Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 238

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

Statements

Easter

L. Throness

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill M210 — Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) Act, 2019

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Vaisakhi celebrations and Bal and Sarj Sabharwal

S. Cadieux

Parkinson’s disease awareness

A. Kang

Contributions of volunteers on North Shore

R. Sultan

Vaisakhi and Jallianwala Bagh massacre

R. Singh

Use of Indigenous territorial acknowledgments

A. Olsen

Volunteerism by Victoria Gardner

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

E-cigarette regulation and vaping by youth

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

B.C. Tech Association programs and support for technology industry

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Supportive housing sites and concerns of Maple Ridge residents

J. Johal

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Petitions

T. Shypitka

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

M. Dean

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

M. Lee

Hon. G. Heyman

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Today, as members of the House will know, is World Parkinson’s Day.

Visiting us today in the Legislature…. I know many members of the House are

affected in their families by Parkinson’s disease and will be joining

members of the Parkinson Society over the noonhour.

I wanted to introduce Chris Olsen, a person living with Parkinson’s

disease; Harold Olsen, spouse and caregiver to Chris; Richard Mayede, a

person with young-onset Parkinson’s disease; Gina Lupino, a person also with

young-onset Parkinson’s disease; Bill Peterson, who’s living with

Parkinson’s disease; Paul Lavoie, Bill Peterson’s caregiver; Doug Dalquist,

living with Parkinson’s disease; Donja Dalquist, Doug’s spouse; Leslie

Davidson, living with Parkinson’s disease; Dr. Tara Rastin, a movement

disorder specialist; Jean Blake, who’s the CEO of the Parkinson Society of

British Columbia; Caroline Wiggins and Jovana Vredic, who work for the

Parkinson Society; Dr. Chris Honey, who, many people will know, is a

neurosurgeon who performs a procedure called deep brain stimulation, which

provides hope to many people with Parkinson’s disease; Nancy

Polyhronopoulos, who’s a registered nurse and supports the deep brain

stimulation clinic; and Mini Sandhu, who’s a registered nurse who also works

for the clinic.

I’d like to ask everyone in the House to join us over the noonhour and

to wish all of our guests welcome.

T. Shypitka: I would like to follow up the Minister of Health’s introductions. I

thought I’d let him tackle all those names. There are a couple tough ones in

there.

We’re here for lunch today. We’re here to celebrate the introduction

of another neurosurgeon to assist Dr. Honey in deep brain stimulation, and

we couldn’t be happier. I’d like to thank the member for Shuswap, the member

for Kelowna–Lake Country and also the Minister of Health for working

together and collaborating in bringing another neuro­surgeon to the

province.

Would you please welcome once again the folks from the Parkinson

Society.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency

Maeng-ho Shin, the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Canada. The

ambassador is meeting the Premier and a number of my colleagues during his

visit. I’m pleased to meet with him later this morning. Would the House

please welcome and make the Ambassador of Korea feel very welcome

here.

G. Kyllo: This coming Monday is the Boston Marathon. We have a couple of our

colleagues that are actually going to be going there. Shane Mills, executive

director of policy and communications for our side, will be attending, as

well as Ms. Kate, our lovely Clerk. I just wanted to bring that to

everybody’s attention and hope that we can all give them a great round of

applause and wish them success in the Boston Marathon on Monday.

L. Reid: Seniors care in British Columbia is in wonderful hands. B.C. Care

Providers have joined us today. We have Daniel Fontaine. We have Mike

Klassen. On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like everyone to give

them the warmest welcome. They are the folks who care for each of the ones

that we love in our lives, and they do an outstanding job.

R. Singh: I have some guests in the gallery today. I have Kamaljit Thind from

Mehak Punjab Di TV; Sahib Thind from Mohan Singh Memorial

Foundation; Parshotam Dosanjh; and also, last but not least, my husband,

Gurpreet Singh. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to recognize our friends from the Christian Labour

Association. They are here to meet with me about mental health issues. Could

the House please make them welcome.

Statements

EASTER

L. Throness: We’re rising later today for our Easter break, so I just wanted to

say a word about Easter, which is the most important holiday on the

Christian calendar.

In addition to relaxing and having family over as I will do, every

Easter, Christians around the world gather to remember the resurrection

of Christ as physical proof that believers too can hope for a life

beyond the grave, as well as the eventual reconciliation of heaven and

earth. That’s what makes Good Friday good, and that’s a pretty good

reason to celebrate.

