaining the information, and we will be able to

know.”

That was at 4:10 to 4:15 yesterday afternoon. Then today,

we now have sources cited as being from the Vancouver

Sun .

Is the source of information that we can now count on — that the

government will be relying on — the newspaper articles? Or is there more

in-depth information going to be being brought forward?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. Certainly, we wouldn’t rely on reports in the Vancouver

Sun to bring forward figures on rail transport to a process

like spending estimates.

As I mentioned yesterday, we now have the regulatory authority to

gather the information that we didn’t have previously, and we’ll be

exercising that. We can look forward to some fact-based figures being

released, either in estimates or on request or to the public, some

months down the road when we’ve had a chance to review and

analyze.

P. Milobar: Sorry, a follow-up to that, then. Is the minister saying, in

estimates, that we’ll await more science-based or regulatory-based

reporting numbers, but for question period — which I think we can all

agree probably the vast majority of the public and, certainly, the media

pays much more attention to — answers and comments will rely on

information sources from anywhere, as opposed to the same information

bases we can expect for answers in estimates?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t see any inconsistency or conflict between the answer given

in question period, the answer given a moment ago and the answer given

yesterday.

I have no reason to believe that the journalists who reported

figures that I just read out, in response to the member’s question,

didn’t do their due diligence. But the member had previously asked a

question that had to do with long-term trends. I stated, accurately,

that we don’t have the information, that the previous government did not

put in place the measures that enabled the government to gather the

information that would accurately answer his question over a longer time

horizon.

We’re not going to rely on whether or not journalists pop up with

the information over a longer time horizon, so we’ve now given ourselves

the tools to gather the information on an ongoing basis. Obviously, we

won’t have a long time horizon until some period of time has elapsed,

going forward, but we will be in a position to show and analyze trends

over time, using the new tools that we have at our disposal.

D. Barnett: Minister, on the questions that I’m going to ask, you may have

addressed them in some form, but I haven’t been following the

estimates.

The decision by your government, with your Green partner, was made

to ban grizzly bear hunting. What scientific evidence was

used?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is welcome to put that question to the Minister of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. It’s

that ministry that grants licences for hunting of wildlife.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but I understand it was a cabinet decision.

So I would like to get your response, if I may, as to what scientific

evidence you used to make the decision.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: If I could clarify, Chair. If the member is asking me to release

and talk about the content of material that was used by cabinet to make

decisions, I believe she knows that it’s inappropriate for me to do so.

It would be a violation of my oath of office.

D. Barnett: Thank you for the clarification, Minister. I believed that the

decision for the grizzly bear hunt was through your ministry, but as you

have said, it was not. So I will take that question up with the Minister

of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

I do have a couple of other questions that, hopefully, are within

your ministry. We should know where these things are, but as you know

quite well, they’re here, there and everywhere in the dirt

ministries.

Back to the new water regulations. I understand they are in your

ministry. Am I correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m sharing some of the member’s amazement. Despite the fact that

we work with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations on policy development and despite the fact that the former

Minister of Environment handled some of the questions in committee stage

on a bill that was introduced by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations, it is their act and their regulations.

D. Barnett: Thank you for the clarification. I have one more question.

Hopefully, it’s within your ministry. I believe it is.

Tweedsmuir Park in the Chilcotin — it’s a very sensitive issue out

there with the Ulkatcho First Nations and with the communities. For many

years, there were forest fires continuously in Tweedsmuir Park. The

Ulkatcho and the community have discussed this many, many times with the

staff within the region. They are very concerned about this coming fire

season.

My question is: is the ministry for parks working with the

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources on doing some fire

mitigation in this park?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: B.C. Parks has hired a registered professional forester who is

leading the work on identifying fuel mitigation strategies in all B.C.

Parks. That forester is working closely with Forest, Lands, Natural

Resources Operations and Rural Development’s wildfire branch to ensure

that we identify high-risk areas and that we are working together to

introduce new measures to mitigate the risk.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Tweedsmuir Park is very isolated yet is a

very important part of the Ulkatcho — wildlife and things like that. Is

there going to be some consultation with the Ulkatcho and the community

through this process of mitigation?

Hon. G. Heyman: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we are

consulting and engaging with First Nations on virtually everything we do

in this ministry, as well as across all ministries.

B.C. Parks has been, I think, quite exemplary in reaching out to

First Nations on a range of parks-related issues as well as any issues

on which we have influence or are considering taking action or taking

actions that impact on First Nations rights, title and

well-being.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that. Will you also be discussing it with

the local community at large?

Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t give the member specifics about how the community outreach

and consultation will be conducted, but the answer is: yes, we will be

doing that.

D. Barnett: I have one other topic. You can tell me if it’s not with you. I’ll

understand.

A lot of the mining water discharge permitting decisions used to

be with the Ministry of Environment, under our government. What part of

the permitting process for long-term water discharge permits for mines

is within your ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: Nothing has changed. We permit all discharge of effluent from mine

sites under the Environmental Management Act.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that. Since July of 2017, have

there been any new processes or regulations put in place dealing with

these long-term water discharge permits for mines?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: There are no new regulations, but we’ve been working to modernize

permits, including mining.

One of the ways we’re modernizing is to make sure that they

actually have enforceable conditions. We’re also requiring permittees to

post reports, and we’re working toward an eventual outcome where all

permits and information — for instance, inspection reports — are

publicly and transparently available on our registry.

D. Barnett: I understand that there will be a stronger compliance through your

ministry. Has your budget increased? And to what amount has your budget

increased for greater compliance and checks on mines?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The environmental protection budget has increased by $4.7

million.

D. Barnett: Please clarify for me, Minister. Is it your ministry or is it

Forests, Lands and Natural Resources — I know it used to be your

ministry — that has the authority over the surface water licences for

ranchers?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for your time.

I think what would be really good for us is if we had a chart of

who’s got what in which ministries. But thank you.

P. Milobar: Just to pick up on some of the questions from yesterday around the

six stations that have now been put on hold for spill response on

coastline protection, has there been any discussion within the ministry,

since that decision has been made, to fund the continuation of those

sites?

There’s obviously been an identified demand and need for them. If

the pipeline was to proceed through court proceedings — finishing up in

all of those issues — the pipeline company would still be expected to

reimburse the government, but at a minimum, the government would have,

indeed, enhanced spill response for the coast.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Vessel-based spill response is the responsibility of the federal

government, under the federal government’s legislation. They have

arranged for a private corporation to implement the aspects of

vessel-based spill response that are necessary to comply with their

legislation. So it’s a federal responsibility.

The federal Minister of Transport has also stated publicly that

the federal government’s commitment to the ocean protection plan stands

and that they’re going to continue to implement it. I would expect, if

there’s a short delay in building infrastructure that was intended to

deal with vessels flowing from a pipeline, the corporation may be

waiting to see if there’s any move in the completion date.

Regardless, we’ll be advocating very strongly with the federal

government that they meet their commitments to British Columbians and

Canadians and direct the corporation to proceed with building the

installations and capacity that were promised.

With that, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Unmatched Element [correctionsList]

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada