Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 259

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

Tributes

Ken Harris

L. Reid

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

ASK Wellness Society and fundraising pageant

T. Stone

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

G. Begg

J. Thornthwaite

Child care providers

S. Chandra Herbert

Women’s rights and equality

S. Furstenau

Family physicians

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

P. Milobar

Soil disposal site in Shawnigan Lake watershed

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

Visa reference letters by Citizens’ Services Minister and political fundraising issues

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Sims

Government response to allegations regarding Citizens’ Services Minister

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Brar

Tabling Documents

Report On the Special Investigation Into Allegations Against the Clerk and

Sergeant-at-Arms Of the Legislative Assembly Of British Columbia , May 3,

Status report on the Legislative Assembly administrative reforms, May 16, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

Motions Without Notice

Disclosure of information in special investigation report concerning Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Witness Security Act

Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. L. Popham

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. M. Mungall

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. A. Dix

T. Shypitka

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I’d like to introduce to the House the delegation from the B.C.

chapter of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, including

Dr. Susan Forwell, Giovanna Boniface, Tricia Earl, Elisha Williams, Diane

Graham, Marie Bullock, Devon Cochrane, Skye Barbic, Kelly Bethune, Jeanette

Boiley, Laura Bulk, Kay Chan, Sarah Charles and Tanya Fawkes-Kirby. These

occupational therapists represent practices from across the province. They

provide an enormous service to people across the province. Members of the

House know this well.

Please join the delegation today between 1:30 and 3:30 in the Hemlock

Room to continue learning about how this profession provides affordable

solutions to the health and well-being of British Columbians. I’d ask

everyone to make them welcome and join them this afternoon.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would invite the House to welcome Kelly Greene, who is here joining

us from Richmond. Kelly is a really good friend. We realized, after we met,

that we actually went to the same high school together. I want to express

gratitude to Kelly for reintroducing me to one of my favourite teachers from

when I was in high school. We had a wonderful visit, and we got to catch up.

Albeit I graduated some years before she did, but it was really a treat to

be able to share that information, that history.

Kelly is now a city councillor at the city of Richmond. I want the

House to give her a warm welcome.

E. Foster: I’m really pleased today to introduce a school group from a great

school in my riding, the St. James Catholic School. They’re here to learn

about the Legislature, with their teachers and chaperones. Would the House

please make them most welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to introduce to the Legislature Milla Watt, who lives in

Duncan and is a grade 10 student at Queen Margaret’s secondary. She’s here

to learn about politics and the history of British Columbia. She is the

niece of the administrative coordinator in my office, Amanda Robb. Would the

House please make both of them welcome.

Tributes

KEN HARRIS

L. Reid: I rise today to pay my respects to Pastor Ken Harris. He has just

passed away. In addition to his capacity as pastor of Our Saviour

Lutheran Church, he was such an elegant advocate for bringing palliative

hospice care to Richmond. He instituted bereavement support groups that

continue to this day out of Our Saviour Lutheran Church.

I would ask the House to join me in expressing our condolences to

his family and friends.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: It would be challenging for members to find a group of folks who work

harder than the guests I have the pleasure of introducing today. With us in

the gallery are regional staff members of the corporate governance, policy

and legislation branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. The work that this

team does is instrumental to many of the discussions that we have in this

House. I’d ask all members to welcome these folks and join me in thanking

them for all the work they do for British Columbians.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Singh: In the House today, I have a very special guest who is visiting us

from India. Deepika Singh Rajawat is a human rights lawyer, and she’s taken

up the case of eight-year-old Asifa, who was raped and murdered in January

2018. Now Deepika is fighting for justice for the family, in the midst of

threats and intimidation. Would the House please make her feel very

welcome.

Accompanying Deepika is co-founder of Indians Abroad for Pluralist

India — my husband, Gurpreet. Would the House please make him welcome as

well.

Hon. K. Chen: Today I’m so happy to be able to introduce a constituent of mine, Ms.

Maninder Arora, who is here with her two outstanding daughters Reah and

Jasleen, joining us here during question period.

During the past year, Jasleen…. Sorry, I’m getting emotional. I’ve had

the opportunity to work with a very dedicated, smart and amazing staff.

Jasleen, from our child care office, is passionate about the work she does

every single day. For those of you who know her in the buildings, she always

has a smile on her face. She says hi to everybody, and in the hallway she

knows everybody’s name. She has not only been a great staff colleague, but

she’s also kind of becoming my sister who supports the work I do every

single day.

I’m so sad to share that she is leaving her work here in the building,

but she’s pursuing another amazing career ahead of her. I’m going to miss

her a lot, and I wish her all the best. I know she’s also here with her

boyfriend, Justin Palmer. She has been hoping to propose to him in the

Legislature but forgot to bring her ring today. I’m sure I’m going to get a

wedding invitation from them, hopefully, in the near future.

Ms. Arora, I’m sure you must be so proud of your two outstanding

daughters and your future son-in-law. I wish her family all the

best.

Please make them feel very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have some guests to introduce, but before I do that I want to

confirm what the Minister of State for Child Care said about Jocelyn. She is

a wonderful person to work with. Our constituency office as well as our

legislative office have always found Jocelyn to be extraordinarily helpful

and dedicated to the work she’s doing. I’m sad to see her going, and I want

to just say my greetings to her as well.

I have four guests in the gallery today. Sierra Acton, CVRD director

for Shawnigan Lake, is back. She really likes it down here. She’s joined by

her husband, Alex Acton. Marnie Hare is here, and the former president of

the Shawnigan Residents Association, Calvin Cook, is here. These are

stalwart champions for Shawnigan and for our watershed, and I’m delighted to

have them here today. Would the House please make them most

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ASK WELLNESS SOCIETY

AND FUNDRAISING

PAGEANT

T. Stone: I’m pleased to speak today about the life-changing services

provided by the ASK Wellness Society, which serves thousands of clients

in Kamloops, Merritt and the surrounding region. The vision of ASK

Wellness is to work towards a society that recognizes the value and

dignity of each and every individual. This requires acceptance of the

choices that individuals make and an acknowledgement of the

disproportionate impact of harm to certain groups due to individual and

cultural realities.

ASK Wellness has evolved into a large non-profit social

development agency serving marginalized members and persons at risk

within our community. Their services range from 424 units of supportive

housing, crisis funding and harm reduction to overdose prevention,

street outreach and employment services. The evolution of ASK Wellness

has been led by Bob Hughes, who is supported by a talented team, all of

whom who go above and beyond to meet the often complex needs of their

clients. Their individual dedication and their collective work save

lives every single day. When Bob Hughes and his team speak out on topics

like mental health, addiction recovery and inclusion, their credibility

demands that we all listen.

[10:15 a.m.]

Last Saturday I was pleased to attend the third annual ASK

Wellness Mx Judged fundraiser, a gender-blending pageant that welcomes

contestants who challenge gender stereotypes by showcasing their talents

and unique style while raising awareness about stigma, beauty and

inclusion. Presented in collaboration with Kamloops Pride, this pageant

is all about advocating for people who experience discrimination based

on sexual orientation and gender identity expression, including lesbian,

gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning and two-spirit individuals

living in the Kamloops region.

This year’s Mx Judged Pageant winner Peter Cameron-Inglis said:

“When I put on those heels, it’s uncomfortable and hard to get around,

demonstrating what it’s like to walk in another person’s shoes. We’ve

all gone through challenges. We’re all human beings, and I think it’s

important that we don’t define people by one single thing or set of

circumstances.” I couldn’t agree more.

Hope is not a dream, but a way of making dreams become reality. We

are so fortunate to have ASK Wellness in our community, where hope is at

the centre of every­thing they do.

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA AND

BIPHOBIA

G. Begg: Tomorrow, Friday, May 17, is the International Day Against

Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia in the province of British

Columbia. The date was specifically chosen to commemorate the World

Health Organization’s decision in 1990 to declassify homosexuality as a

mental disorder. Many countries still have laws in place that forbid

homosexuality and prohibit diversity in terms of sexual orientation and

gender identity.