Would the House wish all Christians across our province a joyful

Easter weekend.

Introductions by Members

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce not one but two young women who are

shadowing me today. Hannah Estabrook is originally from Halifax, but she’s

in her third year at UVic, studying environmental studies and geography. In

the summer, she’s going to be working up at Strathcona Park Lodge teaching

outdoor education to young people. Hannah gave an incredibly inspiring

speech at the climate strike on March 15, after which I approached her and

suggested she come and spend the day here. We need more young people like

Hannah here.

Another young person just like Hannah is Nerissa Kassis, who’s in

first year at UVic, studying biology. Nerissa is originally from Vancouver.

She’s going to go home and teach young people swimming in the

summer.

These are two really terrific young women. Nerissa was also at the

climate strike on March 15. She wrote to all the MLAs. When I got her email,

I was most delighted to invite her here for the day.

Would the House please make these two young women most

welcome.

M. Hunt: Throughout this morning, there are going to be three waves of students

coming from Adams Road Elementary, when Mr. Kori Langston will be bringing

74 students. Now, for the Minister of Education, I’m sure that doesn’t mean

they’re all one class and this is an oversized class in Surrey. But they’ll

be here. The first wave of them will be coming during question period and

then throughout the morning. I’d ask that the House please make them all

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Workers Compensation

Amendment Act, 2019. The bill expands the definition of firefighters who

will be eligible for three workers compensation presumptions currently

available to firefighters — that is, the presumption for certain

cancers, for heart disease and heart injury, and for mental health

disorders.

This change ensures that the fire investigators, forest fire

fighters and firefighters employed by First Nations, band councils and

other Indigenous organizations are included in these presumptions. These

amendments will make British Columbia a leader in recognizing the

important, dangerous and sometimes traumatic work that firefighters do

every day to keep British Columbians and their properties

safe.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act,

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the amendments to the Forest Act be introduced and

read for the first time now.

Today I introduce changes to the Forest Act to give government

more oversight of the forest sector. The changes will support a vibrant

and diverse forest sector by allowing for more opportunities for

participation of First Nations and others.

We want all British Columbians to benefit from the forest

industry, large and small — First Nations, workers and communities. The

previous legislation governing the disposition of Crown tenures limited

government’s influence. With the proposed changes to the Forest Act that

I am announcing today, forest companies will now need approval from

government before they dispose of or transfer a tenure agreement to

another party.

To approve the transfer, we will first want to understand how it

will help the people of British Columbia and encourage diversity in the

forest sector. First and foremost, the forests of this province are a

publicly held natural resource, and any dispositions of Crown tenure

needs to keep this fact at the forefront.

We are making these changes because we want to restore public

trust in how our forests are managed, and we want more say on behalf of

all people of B.C. in how forest tenures are transferred between

parties.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the Forest Amendment Act be placed on the orders of

the day for the second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BILL M210 — VULNERABLE ADOLESCENTS

PROTECTION FROM

E-CIGARETTES

(VAPE) ACT, 2019

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Vulnerable Adolescents Protection

from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) Act, 2019.

T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled the Vulnerable Adolescents

Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) Act, 2019, of which notice has been

given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the

first time.

E-cigarette use, otherwise known as vaping, is quickly becoming an

epidemic amongst the youth of British Columbia. A recent Canadian

estimate suggests that a third of students in grades 10 through 12 are

vaping, outpacing tobacco at an alarming rate. The U.S. Surgeon General

recently declared e-cigarette use as a public health epidemic. These

products are addictive, and they’re deliberately made attractive to our

youth.

But canvass most British Columbians, and it is clear that the

dangers of vaping for our kids are not clearly understood. Many

teenagers have shared stories with me about their friends who are

addicted to vaping, about being fearful of encountering clouds of vapour

in their school bathrooms, about their peers using Juuls or other

discrete vape pods in class or vape pits adjacent to school property.

Simply put, this is not okay, and what is clear is that more needs to be

done.

This bill contains amendments to the Tobacco and Vapour Products

Control Act which are focused on doing more to better keep these

addictive vaping products out of the hands of our children.

Specifically, these amendments include banning the sale of flavoured

products through stricter retail controls; restricting the sale of

products to adult-only tobacco stores, vape stores and approved

pharmacies; and enacting tougher penalties for

non-compliance.

Alongside these amendments, we also need to provide the resources

required in every middle and high school across B.C. to implement

evidence-based vaping awareness prevention and addiction support

programs. Parents, teachers, administrators and all of us legislators

must come together to better protect the health of our kids. It is my

hope that amendments contained within this bill will help us work

towards that objective.

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

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M210, Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE)

Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VAISAKHI CELEBRATIONS AND

BAL AND SARJ

SABHARWAL

S. Cadieux: For many thousands of years, spring has been a time when farmers

have celebrated the coming of a new year. Since 1699, the Sikhs have had

a further reason to celebrate this time of the year, as it has become a

holy day to mark the birth of the Khalsa fraternity. Now, more than 300

years later, halfway around the world, Canadians of Indian descent carry

on this tradition with much colour and enthusiasm and

parades.

The Surrey Vaisakhi Parade has been held in the streets of my

community for the past 17 years. The celebrations in Surrey will likely

be the biggest in North America once again, the second-largest outside

of India. You’ve seen the aerial photos, and you’ll certainly be

hard-pressed to find any other event in the Lower Mainland that draws so

many people.

[10:20 a.m.]

When up to 500,000 people converge on the streets of Newton this

year to enjoy the festivities and the free food, that means thousands

upon thousands of plates. Last year two brothers, Bal and Sarj

Sabharwal, decided they would champion the greening of the Vaisakhi

celebrations. They worked with the city and businesses to promote their

vision for a foam-free Vaisakhi. Last year they estimate that over

130,000 plates were replaced with greener options. They’ll continue

their quest this year, hoping to continue to educate and raise awareness

about the value of changing our habits.

These two are two of the most active volunteers in our community.

They’ve been involved with the multicultural and environmental

committees at the city. They are members of the Surrey Board of Trade

and the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce. They were instrumental in the

development of the hugely popular Fusion Festival, held annually, and

they sponsor countless charitable events each and every year, including,

most recently, the Coldest Night of the Year walk.

They certainly exhibit the concept of seva , or selfless

service, in the Sikh faith. It is, I think, most fitting to recognize

them today in Volunteer Week, knowing how much time and love they’ll be

giving our community over the next few weeks with Vaisakhi celebrations.

I’ve been privileged, as an elected official, to get to know them and to

learn much about the Indian culture and people. I share in this

celebration with my community and encourage everyone to celebrate the

spirit of Vaisakhi this month.

PARKINSON’S DISEASE AWARENESS

A. Kang: Today is World Parkinson’s Day. Many people don’t understand the

severity of Parkinson’s disease. As well, people with Parkinson’s

disease have expressed that they don’t feel understood.

Parkinson’s disease is caused by a loss of dopamine in the brain

and is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder, after

Alzheimer’s disease. Both motor and non-motor symptoms may be

experienced, such as tremor, rigidity, slowness of movement, difficulty

with speech, sleep disturbance and mood disorders. There currently is no

cure.

In 2016-2017, there were around 13,000 British Columbians living

with Parkinson’s. According to Parkinson Society British Columbia, while

most people living with Parkinson’s are over the age of 60, 20 percent

are diagnosed before the age of 50, and many are in their 30s and their

40s. Michael J. Fox, a Burnaby-born actor, was diagnosed with

Parkinson’s at the young age of 29.

On this day around the world, efforts are made to increase public

awareness and education of this disease, and countless good work

continues on by organizations around the world to improve the lives of

those affected by Parkinson’s. Locally we have Parkinson Society British

Columbia, which supports services, programs and advocacies that ensure

that everyone touched by Parkinson’s is not alone in this

journey.

Early this year our government announced an action to provide

improved access to treatment and medication for people living with

Parkinson’s. I am hopeful that the solutions will make a real difference

in people’s lives, but we do not do it alone. There are also everyday

champions in our communities who plan, participate or donate to a local

fundraising event in support of the society. To those humble heroes, I

offer my appreciation.