Even in Canada, many people who identify as LGBTQ still face

discrimination and victimization. The universal declaration of human

rights recognizes the right to sexuality, which includes the right to be

free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Social

and cultural stereotypes about sexual orientation and gender, and

prejudice and fear towards the LGBTQ+ community are often at the core of

discrimination and harassment.

This day, tomorrow, aims to celebrate sexual and gender diversity

and to campaign against the violence and discrimination experienced by

LGBTQ people all around the world. I know that my colleague the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity will be proclaiming this day.

She has done an incredible job in leading our government’s commitment to

advancing gender equity in all four corners of this province.

Through strength, resilience and activism, LGBTQ+ people have made

important gains toward equality over the past decades, but we must

continue to work until everyone in B.C. lives with safety, respect and

dignity. LGBTQ kids face higher rates of depression and suicide because

of the bullying they face in schools from both children and adults. To

help all kids feel safe and accepted, our government is supporting

sexual orientation and gender identity, SOGI, education in

schools.

Our government is dedicated to improving the services that people

rely on, and we will work to ensure that these services — like

education, health care and our justice system — are inclusive and

respectful of people of all genders and sexual orientations. We will

continue working towards a brighter future, where everyone is free to be

who they are and to love whom they love.

J. Thornthwaite: Tomorrow is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia

and Biphobia — a day aimed to bring awareness to the countless and

needless LGBTQ rights violations perpetrated daily across the globe and

to stimulate discussion, dialogue, understanding and advocacy in the

fight for the rights of millions of people.

The rights of LGBTQ people have come a long way since May 17,

1990, the day the World Health Organization officially removed

homosexuality from the international classification of diseases. We have

made progressive steps in tolerance and acceptance in our society and in

our communities, yet in spite of these positives, prejudice, hate,

misunderstanding and misinterpretation have flourished in the era of the

on school boards.

This is why days of action like tomorrow are so important. During

my time as Parliamentary Secretary for Child Mental Health and

Anti-Bullying, our government introduced legislation that included

gender identity and expression in the human rights code and to

explicitly protect trans individuals.

[10:20 a.m.]

We mandated SOGI policies in all public and private schools.

Programs like Out in Schools empower students and educators to create

inclusive school environments. It has reached more than 100,000 youth

across B.C. and is a proven tool against bullying and teen suicide.

Increasing popularity and inclusion in events like Pride and the

International Day of Pink continue to grow and help further the progress

of acceptance and reduce the rise of bigotry.

I was very proud to hear that Mayor Linda Buchanan has declared a

proclamation that tomorrow is the International Day Against Homophobia,

Transphobia and Biphobia in the city of North Vancouver. So tomorrow

reach out and take part, because the rights of the LGBTQ community are

human rights.

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, do you want a really hard, challenging, non-stop, tiring

occupation? Do you want to do that each and every day, sometimes into

the night? No, I’m not talking about being an MLA. Being an MLA — that’s

easy. I’m talking about being a child care provider. Happy child care

provider day.

I say that because too often those that look after children are

undervalued in society, and it’s been long a challenge, largely due to

sexism. But that’s changing. I’m so glad it’s changing. It’s about time,

because those that look after children — child care providers — are

looking after the future.

Those that look after children are looking out for a better day, a

day where youth have the education, the emotional maturity, the love,

the nurturing, the challenge and the opportunity to grow, to thrive, to

be bigger than we currently are, to be better than we currently are, to

lead a better world than we currently have given them.

It’s an incredible obligation and an incredible responsibility. I

want to say thank you. And I’m sure that I say thank you on behalf of

all British Columbians to child care providers across this province,

whether they do it as an occupation or whether they do it at home with

their own children. It’s an incredible responsibility you take on, on

behalf of all of us.

We need more of you. Indeed, I know in my constituency and in

constituencies across this of province that people are actively looking

for more child care. They need it, and the children need it. I think the

government’s efforts to increase wages and provide better training and

more support to grow the number of child care spaces in this province is

certainly urgently needed.

Really, we all can do something to increase child care

opportunities across the province, and that starts by saying thank you

and looking to find more ways that we can support the efforts of child

care providers — more ways to support, whether they be parents, in a

non-profit or in other forms of child care across B.C.

Happy Child Care Provider Appreciation Day.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND EQUALITY

S. Furstenau: Every time I vote, I think of all of the women who came before me.

I think of those who fought and protested and died standing up for my

right to stand in the ballot box.

In Canada, women were first given the status of persons in 1928.

We did not achieve universal suffrage — the right to vote for all women

— until 1960. In 1983, sexual assault and rape within the context of

marriage became a crime. In 1985, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

formally established protection from discrimination on the basis of

sex.

But gender equality has not been a linear path, and we’ve moved

backwards on many fronts. In 1993, Kim Campbell served as Canada’s first

woman Prime Minister, but for less than five months. Canada has never

elected a second female Prime Minister. In Canadian political history,

there have only been 11 female Premiers, and only one was ever

re-elected.

There are more jarring numbers. One in three women will experience

sexual violence in their lifetime, and that estimate is low. Women of

colour and Indigenous women, those who are differently abled, those who

are LGBTQ2+ are far more likely to live in poverty. They’re more likely

to be assaulted, more likely to be murdered, and they are not paid

equitably.

While we’ve made strides, we have to remain committed to these

efforts. We have finally become persons with the right to vote, but now

our legally protected right over our own bodies is being questioned.

This week Alabama legislators passed a bill that effectively

criminalizes all abortion, including in the case of rape and

incest.

Women’s rights are not a partisan issue. Women’s rights are human

rights.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let’s focus on creating a world where no child lives in poverty,

no child wants for clean water or a safe home. Let’s focus on

eradicating poverty, discrimination and divisiveness. This is the work

that truly matters.

FAMILY PHYSICIANS

M. Elmore: May 19, 2019, is the second B.C. Family Doctor Day. This special

day of celebration and recognition for the more than 6,000 family

doctors who practise across our province was initiated in 2018, thanks

to a proclamation from the province of B.C., at the request of the B.C.

College of Family Physicians.

This year the College of Family Physicians of Canada has taken the

B.C. chapter’s lead, making this a national day of recognition. The day

is timed to coincide with World Family Doctor Day, which takes place on

May 19 each year.

This year’s theme is the lifelong care provided by family doctors.

We know that family doctors play a unique and critical role in our

health care system. Family doctors specialize in providing lifelong

care, and having your own family doctor is good for your

health.

That’s why I’m so proud that our government has successfully

signed a new master agreement with doctors across B.C., ratified at an

incredible rate of 98 percent; a new agreement with resident doctors,

ratified at 87 percent. In partnership with family doctors, our province

is successful in terms of already establishing 15 primary care networks,

eight urgent primary care centres and really ensuring that all British

Columbians have access to adequate primary care and the care they

deserve in our province.

I especially want to recognize and appreciate and thank family

doctors for being on the front lines of the opioid crisis in our

province and for their role in supporting people in this difficult and

challenging time. I ask everybody to please join me to celebrate B.C.

Family Doctor Day in B.C. and to thank doctors for all they do every day

for all of us here in British Columbia.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

S. Bond: Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’ Services said that when the

March letter was received by the chief of staff to the Premier, “the

allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support

them.”

Can the minister today explain what steps Geoff Meggs took to

conduct the review, and will she table the findings today?

Hon. J. Sims: It is disappointing to see that the opposition continues to spread

unfounded accusations. The information is so torqued and taken out of

context that it does not match the reality. And because it appears

records have been taken out of my constituency office, there are some

major concerns around that.

Let me make it very, very clear. My CA is not an employee of

government. She is an employee of the caucus — of mine. When a letter

was received, there was a meeting that was held. At that meeting, there

was the caucus director and the chief of staff from the Premier’s

office. The information was reviewed and passed over to the director of

caucus services, and it was found to be without basis.

That’s where it belongs. It’s an employment matter of an employee

who worked for me for six weeks, and that is where it rests. It does not

rest with government. It rests with the director of caucus.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, one thing that does rest with the government and with the

Premier is the behaviour of his cabinet ministers, including this one.

Every day a different story from this minister. So let’s check this

again.

[10:30 a.m.]