On this World Parkinson’s Day, I encourage members of this House

to think of how they can help constituents affected with Parkinson’s

they know and let them know that they are not alone.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

ON NORTH SHORE

R. Sultan: What do these organizations have in common — 50 cultural

organizations, from the Ferry Building Gallery to the J.P. Fell Pipe

Band; 50 helping organizations, from Rotary ShelterBox to the Lookout

shelter; about 75 outdoor recreation organizations, from Ramblers to HUB

cycling; a dozen or so organizations who will help in emergencies, from

North Shore Rescue to North Shore Amateur Radio; about 50 environmental

stewards, from the streamkeepers to Friends of Cypress; probably 50

PACs, from Pauline Johnson to Cleveland school; about 65 churches, from

the Salvation Army to the Ismaili temple; at least 200 sport teams, from

the Otters Swim Club to Hot Flash hockey?

[10:25 a.m.]

Every week is a festival, from Coho to Nowruz. Add it all up, and

it’s easy to identify maybe 600 to 800 things happening in North and

West Vancouver. What they all have in common is that they’re run by

unpaid volunteers.

Now, many in this House, including my colleague, have already

acknowledged National Volunteer Week. I want to as well, and thank the

thousands in the communities which I represent who dedicate their time

and expertise.

The West Vancouver Seniors Activity Centre is a prime example —

seniors helping seniors, 5,000 members and 1,000 quiet volunteers. They

teach language classes or lead walking groups day in and day out, all

year long. They enrich our community without recognition, without

compensation.

I sing to these unsung heroes. They make life on the North Shore

compassionate, uplifting, healthy and fun.

VAISAKHI AND

JALLIANWALA BAGH

MASSACRE

R. Singh: For the first time yesterday, we celebrated Vaisakhi at the B.C.

Legislature. As we are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Dal Khalsa

and Vaisakhi this coming weekend, I would like to take a moment to

remember close to 1,000 people who were killed in a firing by British

troops on a peaceful gathering of demonstrators who had assembled in the

city of Amritsar to protest against draconian laws and the arrests of

the leaders of the passive resistance movement against the foreign

occupation of India.

The bloody incident happened on April 13, 1919, at Jallianwala

Bagh, a public park that has now become a national monument. This

weekend marks 100 years of the tragedy that remains permanently etched

on the memories of Indians all over the world.

I myself grew up listening to the tragic story repeatedly told to

our generation by our community elders and teachers. The history of the

Jallianwala Bagh episode has been kept alive in Canada as well, by

organizations like Mehak Punjab Di TV, the Professor Mohan

Singh Memorial Foundation, the Dareks Ghill Society, the Committee of

Progressive Pakistani-Canadians and the Indo-Canadian Workers

Association, to name a few.

While Mehak Punjab Di TV has been organizing annual

vigils and exhibitions in the memory of those killed, the Professor

Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation has been tirelessly campaigning to get a

formal apology for the incident in the British Parliament.

Recently the province has proclaimed April 13, 2019, as the

Commemoration of the Centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre Day.

Such recognitions are not only important to decolonize our minds but

also to understand the relevance of such historic incidents under

current circumstances. While we must keep our history alive, we also

need to stand up against state-sponsored brutality anywhere in the

world.

The birth of Dal Khalsa also signifies the importance of fighting

against injustice. The linkage between the two parallel historical

events, one being auspicious and the other being tragic, reminds us of

our collective responsibility to carry forward the struggle for a fair

and just society.

USE OF INDIGENOUS

TERRITORIAL

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A. Olsen: I acknowledge that this legislative precinct is still in the

territory of my relatives, the Lkwungen-speaking people. We hear

territorial acknowledgments a lot these days. Some people even put it at

the bottom of their emails. “This email was written in the territory of

the such-and-such people” or “This statement was written in

WSÁNEĆ.”

Acknowledging Indigenous people and territory is an important step

forward in our society, but what does it mean? Is it a permission slip?

Is it an obligatory tip of the hat, a minor detour just before we get

back to the colonial business as usual? Has it changed

anything?

Well, it’s an admission that our province and our country stand on

a questionable foundation and that we are on a path to recovery. But

what is the effect of mindlessly reciting a script? Does that undermine

and erode the meaning of the words?

As a community leader with a foot in two worlds, people often ask

my advice on territorial acknowledgments. I encourage them to speak from

the heart, to reflect on the beautiful place and the powerful cultures

that have endured the most challenging circumstances. I ask them to give

themselves permission to stumble and make mistakes, to honour our past

and embrace positive, compassionate relationships with Indigenous people

and communities.

[10:30 a.m.]

Hayden King, an Anishinaabe writer, educator and academic,

discussed this on the CBC show Unreserved . I echo his challenge

to institutions just like this one. It’s time for people in positions of

power to level up. It’s time to grow from passing references to

illuminating our meaningful actions.

I am TSUNUP, and I stand in this beautiful territory of my

relatives. I attempt to speak our languages and tell our stories to

animate our debates and decisions with the hope that they will be

infused with the ancient wisdom of these lands and our surrounding

waters.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

VOLUNTEERISM BY VICTORIA GARDNER

B. D’Eith: As has been said, this week is National Volunteer Week, and while

we should always take the time to thank and celebrate volunteers, it’s

wonderful that we actually have a week dedicated to acknowledging how

they help to improve our communities. In fact, this year’s theme is “The

volunteer factor: lifting communities,” which I think is

wonderful.

Today I’d like to highlight one of the many volunteers in my

community. Victoria Gardner is a grade 12 student from Garibaldi

Secondary School. She’s a long-serving member and volunteer with the

Garibaldi ME to WE team. Actually, Victoria joined the team in grade 8,

so she’s a veteran.

Her team helped to build a school and water well in Ecuador and is

now raising funds to provide health care in Kenya. ME to WE is a social

enterprise enabling people to do good with their everyday choices. It

was founded in 2009 to provide economic opportunities in WE village

communities. ME to WE has grown into a global force for good, and

Victoria has been a big part of that.

But Victoria didn’t stop there. She volunteered with the Special

Olympics bowling; the Pirates special needs softball team; Pitt Meadows

Elementary after-school programs; and Ridge Meadows Hospital, providing

company for seniors.

Recently Victoria was recognized for all of her hard work and

community service by being awarded the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers.

The medal recognizes the exceptional volunteer achievements of Canadians

from across the country in a wide range of fields and pays tribute to

the dedication and commitment of volunteers.

I really want to congratulate Victoria Gardner on this fantastic

achievement at such a young age and thank her for her dedication to our

community. Along with that, I would like to thank the thousands of

volunteers in my community who help lift us up every day.

Oral Questions

E-CIGARETTE REGULATION

AND VAPING BY

YOUTH

T. Stone: Vaping use amongst our youth is far outpacing tobacco use. Recent

estimates indicate that over one-third of all British Columbia students

in grades 10 through 12 are engaged in vaping at some point during their

school week. Parents are obviously gravely concerned about this.

Teachers are concerned, and administrators. Lots of youth, as well, are

concerned.

In declaring a public health epidemic in his country, the U.S.

Surgeon General had this to say: “We must protect our children from a

lifetime of nicotine addiction and health risks by immediately

addressing the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use.” So as we did with our

approach, the approach we took to the measles challenge, we believe that

we need to work together to develop and implement effective strategies

to keep our kids safe when it comes to vaping.

My question to the Minister of Health is this: will the Minister

of Health take aggressive steps to protect our children from this

dangerous addiction and emerging public health issue with respect to our

youth?

Hon. A. Dix: We should be clear about what the circumstances are now. I

listened to the hon. member. I’m very interested to see and review the

legislation that he tabled this morning and to work with him on these

issues. I want to say that first of all.

We should be clear now that vaping is not allowed on school

grounds. That’s an enforcement issue. It’s not allowed now. So when we

raise issues around these questions, we should be clear about the laws

now, and we should not permitting it now on school grounds.

The member is quite right. There are significant health concerns

around vaping that have been expressed in other jurisdictions. It’s an

emerging issue. I’m happy to work with the hon. member and all members

of the House to address these issues.

[10:35 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: As a society, we have made tremendous progress at reducing

cigarette smoking, particularly with respect to our youth. We must do

the same with respect to vaping. And yes, a number of initiatives or

regulatory requirements and rules were brought in by the former

government, I believe in 2016, which laid out a very strong

foundation.

But the reality is — and I say this as a legislator; I also say

this, frankly, more as a dad — that these vaping products are still

getting into the hands of far too many of our kids, particularly in or

adjacent to our schools. So we do believe that we need to greatly expand

awareness and prevention programs in our schools and tougher retail

regulations and enforcement.