The minister stood here in the House yesterday, and she confirmed

again this morning that the chief of staff to the Premier, Geoff Meggs,

conducted a review of what are very serious and extensive allegations of

a whistleblower — who, by the way, had the courage to stand up and

complain about this minister’s behaviour.

The minister should be embarrassed about constantly throwing that

person under the bus. She had the courage to stand up and bring forward

her complaints to the point where the chief of staff, Geoff Meggs,

reviewed the allegations.

Let’s be clear. What we want today are the details and

documentation.

If a review was conducted, can the minister explain how it was

done, where the records are, where the documentation is, and will she

table them today?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said previously, the opposition continues to torque the

material they have been handed by an ex-employee who worked for me for

six weeks, and continues to mislead and confuse.

Let me make it very clear.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: This individual was a CA and did not work for government. The

matters raised in the March 4 letter relate to her six-week employment

as a constituency assistant. When the March letter was received, after

the individual’s employment had ended, the chief of staff to the Premier

met with the executive director of caucus.

The allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to

support them. The matter was dealt with by caucus, as she was not a

government employee. That is appropriate, because it is a human

resources matter, as the members opposite well know.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: The minister can stand here and try to dismiss what are serious

and well-documented allegations. The minister knows that. There have

been letters from a lawyer. There has been ongoing conversation in the

Premier’s office about this matter. What makes the charges even more

serious are this minister’s ongoing dubious actions.

The fact of the matter is, yesterday was the first time that this

minister admitted that the chief of staff to the Premier, Geoff Meggs,

conducted a review — not my words, the minister’s words. They were

serious enough that they were brought to the chief of staff to the

Premier. There are some pretty basic questions that this minister or

someone over there needs to answer.

Was the whistle-blower or anyone else interviewed, and were the

minister’s texts, WhatsApp messages or any other records examined during

the review?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said earlier, once the letter was received — and it was

received after the employee had finished working in my office — the

chief of staff to the Premier met with the executive director of caucus.

The allegations were reviewed, and there was no evidence to support them

— period.

P. Milobar: Imagine, if you will, if the employee, the whistle-blower who was

fired one week after starting to bring forward these allegations, had

actually been able to be employed for eight weeks instead of six weeks

so that we’d actually know what happened in the minister’s

office.

You do have to wonder who’s actually in charge of this government,

because on Monday, the Premier said: “I’m not aware of any

investigation.” However, yesterday and all day today, so far, the

minister has claimed: “When the March letter was received by the chief

of staff to the Premier…the allegations were reviewed.” That means that

Geoff Meggs, the Premier’s chief of staff, was investigating, and the

Premier knew nothing about it. I find that very hard to

believe.

To the minister, which is it — was the Premier completely out of

the loop on what’s going on in his own office on serious allegations

about a minister of the Crown, or was there no investigation whatsoever,

as the Premier said on Monday?

Hon. J. Sims: I am absolutely disappointed that the opposition continues to ask

the same question over and over again, and I will keep answering

it.

[10:35 a.m.]

As I have said before….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. J. Sims: The information is torqued and taken out of context, and it does

not match reality. You have to know that those records were taken out of

my constituency, and the members across the way have helped to spread

documents — taken from my constituency office, containing people’s

personal information — all over the Internet. People in my community

deserve better.

And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …I’m very proud of the work I do in my constituency in serving my

constituents. I’m going to continue to do that, and you can do all the

gotcha moments you like.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: I’m very disappointed. I’m very disappointed in the minister and

her lack of answers this week, because every single day this week we’ve

heard a different answer to the very simple question about what steps

the government took to investigate these serious allegations.

On Monday, the Premier, who’s supposed to be in charge of

everything, said there was no investigation. On Tuesday, the Attorney

General said it was up to the Privacy Commissioner. Yesterday the

minister revealed that the Premier’s chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, had

already conducted an investigation on his own, back in March.

Again, where is the documentation to back up the minister’s claim,

and will she table it today, verifying that there actually was an

investigation?

Hon. J. Sims: Once again my colleagues across the way are taking a human

resources issue that rightfully belongs with the director of caucus and

are trying to mislead, to say that there is something that happened

here. Let me…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …take on some of the issues that have been raised by my colleagues

as they’ve been shopping around to get a pickup on this story. Yesterday

they raised an event….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you requested an answer. Let’s hear it.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday they raised an event with the Chinese community,

claiming it was a political fundraiser. The event the members opposite

raised was, in fact, All for Love, a megacommunity charity dinner event

on February 22. It was a community charity event with proceeds to go to

the Vancouver Children’s Hospital. The members yesterday said

that.

My job is to represent all of the constituents. I take that

seriously. I do my job, and human resources issues are dealt with by the

director of caucus services.

SOIL DISPOSAL SITE IN

SHAWNIGAN LAKE

WATERSHED

S. Furstenau: I rise again today to speak on behalf of my community and to state

our opposition once again to the ludicrous notion that massive amounts

of contaminated soil ever should have been placed directly into our

drinking watershed, potentially impacting the drinking water of 12,000

residents.

It isn’t just me who thinks this. It isn’t just my community and

numerous experts that believe this risk is unacceptable. The Premier

himself has also stated his opposition. In January of 2017, the Premier

stated: “When the plan to dump contaminated soil in the Shawnigan Lake

watershed was put forward, New Democrats stood with the Shawnigan Lake

community against it.”

They are now in government, and my question is to the Premier and

his government. Do they still stand with the people of Shawnigan Lake on

this issue?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for both her question and for her

advocacy for her community, as well as for protection of drinking water

and the environment generally.

[10:40 a.m.]

I want to also recognize the many residents of the area who have

spoken to this, advocated on this issue, brought it to public attention

and continue to stand up for the protection of their drinking

water.

When we were in opposition, our position was clear. Our position

was clear that the people’s drinking water should not have been

compromised. The dumping stopped. We are now in government, and we are

working hard and diligently through a number of measures. Ministry

staff, independent professionals are reviewing plans, collecting data to

ensure that at the end of the day, the drinking water for the residents

of Shawnigan Lake will be protected and that the plan — the completion

of dealing with the contaminated soil on the site — is scientifically

based and protects people’s environment and drinking water.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: These sound like words that we’ve heard for many years in

Shawnigan. My community is still struggling with the fact that the

contaminated soil deposited at this site could remain there and that

more soil could be coming and that this government has been unable or

unwilling to resolve this issue.

I want to restate some of the Premier’s words from 2016. In an

interview with Focus magazine, he stated the following: “It’s

not rocket science; it’s not even science. It’s a tone-deaf government

that didn’t look at the circumstances they were creating. Shut this

thing down, and let’s start working on a solution that’s in the interest

of the people that live here.” I and my constituents have serious

concerns that the closure plan in front of the Minister of Environment

is not in the interest of the people who live in Shawnigan

Lake.

In the spring of 2016, the Premier stated: “The government is not

listening to the people here. They are listening to the permit holders.

It’s time that the government represented the people and not the permit

holders.”

My question is to the Premier. Will his government listen to the

people now, many of whom he used to represent as an MLA, and not allow

for the permit holders to dictate a solution that is not in the best

interests of the people of Shawnigan Lake?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again to the member, the Premier spoke in the House about the

situation in Shawnigan Lake when he was the Leader of the Official

Opposition. The member’s predecessor as MLA, Bill Routley, raised, over

30 times in question period and statements, the issues. The member asks

what this government is doing to protect the water and the environment

for the residents of Shawnigan Lake. We are being as transparent as we

can be.

The surface- and groundwater in the area are monitored monthly.

Status reports are submitted twice every month to the ministry. All of

these reports are posted. The member, as well as people from the

community, have met with ministry staff on more than one occasion. They

have had a comprehensive discussion about the draft closure plans that

were posted so that they could, in fact, review it and give us their

comments. Their input and their commentary are taken very, very

seriously.

At the end of the day, the information that will come before me,

upon which I will make a decision, will be whether or not a closure plan

as proposed is adequate or whether it is inadequate. We take that issue

very seriously in the ministry. It is being reviewed carefully as we

speak, and I intend to give it the kind of rigorous review to protect

water and the environment for the residents of Shawnigan Lake that they

deserve. They deserve no less.

VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services spent five months attempting to

help NDP friends and insiders jump the queue through expedited visa

applications. On Tuesday, she admitted to the media: “I wrote the

letters.” In her letters, she misrepresented her relationship with these

applicants, vouched for individuals she didn’t know and did so on behalf

of her political backers.

A question to the minister: what specific steps did Geoff Meggs,

chief of staff to the Premier, take to review this

misconduct?

Hon. J. Sims: As I’ve said previously, my colleagues across the way are taking

information that is torqued, taking it out of context and using it to

criticize what is a human resources matter of an employee who was in my

service for six weeks. And let me….

[10:45 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. J. Sims: And let me say that there is a lot of information that my

colleagues are perpetuating out there. I’ll just refer to a fundraiser

that they were talking about yesterday.

Then they talked about some contract for a website the other day.

And you know what? I’ve got the invoice for that, and I’ll gladly share

that with my colleagues. They were claiming that an invoice was done for

work on a website but that the contractor didn’t know the password to

the website. I have the invoice right here. It clearly shows the work —

you providing it to the media — was for providing outreach…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

contractor was never supposed to work on a website. There was no reason

to have the password.

Plus, you keep talking about all of these donations, visas for

donations. I have repeated many, many times — and these are false

statements from my colleagues across the way — that I have not taken any

money for the casework I do because I get paid a salary. And I’m proud

of the work I do for my constituents.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: You know, this minister keeps talking about representing her

constituents. These are Pakistani nationals on a watch list. She

continues to forget that. She ignores that. A reminder: she is the MLA

for Surrey-Panorama, not Islamabad North.

This is about her actions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: This is about her actions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order please.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, order. Thank you.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Johal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s look at the letters this minister wrote. Each person is

“sponsored by myself.” They are “my friends I’ll be hosting.” “I take

full responsibility.” She describes their deep roots in Pakistan, what

insurance they will have, their financial situations and details of past

travel. And finally, she lists her ministerial title.

When asked about this last item on Tuesday, the minister said:

“Immediately I read the letter, and I thought: ‘Where did this paragraph

come from?’ That’s what happened.”

The problem is more than one paragraph. Will the minister drop her

evasions and actually take full responsibility?

Hon. J. Sims: I’m an MLA in a very diverse community, and I live in a very

diverse province, and I’m very, very proud of that — to be a

representative for Surrey-Panorama. And I am offended by the language

used by my colleague across the way to try to divide my constituents and

to practise politics of fear, instead of bringing people

together.

When constituents….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we are using up valuable question period

time.

Minister.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: When constituents walk into my riding office, I do not ask them

about their religion. I do not ask them about their ethnicity. I do not

ask them about their political affiliation. I do not ask them who they

voted for. My job, once I’m an elected MLA, is to serve each and every

constituent that walks into my office. And that’s what I do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

VISA REFERENCE LETTERS BY

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER

AND

POLITICAL FUNDRAISING ISSUES

J. Thornthwaite: While the whistle-blower has been consistent, this minister has

been all over the map. She said, “I don’t sponsor visa applications,”

but the letter said: “These applicants are sponsored by myself.” Then

she said, “They asked me for a letter, and I wrote it,” but later she

said: “The letter was written by the legislative office.”

These conflicting statements can’t all be true. What is the

minister’s explanation today?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said previously, I take my job as an elected official very,

very seriously, and I make sure that when my constituents come in, I

provide them with the assistance I can. And if they need to go to other

quarters to get other assistance, we reroute them that way.

As the MLAs across the way know…. After all, they also have CA

staff who work for them. They know that this is a human resources issue.

It’s a human resources matter, and the human resources matter was dealt

with through the channels that it should be dealt with.

And let me say that I do know two of the individuals looking to

visit, and they both have received visas.

However, a number of letters — and I have said this before — were

sent out with my electronic signature. I take full responsibility for

that. When I became aware of the issue, I immediately put processes in

place to ensure that it would not happen again.

Now, while the opposition wants to keep focusing on gotcha

politics, let me share with them the amazing stuff…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Sims: …that people are excited about in British Columbia. Over 450

communities linked with high-speed Internet, either in process or

already done. And you know something? To me….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m trying to do a job, for my colleagues across the way. But I

can tell you that for rural communities, it means better health care,

better access to education and economic development.

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

J. Thornthwaite: The minister can deflect all she wants, but these are serious

implications here for a minister of the Crown. The October 29 email

chain between the minister and her fundraising chair, Rabina Sattar,

shows the minister had direct involvement in this dubious scheme. Ms.

Sattar is also the individual who involved both the minister’s

legislative and ministerial staff in trying to play a partisan political

fundraiser to “get the Chinese money.”

How can the minister explain these activities of her fundraising

chair, which crossed the line to involve both her non-partisan

constituency office and her government staff?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I really see a sense of desperation when my colleague asks that

question.

Let me answer that question. Let me answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we might, I’m hoping we can get another

question in. We’ll only be able to do that if we can get the answer

quickly. Thank you.

Hon. J. Sims: The event that my colleagues across the way have raised was, in

fact, an event called All for Love megacommunity charity dinner event.

It was a community charity event with proceeds to go to the Vancouver

Children’s Hospital. The member said yesterday that they had the event

program. Then they would have known from the event program that this

event was sponsored by four different Chinese community

organizations.

I just want to say that when a community organization has an

event, and they’re raising funds to help the Children’s Hospital, I’m

always delighted to attend. I go to all kinds of events. And you know

what? I will continue to do that.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

M. Polak: Well, I want to go back to the review or investigation — if there,

in fact, was one. The minister has omitted something from the timeline,

and that is that the March 4 letter wasn’t the first time that this CA

raised concerns. The first time the CA raised concerns was to go

directly to the executive director of caucus.

This minister has said in here that that was the right place to

go. It wasn’t for this constituency assistant, because of course she was

promptly fired after that. Then the March 4 letter goes in, and at that

point, we’ve heard now — although it was different a couple of days ago

— that Geoff Meggs sat down with the executive director of caucus, and

they reviewed the matter.

There’s a really easy way for this minister to remove any cloud

over her, when it seems to be descending ever lower every day, and that

is to table what information they came up with that cleared her from any

wrongdoing with respect to these allegations. She could table that here

today.

If an investigation was indeed conducted, if Geoff Meggs actually

reviewed the material and looked into it, where is the documentation,

where is the report, and will the minister table that in the House

today?

Hon. J. Sims: The allegations in that letter were reviewed, and there was no

evidence to support them. And as I said previously, it’s a matter for

the director of caucus.

[End of question period.]

L. Throness: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: My cousin is in the House today. Joy Dirks is here from Calgary along

with her husband, Gordon. Joy was a citizenship judge for many years. Also,

Gordon was Minister of Social Services in Saskatchewan and, more recently,

Minister of Education in Alberta. Would the House please welcome

them.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Brar: I reserve my right to rise on a point of privilege on comments made by

the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: Pursuant to the order by motion adopted by this House on March 7,

2019, I rise on behalf of the official opposition House Leader, the Third

Party House Leader and myself to report on the conclusions of the fair,

impartial and independent special investigation conducted by the Rt. Hon.

Beverley McLachlin to determine whether either or both the Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly, Craig James, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, Gary Lenz,

engaged in misconduct in the course of their employment.

[11:00 a.m.]

The work of the special investigator was limited to administrative

misconduct within the scope of the employment relationship between each of

the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms within the Legislative Assembly, taking

into account the rules, practices and policies of the Legislative Assembly.

The special investigation is one of several processes through which the

Legislative Assembly is addressing the significant concerns that you

identified, Mr. Speaker, in your report of January 21, 2019.

I note, also, that a comprehensive audit, led by the Auditor General,

is currently underway and that a workplace review and an organizational

reconciliation are forthcoming.

As an institution that expends public funds and serves in the public

interest, the Legislative Assembly must uphold and safeguard the respect and

trust of British Columbians.

The terms of reference of the special investigation required that the

House Leaders receive the report of the special investigator on or before

May 3, 2019. The House Leaders received Ms. McLachlin’s report on May

On behalf of all members, I wish to thank the Rt. Hon. Beverley

McLachlin for accepting to undertake this very important work and completing

her mandate within what was a relatively short time frame. Her assistance to

this institution is greatly appreciated.