Perhaps the strongest measure to keep these products out of the

hands of our kids would be a ban on kid-friendly flavouring. The

Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends restricting flavours

attractive to youth.

Again, my question to the minister would be this: is the minister

prepared to ban the sale of flavoured vape juice to better keep these

vaping products out of the hands of our kids and do as much as we

possibly can to focus on their health?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that for many years, my colleague from New

Westminster led the fight on the issue of flavoured cigarettes. I also

want to say this is clearly an evolving area of law. We, as a

legislature, addressed this area in 2016. This is not a criticism of the

previous government; it’s just a fact. It may be that the regime that we

set in place was not adequate to the circumstances. It’s an evolving

circumstance. We were all in the Legislature. We all spoke to it at that

time.

I think what I said to the hon. member is that I think we have to

work together and that we should include, in the school system, young

people, principals and vice-principals, the B.C. Teachers Federation,

the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory committees and local

communities and students themselves, most importantly, to start to

address these issues together.

I’m very interested in that suggestion. That’s consistent with our

view, in general, on flavoured tobacco products, which we think provides

the wrong incentive. I’m very interested in considering that option but

also working with all the stakeholders, as I’m sure the hon. member is,

to provide a better public response to an evolving area.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Certainly, when it comes to the health and well-being of our kids,

this is an area where all of us in this House and all British Columbians

can unify and come together and get behind strategies which will do more

to protect the health of our children.

Vape juice is increasingly highly addictive because most vape

juice now contains highly addictive nicotine. A lot of this vape juice

also comes in, as I’ve mentioned a few times now, kid-friendly flavours

like cotton candy and bubble gum and gummy bear, to name a few. The

devices are easy to conceal. There’s no noticeable odor associated with

the use of these devices. For all of these reasons, vaping is uniquely

attractive to the youth in our province, to our kids. Its popularity is

expanding exponentially with them.

The Canadian Cancer Society has this to say: “We are very

concerned. We certainly don’t want kids to get addicted to

nicotine.”

Again to the minister, I would ask this question: is the minister

prepared to tighten the rules and the penalties associated with the sale

of vape products to keep these addictive products out of the hands of

our children?

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s a real achievement in British Columbia, over a long

period of time and over multiple governments, that we’ve reduced the

tobacco use in our province. It’s good for our health. It’s good for our

society. It’s something we’ve done together. One of the most significant

changed moments in that, it seems to me, was when young people were put

in charge and directed advertising campaigns and public awareness

campaigns directed towards young people.

[10:40 a.m.]

We cannot leave the people involved out of the equation here. We

have got to work together and involve people. As the member will know,

the new curriculum addresses issues of tobacco use and others. Again,

what we have to see here, because we passed laws and regulation in 2016,

is whether our existing system is adequate to address an evolving

problem.

I think that we have to involve everyone in that discussion. I’m

open to the ideas put forward by the hon. member and to many other

people who addressed this problem. But we have to involve young people,

have to involve educators, have to involve health professionals, and we

have to involve everyone in the discussion to ensure that the issue of

vaping doesn’t become an issue for a new generation, which tobacco was

for a previous generation.

D. Davies: E-cigarette aerosol often includes substances with side effects

that include increased heart rate and blood pressure, lung disease,

chronic bronchitis and insulin resistance. Youth and their parents are

generally unaware of the health risks that are associated with

e-vaping.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he commit to

providing the resources needed in every middle school and high school

across B.C. to implement evidence-based vaping awareness and prevention

and support programs?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for his question and the member who has just

introduced legislation that I think all members of this House will want

to look at very carefully.

I think members of this House are aware that vaping is an issue.

We all probably have a number of anecdotal stories about the use in

middle and secondary schools, for example. Tobacco companies have always

tried to find a way to exploit young people and create new markets for

addictive, harmful products, and that is a concern.

As the Minister of Health has said, it is up to all of us as

legislators to make sure that the law follows the evolution of these new

enticing products for young people. Having said that, I know that it’s

not just members in the House that are aware that this is an emerging

and current problem. It is organizations like the B.C. superintendents

association and organizations like the B.C. Teachers Federation and the

parent advisory councils. They are looking at the current prohibition on

vaping products and also the usage rates that are reported amongst

students and at how government can better and more effectively

respond.

I would say we have an additional tool in the school system, and

that is around our new physical and health education so that teachers

are actually involved in some of the reality-based, emerging

evidence-based conclusions around addictive substances like vaping. That

is something that is taught to kids throughout their school careers at

the very youngest of age.

I do want members to understand that there are serious efforts

going on in every corner of the province and in every school in British

Columbia. Whether we take additional steps or not after we review the

legislation, it’s something I think we should all consider.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Like my colleague with Kamloops–South Thompson, I, too, have a

daughter that’s in middle school, like I’m sure probably many in this

House do, and we certainly hear about this issue and how big it is

becoming.

We know that targeted educational initiatives can work to protect

kids. Parents and educators are calling for more resources to launch

prevention programs across the entire province. In fact, there’s a drug

prevention pilot program called Preventure that has been running in the

Vernon high schools to identify and support students that are vulnerable

to vaping addiction.

Again, my question to the Minister of Education is: will he

provide the additional resources specifically needed for targeted

prevention and support initiatives like Preventure in every school,

middle school and high school in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Fleming: I mentioned in my previous answer around the opportunity, in terms

of real class time and real learning time each and every day in British

Columbia that is helped by having curriculum that specifically addresses

mental health and well-being — healthy living. The physical and health

education curriculum gives us an avenue to have students learn and

discuss their own kinds of things that they confront in their own lives,

and that includes things like the vaping issue that we’re discussing

this morning. Teachers are supported, in that regard, to lead lesson

plans and to have discussions about what’s going on in their lives and

what kinds of things to avoid.

[10:45 a.m.]

The program that the member has cited in Vernon is just one of

many. School districts have been leaders, in terms of having the kinds

of discussions and deploying strategies and programs. It’s not just one

district that is tackling the problem of vaping in British Columbia. It

is virtually all of them.

Certainly, in terms of the Ministry of Education and our

willingness to support the district efforts that are ongoing, we will do

that. We are doing that. We will work with health authorities and others

who can bring the kinds of resources that’ll get in front of kids so

that they make the right choices in their lives and so that we can stem

any trend towards new harmful addictive substances that companies are

trying to push upon them.

B.C. TECH ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS AND

SUPPORT FOR

TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I must say it is a kinder and gentler question

period in the Legislature here today.

On that note, I will note that on February 5, 2018, the Minister

of Jobs, Trade and Technology announced the appointment of B.C.’s first

innovation commissioner. The announcement was at B.C. Tech’s Cube. This

was widely celebrated as a significant step forward for innovation in

our province. I was present at the announcement.

Just two weeks ago at the B.C. Tech luncheon, the minister and I

met some B.C. leaders in the tech sector, companies that have grown and

thrived thanks to the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech

Association.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Is

the minister aware of the critical services and programs provided by

B.C. Tech at The Cube and at the Hub in Vancouver and the positive

impact they have on our innovation community?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. I, too, share his optimism

about the growth of the technology sector here in British Columbia.

Certainly the augmented and virtual reality sector, which The Cube is a

start-up laboratory for, is a very strong one. It’s a very strong sector

— in fact, globally leading.

Since we have the ambassador for Korea here…. On a recent trip —

the Minister of State for Trade and I — to Korea, we met with companies

that are well aware of the opportunities here in British Columbia. In

fact, there are exchanges, business exchanges, between the Gyeonggi

Content Agency in the sister province to British Columbia and the sector

here.

The B.C. Tech Association has provided leadership in that sector.

I’m well aware of the opportunities that The Cube has provided. Indeed,

our government, in December, provided the sum of $500,000 to assist them

in preparing as they move to a new funding model.

The initial funding for The Cube came largely from the federal

government, from the western diversification fund. They underwent a

review of their funding of these incubators and have decided they are

heading in a different direction. As the organization works out its

approach, we have provided that money to assist the

transition.

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

A. Weaver: Thank you for that very, very comprehensive answer.

The programs and services provided by B.C. Tech help people to

take their ideas and turn them into companies. They help existing

companies bridge what’s commonly known as the “valley of death.” That

is, they help them manage the hyper-growth these companies often

encounter.

Programs and services are an essential engine for innovative

growth in our economy, and they rely upon government and industry

funding to be able to continue. But in the absence of provincial

funding, these programs could be at risk.

[10:50 a.m.]