The special investigation was a confidential process. The copy of the

report that I hereby table has been redacted in a manner that respects that

witnesses who testified before the special investigator understood that

their identity would be protected to the extent possible without hindering

the ability of the House to understand the special investigator’s

conclusions regarding the allegations against the Clerk and the

Sergeant-at-Arms.

I would also like to express appreciation to all witnesses who

participated in this process, many of whom are current staff of the

assembly.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by this House on March 7, 2019, I am

tabling the report of the special investigator. The House Leaders accept all

the recommendations of Ms. McLachlin in her report. In addition to her

findings, Ms. McLachlin included in her report observations, and noted

several policy areas the Legislative Assembly ought to consider.

The House Leaders are pleased to inform Mr. Speaker and all members,

by way of a status report I hereby table, of the considerable efforts

already undertaken by the staff of the Legislative Assembly, under the

direction of the acting Clerk, to strengthen existing policies through a

review for any necessary amendments and compliance enforcement in the areas

noted by Ms. McLachlin, as well as others that have been

identified.

By leave, I am tabling the status report on the Legislative Assembly

administrative reforms.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I return now to the mandate of the special investigator, which was to

make findings of fact on whether either or both the Clerk and the

Sergeant-at-Arms (1) improperly, and knowingly, received improper payouts of

vacation pay by reason of their failure to record vacation leave;

(2) improperly made purchases of a personal nature and expensed them to the

Legislative Assembly; (3) improperly claimed and received retirement

allowances; (4) improperly removed Legislative Assembly assets and property;

or (5) improperly used Legislative Assembly property beyond an incidental or

reasonable work-related purpose.

[11:05 a.m.]

The findings of Ms. McLachlin are as follows. The Sergeant-at-Arms,

Mr. Lenz, did not engage in misconduct with respect to any of the five

allegations. Having considered the findings of the special investigator,

with the benefit of legal counsel and in a manner that respects procedural

fairness, Mr. Lenz continues on administrative leave with pay and benefits,

pursuant to the motion adopted by this House on November 20, 2018, and in

With respect to the Clerk, the special investigator found that Mr.

James did engage in misconduct with respect to four of the five allegations

— specifically, in relation to making expense claims for improper purchases

of a personal nature, by directing the creation of three benefits to his

personal advantage outside of established protocols, improperly removing

Legislative Assembly property from the legislative precinct without

accounting for it and by improperly using legislative property for personal

purposes.

I wish to inform this House that Craig James has retired, effective

today, and that a non-financial settlement has been reached between Mr.

James and the Legislative Assembly.

Motions Without Notice

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

CONCERNING CLERK AND

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. Farnworth: Finally, with respect to documents relating to the special

investigation, as recommended by the House Leaders, by leave, I

move….

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that:

[

(1) The Special Investigation into allegations against the

Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia now having been concluded and reported to this House,

transcripts created in connection with the Special Investigation and the

contents of those transcripts, including the identity of witnesses who

participated in the confidential Special Investigation are covered by

parliamentary privilege, and:

(

a) shall be kept confidential by all persons who hold

a copy of the transcripts or have knowledge of the contents of the

transcripts, and

(

b) shall not be disclosed for any purpose, unless

authorized by order of the Legislative Assembly, or by written agreement

of all recognized party House Leaders on its behalf, if required to be

produced pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction;

and

(2) This order does not relate to information that is already

known to the public by virtue of being included in the Report of the

Speaker dated January 21, 2019 or unredacted from the report of the

Special Investigator.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. And in Committee

A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 19, the

Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[11:10 a.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — WITNESS SECURITY ACT

Bill 4, Witness Security Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Amendment Act.

BILL 7 — BUSINESS PRACTICES AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 7, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act,

2019, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency

Act.

BILL 23 — LAND OWNER

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 15, Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

M. Bernier: As we know, yesterday when we left off, obviously, talking about

Bill 15 and some of the impacts that the bill is projecting to have on

the people in the province of British Columbia, specifically the

agricultural industry…. Some of the discussion we were having was around

the fact that not only was consultation not really brought in at all in

this, but it’s another heavy-handed approach, where the minister and

this government are imposing a top-down view, from Victoria, on how

people should be running their farming operations and how they should be

expected to manage the agricultural sector.

[11:15 a.m.]

Again, this bill that has been in front of us is all about

protecting farmland with nothing in there to help farmers. I talked

about that yesterday because in my region and great parts of northern

B.C., where a good majority of the agricultural land reserve is, it puts

huge pressure on our farmers, who are struggling as it is, to make a

living, to be able to work on the farm — whether it’s in ranching

operations or agricultural around some of the cereal crops that are

grown. And then with the added pressures that we have right now on the

canola industry, this is something that needs to be taken into

consideration.

If the minister and this government really want to be helping the

agricultural industry, they need to ensure that there are policies and

supports to allow the farmers to actually be on the land, to look for

opportunities to make extra income.

We also need to remember that this is not actually about one

region or another. Now, of course, when we were in government, we did a

lot of work — and in my opinion, didn’t even go far enough — to

recognize that there are differences in having a two-zone approach, to

make sure we had those supports for people, to allow extra opportunities

for people in zone 2 and rural areas to make sure that they could look

for those, sometimes, just small opportunities to make a little extra

money to be able to stay on the farm.

Remember that these farmers, these people who work in the

agricultural industry — a lot of them in my area actually work in the

oil and gas sector. Maybe they’re also working in forestry, working in

mining. They’re working in other areas, and they’re using the income

from those other jobs to work in the agricultural industry. So it’s not

about one or the other. These all coexist in a lot of ways in rural B.C.

to make sure people can stay on the farm.

There’s also a connection between the north and the south. In

fact, in the last six, eight months, I continue to get calls and emails

from places in southern British Columbia, in the Fraser Valley, in parts

of Surrey, where people have operations — whether it’s a chicken farm, a

dairy farm — that rely on the north, that rely on our opportunities of a

successful agricultural industry, because they need the product for

feed.

I’ve had so many people from the south who have contacted me and

said: “If rural B.C. can’t stay productive in the agricultural sector,

we’re going to have to start buying more of our product from Alberta or

the United States.” This is another example of this government not

looking holistically at the province and how it’s all interconnected.

This is not about one region. It’s about how the agricultural sector

needs to thrive provincewide.

Now, yesterday the member for Delta South again spoke very

eloquently on his experiences. He spoke about the stresses. He’s hearing

from the different sectors and from farmers and ranchers from around the

province on the pressure that they are under right now. They are not

looking for more regulation. They’re not looking for more restriction.

They’re not looking for more hoops to have to jump through. They’re just

looking for any means possible to make a living and be able to do what

they were taught by their parents.

Most people in the agricultural sector…. It’s multi-generational.

All they’re hoping for is the opportunity to continue on, on the farm,

and at the very least, instil that work ethic and those opportunities

and the hope for their children to be able to do the same when they want

to pass that farm along.

The minister is going to have a chance to stand up in this House

very soon and defend this bill, and she’s going to have to have a lot of

answers to the questions that we’re going to be bringing to this House.

We’ve already raised, myself and colleagues who have spoken before me,

some of the challenges that we have with this bill and why we can’t

support this bill. The minister’s own words in this document are being

challenged, not only by us but by people in the agricultural sector.

There are parts of the bill that some people can support.

[11:20 a.m.]

But when you have a bill that is, again, taking rights away from

our farmers, when it’s imposing views from a part of the province where

people don’t even live, when people in the north are just looking for

those opportunities and when they apply for, whether it’s an exclusion

or anything on their farm to try to help them stay on there and then

somebody makes a decision down south who has never even been to that

area….

Now, I don’t want to accuse the people who are on the commission.

They have a job to do. But they take their direction from this minister

through legislation. That’s why it’s important we stand up in this House

and challenge that legislation — to ensure that the proper tools and

proper supports go to decision-makers. That’s the minister’s

responsibility. And she’s falling short, we would say, with this

bill.

I mentioned yesterday, towards the end of my comments, and want to

highlight again, how I was in Williams Lake and 100 Mile House and that

area and the challenges that they are facing — land that is designated

as agricultural land where you can’t do anything on it. You know, we

have places where ranchers can’t even put their cattle out because of

the terrain, the rock and the lack of feed that’s out there. Yet it’s

designated as ALR land.

If the minister and this government truly want to do something

productive, they need to go back to those 4.6 million hectares of land

that are in the ALR and actually focus and spend some time to say: “What

is appropriate agricultural land?” Maybe it’s only two million or three

million hectares, but it’s good, productive land. Then we can be

focusing on that land and saying: “How do we make sure that that land is

best suited for agriculture, best supported for agriculture and that the

farmers on that land have the supports necessary to be able to do what

they can in that industry?”

To continue to go after agricultural people when they’re making, I

would say, very legitimate arguments about why land should not be in the

agricultural reserve, legitimate arguments with documentation of why

that land is not productive and why they can better use that land to

actually generate income for the farm — back to the point of

opportunities to help these multigenerational people stay on the farm….

That’s what we should be looking at. We should not be looking at ways to

restrict them even further — through policy, regulation or legislation —

that are actually going to hurt them.

I also mentioned and want to, again, highlight the fact that I’m

hearing from local government that this is another download. Of course,

local government — whether it’s regional districts or municipalities,

depending on where the agricultural land falls, in which jurisdiction —

want to have a say and be part of decision-making when it comes to land

use, zoning and projections around how they want to see their region or

municipalities grow. But in this legislation, it’s downloading the work

to them with zero opportunity to have a say in the decision, and that is

wrong.

If you’re going to be putting the work to local government, they

should have a say, and that information should be validated through the

Agricultural Land Commission and give them opportunity to not just dot

the i’s and cross the t’s and download the work to them with little

resources or capacity in so many areas. If they’re going to do that,

where’s the support from this government for that work? And where is the

validation that if they’re going to do that work, their decision will

actually be considered, going forward, with the commission? That’s not

in here.

I’d have a lot more support for a bill that was put forward if it

was actually downloading it like this to the local government — that at

the same time, the minister would stand up and say, “And by the way, if

your decision is yes or no, that will be, actually, the decision that

will go forward.” Rather than, as I’ve seen in my nine years when I was

in local government, whether it came through us or whether it was a

local individual who applied for an exclusion…. That, again, is very

rare. Contrary to what the minister says, this is not happening all the

time.

[11:25 a.m.]

But it’s very difficult when all of that work is done, when a

person hires consultants, when they hire agrologists, when they do all

of the work and then somebody who never even comes to the area looks at

a map and says: “Sorry, it’s in the ALR. You’re not going to be given

permission to do anything on it.”

How frustrating, how disappointing, how maddening that is for

people in our province who are actually just trying to do the right

thing. They’re actually trying to do what’s right for agriculture, for

their families, and they’re being told by this government and the

commission no.

If we truly want to be helping these people, the minister will

have an opportunity in committee stage to probably put forward some

reasonable arguments and reasonable changes to actually validate the

concerns that I hope she’s hearing.

Now, when I raised these the other day, the minister heckled me,

saying that she’s not hearing these. It must be just us. Well, I hope

the minister was inaccurate when she was saying that, because we know

there are people out there speaking out. It’s not just us. It’s the

industry partners in agriculture. It’s the farmers. It’s the people who

are frustrated, because they feel that their rights are being taken

away, and they want help. They want support. They don’t want more rules

and regulations that are going to hurt them and make them be put into a

tough decision of “why am I doing this? Why am I even

bothering?”

We want to help these farmers. We don’t want to see agricultural

land sitting there stagnant because people give up. We want a government

that shows leadership and supports people, supports opportunities and

makes sure at the end of the day that we have and continue to have a

thriving agricultural industry, a government and people who are proud of

the success and something that continues on — not just building the

province to today, but something we can say in generations from now that

government didn’t put barriers. Government stood up and actually put

mechanisms in place to support people to ensure that we have

opportunities for decades and generations to come.

This bill is not going to do that. I beg, on behalf of the

agricultural people in the province of B.C. and people in my riding, for

this minister to take a second look at this bill and realize the flaws

and realize that at the end of the day, this is not helping people. It

actually needs to do better.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister to conclude the

debate.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a pleasure to close off second reading so we can get into the

exciting part of the bill, which is committee stage. I’m looking forward

to that debate.

What I’ve heard from the opposition has been very interesting.

It’s unfortunate that the opposition has been very committed in their

speakers to try and continue to misinform the public about what we are

doing with this agricultural bill.

They did this in the bill in the fall, and we are still seeing

misinformation that’s being disseminated by the opposition. In fact,

this is the opposition that voted against stopping

mega-mansions.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Popham: And they voted against dumping construction fill on farmland. They

voted against stopping that. They have taken great issue with the idea

that the changes that we’re making are to address speculation on

farmland. They don’t believe there’s any speculation.

It’s very hard to hear this from the official opposition, because

we know one of the biggest barriers for farmers starting to farm is the

cost of the land. We have had this message out there. Because of the

last 16 years of that government, there has been a message that’s been

loud and clear. You will be able to have the opportunity to build larger

homes. You can have fill dumped on your farmland — so much fill — and be

paid for that fill to be dumped on your farmland, because you can make

more money under that government — farming fill rather than farming

agricultural products.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: So what we’ve done is we’ve taken a look at recommendations that

came forward from an independent committee.

[11:30 a.m.]

As the critic for eight years in Agriculture, I heard loud and

clear, as I travelled the province non-stop, from the farming community

how important the agricultural land reserve was. One thing I also heard

was that you can’t just protect the farmland; you also have to bring in

policies that support farming, and that’s exactly what we’re

doing.

One of the things…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Popham: …that is being disseminated by the official opposition is the idea

around exclusion applications. And they’re right: there aren’t hundreds

of exclusion applications that are coming into the Agricultural Land

Commission. But when they do come in, they create….

If an exclusion application is approved, it could happen in the

middle…. Let’s talk about zone 2, because they’re very worked up about

the old zone 2 in the agricultural land reserve. If an application was

approved and land were to be excluded from the agricultural land

reserve, this could mean that a subdivision could happen in the middle

of ranchland.

That subdivision creates a whole new set of traffic patterns. It

creates much more interaction between, possibly, people that don’t

understand agricultural and people that do understand agriculture. Of

course, there are new power requirements. And it absolutely chops up the

agricultural land reserve and creates problems for farming.

One thing I think that, for political advantage, the opposition

has done is they’ve picked apart little parts of the bill and created

fear when there is no fear. The people that I’ve been talking to, the

people that they say are so angry — once I have a conversation with them

and show them exactly what we’re doing, there is no more

fear.

It’s a logical thing to do. These are improvements to protect the

agricultural land reserve, along with what we’re doing to encourage

farming.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: The member across the way, of course, is implying that I only know

about Saanich. But I have travelled into this member’s constituency many

times. Even this week I was on the phone with the grain growers. They

get it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: I was on the phone with the grain growers from his constituency,

who I’ve got a good relationship with. So I can say….

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: The member has already had his turn.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: All the opposition members had their chance to speak on the bill.

Now the minister is to conclude the debate, so she has the

floor.

The minister will continue.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very proud of these changes that we’re making. There are a lot

of British Columbians that are contacting me saying that they appreciate

the work. They appreciate the passion around the agricultural land

reserve. They know that if we didn’t have this tool in place, if we

weren’t trying to revitalize it and make it reflect what we see today

happening around us….

Climate change is affecting food security. Most people understand

that without this land, we put ourselves in the position of not being

able to mitigate the effects of climate change in other food-producing

regions. That should also be the driving force that we can join with and

protect the agricultural land reserve. But instead, the opposition has

given up on agriculture. That’s what they’ve done: they’ve given up on

agriculture.

I’ve taken into account the comments from the opposition. I

appreciate the comments that were made from the Third Party and from

members on the government side of the House that understand the value of

this land. There’s one thing we know for sure: we can’t make more of

this land. We have to protect what we have.

With that, I look forward to committee stage — it’s going to be a

lively debate — and I move second reading of Bill 15.