Once again, my question is for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. Supporting innovation in our economy is a critical priority

for the B.C. Green caucus. Is the minister equally committed to ensuring

the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association at the

Cube and the Hub are able to continue?

Interjections.

Hon. B. Ralston: I wish the answer were that simple.

The member has referenced the appointment of the innovation

commissioner. In a recent report to the Legislature, he set out what he

thought were important directions for government policy in the future.

He recommends an economic and technology strategy that supports

increased business investment in research and development, developing

talents at post-secondary institutions and scaling up small businesses

with huge growth potential. He’s suggested three different kinds of

clusters, whether they’re regional community clusters; emerging

technology clusters; or scale-up, market-driven clusters.

Certainly, the B.C. Technology Industry Association is a strong

leader in providing policy advice to the government. I think they have

adopted and would recommend very similar solutions to those that the

innovation commissioner put forward, particularly in relation to scaling

up companies, taking companies from the start-up environment and

building big companies here that are global leaders. And there are lots

of opportunities to do that, given the strength of our sector

here.

I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about

those policies, and I look forward to developing those policies with all

members of the Legislature in the future.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SITES AND

CONCERNS OF MAPLE RIDGE

RESIDENTS

J. Johal: On April 4, the Minister of Housing wrote that crime has not

increased at NDP-imposed housing sites in Nanaimo. Her letter reads:

“There has been no increase in crime.” The minister’s statement is

patently false, and for her to be unaware of the facts shows a shocking

level of incompetence. Nanaimo police have reported a 250 percent

increase in crime at one project, and a 66 percent increase at the

other.

The people of Maple Ridge do not want this imposed on them. How

can they have any confidence in the Premier when his minister doesn’t

even know what she’s talking about?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to remember how we all got here, right? We got

here — to significant tent cities all around the Lower Mainland, tent

cities in Nanaimo and a tent city in Maple Ridge — because the previous

government did not pay attention. They neglected the most vulnerable in

our communities, and as a result, they were left to their own devices

with no shelter, with no supports and with very little opportunity to

get ahead.

Our government has made some significant commitments to make sure

people had the supports they need, and that included a house, a home, a

place to rest your head. I’m very proud of our government opening up

over a thousand homes in the last 18 months.

There are a thousand people around this province who, before, did

not have a home. They lived in a tent, and they now have a home. So we

are continuing to work with communities right around the province,

including Nanaimo, to make sure that people have the supports they need

so that they can get ahead.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: Now, without wraparound support, the government is simply

warehousing people. We’ve heard nothing but crickets from the NDP MLA

for Nanaimo, but fortunately, somebody is speaking out.

The minister’s former colleague, the now mayor of Nanaimo, said:

“There were significant issues…security, criminal behaviour, all sorts

of problems.” No wonder the community of Maple Ridge rejects the

Premier’s top-down plan for temporary housing in the wrong location

without the right supports.

Will the Premier listen to the people of Maple Ridge and put

together a proper program that includes real access to

services?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to tell you, frankly, how tired I am that the members

of the opposition would mislead the public. They would prefer to create

division in communities rather than to support people who need it most

in communities right around this province. So for the record, let me

tell you exactly what we are doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank

you.

Hon. S. Robinson: Every single one of the supportive housing projects connects

people and supports people where they have a home — every single one. In

fact, we are making sure that people can get to appointments. We are

making sure that they can find medical supports. We’re making sure they

have somebody there 24-7. We have professionals on site making sure that

people have what they need when they need it.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s the people from Maple Ridge that are tired with this

minister. The minister is ignoring the concerns of neighbours and

locally elected officials in Maple Ridge and disregarding the real need

for recovery and treatment options.

Unlike the MLAs for Maple Ridge–Mission and Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows, who are missing in action on this file, their former colleague

is speaking out. The new NDP mayor of Nanaimo: “We have a Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions. I think they need to try harder, to be

quite blunt about it. The citizens in my community are losing their

sympathy.”

Will the minister stop railroading the people of Maple Ridge and

start providing real services to the people that need it?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I wonder when the opposition is going to stop misleading the

public. Every….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, they’re wanting to talk to the mayors, so let me tell what

you the mayors are saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: Mayor Henry Braun of Abbotsford says: “Abbotsford has committed to

a housing-first approach to meet our goal of becoming a city where

everyone has a home. These new facilities will enable us to better

respond to the immediate housing