[11:35 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 15, Agricultural

Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019.

Second reading of Bill 15 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 40

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. L. Popham: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will just take a five-minute recess while the other committees

are going to rise to report out.

The House recessed from 11:42 a.m. to 11:48 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — ENERGY STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 19;

N. Simons in the chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

section 10 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: The last question that I had asked just before we recessed

yesterday was if we were to expect any changes to Powerex’s profits as a

result of the exemption, and the minister indicated no. As a follow-up

to that, does the minister have any performance targets for

Powerex?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, B.C. Hydro develops those performance targets and then

reviews that with Powerex.

G. Kyllo: If the minister could share with us what happens to the profits

within Powerex — just on how they’re allocated.

Hon. M. Mungall: Powerex’s profits are consolidated into B.C. Hydro to offset rate

increases.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister confirm that as a result of the amendments, BCUC

will be using the 2013 IRP when deciding on certificates of public

convenience and necessity in expenditure schedules until the new IRP in

2021?

Hon. M. Mungall: We canvassed this yesterday. What I said yesterday is that the

B.C. Utilities Commission will ask for updated information, for example,

with the current RRA, the revenue requirements application, which is

more commonly known as the rates application. They look to the 2013 RRP,

but they ask for updated information so that they are working with

current information when they make their decisions.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister estimate how many applications are expected to

fall within the window from 2018 to 2021 where an outdated IRP is being

used?

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of the exact number of applications that may occur

between 2018 and 2021, we don’t have that for the member right now. I’m

happy to get it for him, though, and send it over to him.

G. Kyllo: Will this affect B.C. Hydro’s RRA in any capacity? What about any

other submissions that might be forthcoming to B.C. Utilities

Commission?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I’ve said several times now, BCUC has the power to ask for

updated information and, therefore, receive that updated information

when they’re reviewing any type of application from B.C.

Hydro.

[11:20 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: From the minister’s answer, I’m assuming that there would be no

implications with respect to the use of the outdated IRP, with respect

to any of the RRA applications that might come forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: We don’t expect, foresee or anticipate there to be any negative

implications. As I said, BCUC has the power to request and receive

updated information. B.C. Hydro, when they are requested to provide

updated information, has an obligation to do so, so that BCUC is using

current information in its decision-making on any application that B.C.

Hydro makes.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister confirm that this

section prevents the

rebalancing of rate classes by the BCUC during this period?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes. I’m quoting directly from the bill here. There is an

exception. That exception is “on application by the public

utility.”

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide additional clarification on what those

exceptions may be?

Hon. M. Mungall: If the public utility — B.C. Hydro — decides to put forward an

application to the B.C. Utilities Commission to review how they balance

rates between their different rates classes, then BCUC would be obliged

to review it.

G. Kyllo: Would the minister be able to share with us what the current

ratios are for industrial, commercial and residential rates?

Hon. M. Mungall: In my understanding, the member is asking about the cost recovery

for each customer class and not, exactly, the rates for all the

different customer classes. I know that he knows that that’s all on line

and very easily attainable through B.C. Hydro’s website. But the cost

recovery — we don’t have the exact numbers with us right now.

We can get those exact numbers for the member, but I will give him

our approximation. It’s for residential customers. They are at 94

percent of cost recovery. Industrial is around 100 percent of cost

recovery, and commercial, depending on the…. Again, there are a variety

of commercial classes in there. It’s around 110 to 120 percent of cost

recovery. The exact numbers are part of B.C. Hydro’s updated information

with their rates application process.

G. Kyllo: That would have actually been my second question, so thank you for

that.

What I was actually…. My question was on the ratio, the percentage

of revenue that comes from those three different rate classes —

residential, industrial and commercial.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: That would be the cost recovery that I was speaking to.

G. Kyllo: Sorry. My question is: of those three rate classes, of the total

revenue received by B.C. Hydro, what would be the percentage? Like,

residential — does that relate to…? Is that 70 percent of all the

revenue coming to B.C. Hydro? That was my question.

Hon. M. Mungall: In terms of total revenue, again, we don’t have the exact numbers,

but we’re happy to get that for the member. But generally, it works out

to be a third, a third, a third.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the commercial rates, the minister indicated that

currently the recovery is about 110 to 120 percent. That’s a pretty big

range. Can the minister just confirm that commercial customers are

paying, at a minimum, 10 percent above what the true cost of service

delivery to that rate classification is?

Hon. M. Mungall: The numbers I was giving the member, again, were approximations

based on what they generally are. They’re not exact. I just want to make

sure that that’s clear. We’ll get the exact numbers for the member. But

generally speaking, yes, commercial customers are paying more,

historically, than their full cost of recovery.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share, I guess, what her or her government’s

thoughts are with respect to being fair with respect to the rates that

are being charged to commercial customers? This is largely businesses in

our province. When we look at some of the negative competitive

advantages that we’ve seen come about in the last year and a half,

things that are impacting the competitiveness of B.C.

businesses….

I’m wondering if the minister could share with us why she feels

that commercial customers should pay a premium for their electricity

over and above other rate classifications.

Hon. M. Mungall: The cost recovery ratios that I shared with the member are not

something that’s new. That’s actually a practice that’s been going on

for many, many decades. It’s also not exclusive to British Columbia.

This is actually how most utilities have separated off their cost

recovery ratios. Commercial classes will often pay more than their 100

percent.

[11:30 a.m.]

In terms of the member’s concerns around competitiveness, I’ll

just remind him that when we did our first phase of our B.C. Hydro

review and identified the ability to reduce the projected rate increases

from the previous government, all rate classes benefited from that. It

wasn’t just one rate class. It was all of them that are seeing lower

rate increases. Also, what this government has done to address

competitiveness for commercial and industrial users is that we are

eliminating the PST on their hydro.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate, and I know businesses and industries

largely appreciate, the reduction of the provincial sales

tax.

A rate rebalancing largely would result in a reduced rate for

commercial customers. That’s my understanding. A rate rebalance would

also result in an increase in rates for residential customers. Can the

minister share with us what rate increase would be borne by residential

customers if rate rebalancing were to be undertaken?

Hon. M. Mungall: I just want to let the member know that what we are doing here by

putting this particular direction into the statute is not new. In fact,

the previous government gave this direction to the B.C. Utilities

Commission directly, not legislatively. So the actual process of how

rate balancing can be considered by the B.C. Utilities Commission

actually isn’t changing. We’re just being more upfront about it and more

transparent.

The member wanted to know how much rates for residential B.C.

Hydro customers would go up if rate rebalancing did occur. The thing is

that if BCUC did require some type of rate rebalancing…. Historically,

where the ratios currently are is well within normal range in multiple

jurisdictions, as I was saying earlier. If BCUC did decide to rebalance

rates and have residential rates go up, we don’t have the exact number,

but what British Columbians could expect is not a lot, and it would

happen over a period of time.

That being said, I just want to make sure it’s on the record for

British Columbians that this government is deeply concerned that rates

went up over 70 percent under the previous government. We’ve made a

commitment to British Columbians to keep life affordable.

[The bells were rung.]

We want to make sure — I’ll just finish off my sentence — that we

are doing everything we possibly can to keep rates affordable for

residents, as well as commercial and industrial users, and that’s why

we’ve looked at the PST exemption for commercial and industrial users as

well.

The Chair: We’ll stand in recess and come back after the vote.

The committee recessed from 11:34 a.m. to 11:44 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); B. Ma in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $20,698,339,000

(continued) .

[11:15 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I just have a couple of questions for the minister. My first

question is regarding the services for fetal alcohol syndrome. I have a

constituent of mine who has actually provided a pretty comprehensive

care plan for children and families with regards to a standardized care

path for B.C. kids and, also, wraparound services to secure care and

prevent disruption of adoption of these children.

My question for the minister is: is he familiar with the

wraparound services that are currently not available, and is he familiar

with the need to have wraparound services and a mediator to deal with

fetal alcohol syndrome children and their families?

Hon. A. Dix: I just want to clarify the question. Did the member ask whether I

was aware of wraparound services that are not available? Was that the

question?

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah. They’re not available. She’s requesting that they are,

because the kids are getting…. Obviously, they’re going through the

gaps. They’re not getting the services, and in some cases, their

adoption ability, in the families, is actually disrupted.

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know this, because she’s referring to a particular

case…. When she submits cases, especially in estimates, we respond very

quickly. I’d be happy to respond in detail to the specific questions,

because it’s always challenging, and we want to be really respectful of

the case — to hear the specific concerns of her constituent. If you can

submit those to us, then I’ll have my deputy minister, Steve Brown, and

the staff at the ministry respond without lengthy delay.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you. I’ll absolutely do that. She’s given not only the

problem but also the solution, so that’ll probably be very helpful to

the minister.

I have another question, which is not related. This is to do with

hormone therapy for trans individuals. I’m wondering whether or not the

peer-based hormone readiness program has been considered for funding.

According to my contact through Rainbow Health, apparently this is a

model that is cost-effective and comprehensive in British Columbia. She

actually asked me to ask the Minister of Health where we are at with the

peer-based hormone readiness program.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: We have received some information. There has been some

correspondence between the Provincial Health Services Authority and the

Rainbow Health Cooperative. I think what I will do with respect to the

specific proposals being suggested is follow up with the hon. member.

The member will know that there has been some concern expressed by PHSA

with respect to the discussions that have gone on, but that doesn’t

affect the question in particular. So I’d be happy to

respond.

In particular, the member will know that we’ve significantly

improved transgender health services this year, particularly with

respect to lower gender-affirming surgeries and other supports that are

provided by Trans Care B.C. I would say that Trans Care B.C., which was

started in the fall of 2015 under the direction of PHSA and, at the

time, under my predecessor, the Hon. Terry Lake, I think, sets a

national standard for a response to the issue of transgendered

people.

There are significant issues, of course, out there as well and a

variety of care that’s proposed — from hormonal care to surgeries to

significant other supports to people for their health needs. I’m very

proud of the record we’ve had over the last year. I’m happy to follow up

with the hon. member on these specific questions.

As I say, I’ve read a copy of the letter, but the discussions in

the letter relate to issues between the parties as opposed to an

analysis of the care that she is asking for.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes. I will definitely, again, take the minister up on his offer

to get more information on that specific issue.

My other question is with regards to wait-lists specifically for

eating disorders. I’d canvassed this issue with the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions, but specifically, there seem to be long waiting

lists for those with eating disorders and a disruptive ability for

people to go from Children’s Hospital to St. Paul’s to Looking

Glass.

We’ve canvassed this with regards to the age differences.

Sometimes they’re too old for this facility but too young for this

facility. They’re not sick enough for this one, etc. So we already

canvassed that, and I believe the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions was going to follow up.

I’m specifically asking the question to the Minister of Health

with regards to wait-lists for these facilities for eating disorders.

The question is: what is being done to improve wait-lists for these

facilities?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for the question. The member will know,

first of all, for adult patients with severe eating disorders who

require specialized care, B.C. provides a total of 17 designated

bed-based community and tertiary care beds. I would say, just to give a

sense this year of where we are, from September 1, 2018, a total of 58

referrals were made to the St. Paul’s provincial specialized eating

disorders program. The wait time from the date the referral was received

to the date of assessment is presently 36 days. The average wait time

following the assessment to admission to the St. Paul’s provincial

program was 40 days.

I would say that it was in that period, just to put this in

context…. In terms of historical data, the wait time for the readiness

program is presently, on average, 20 days, and significant improvements

have been made by the clinicians in these processes, just to give the

sense for that. The wait time for the historical information…. In 2013,

the wait times were 66.8 days. In 2017, they were 46.7 days. They’re now

20 days. So some improvements are clearly being made.

This is an area of significant concern, both to individuals who

are struggling with eating disorders and to their families. In fact, I

have been in contact with a number of members of the Legislature who

have brought these cases to my attention over the recent period and to

the attention of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I think,

while we’re making progress, obviously more can be done.

I do think that the quality of the work done and the quality of

the care provided by the people working in this area is outstanding. But

obviously, it’s a challenge, a continuing challenge. Even though, for

many people, that reduction in wait times for the readiness program to

20 days may seem to be good news in relative terms, compared to what it

was, nonetheless, if you’re waiting those days in those circumstances,

it’s a very, very difficult thing.

We will have specifics. I’ll provide, after lunch, the same

historical data for the programs involving children. I understand it’s

available to us. The 2018 average wait time totals were approximately 36

days. Again, I’ll have some historical data, as well, for the

member.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the minister.

Before I go to my last question, just to reiterate, the problem

with the services is not just the waiting list to get in; it’s the

coordination between these three facilities that, apparently, is not

good. We need to get a better flow of services for these children, plus

the fact that, as I mentioned before, the age of the individual is

sometimes a criterion that determines whether or not they’re actually

going to get treated at, say, Children’s Hospital or St. Paul’s or at

this Looking Glass.

There’s a multitude of issues for, specifically, eating disorders

that need to be addressed so that the children and the families are not

falling through the cracks.

What I will do, though, is provide this scenario of one of my

constituents to you. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions

certainly has it, but it would be good for the Minister of Health to

take a look at it, because obviously, the entire hospital system will

need to be looked at with regards to the flow of services.

My last question I actually asked to both the Ministry of Social

Development as well as Mental Health and Addictions. But I understand

that the Ministry of Health is involved in this issue as well, so that’s

the reason I’m asking you. This is the question. It is my understanding

that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is working with the

Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development to increase

the per-diem rates in assisted-living facilities, which are currently

$30.90 a day. What is the status of this work, and can we expect to see

this increase implemented?

[11:30 a.m.]

Will the providers of licensed residential care also get a

per-diem increase from the $40 per day they currently get? In fact, the

question that I got asked: does the minister think that $40 a day is

sufficient to provide funding to provide services for this vulnerable

population?

Hon. A. Dix: Like the answers provided by my colleague the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions and my colleague the Minister of Social

Development, we’re obviously aware, and work in this area, of the

funding concerns from operators. We’re working closely together to

explore options to begin to address this. That work is being carried on

now.

The health authorities are part of that work, being led by the

Minister of Social Development and the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions. We’re working with them on that. We’re hopeful for some

progress soon.

T. Shypitka: Minister, just a quick question here on something I brought to

your attention about a month or two ago. It’s in relation to an

ultrasound piece of equipment at the Elk Valley Hospital in

Fernie.

Dr. Ron Clark has been working on this for over two years, I

believe. He’s done everything that the ministry has required. I believe

it’s passed the Interior Health approval process. Now it sits with the

ministry to expand the service.

The East Kootenay Foundation for Health can’t start fundraising,

which will be 100 percent of the equipment needed, until we get an okay

from the ministry.

Now, I believe there may be — I don’t know if this is a rumour — a

moratorium on ultrasound equipment because of sonographers. I guess

sonography technicians are in very short supply. But that’s not the case

at Elk Valley Hospital. We have a sonography tech, so that alleviates

that piece of the puzzle.

We’re really wanting to get started on this, to get the

fundraising going. Like I said, it’s 100 percent. Can the minister

explain what the holdup is, and can we get a commitment from the

ministry to sign off on this today?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a recess to deal with this division in the

main House and then return shortly to continue.

The committee recessed from 11:34 a.m. to 11:44 a.m.

[B. Ma in the chair.]

Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for his question. The Medical Services

Commission itself has a moratorium. This is a commission appointed by

government that has representatives from others, as well, on new

facility applications. It’s been in place since December of 2012. It was

extended by the previous government in 2017 and is currently scheduled

to be lifted on June 21, 2020.

There is an exemption process from that. Really, we are not aware

yet of IHA submitting a request for an exemption to the moratorium, nor

have we received such a request, nor has the commission received such a

request.

It is at the discretion of IHA to determine whether it will

support the service expansion. If so, it will of course be up to the

health authority to find the funding to support it on an ongoing basis.

We don’t provide funding at that program-specific level. That’s an IHA

decision. We’re not holding up the approval process, but it would

require IHA making a request for an exemption based on the information

that the member has and then based on its policies in the

region.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada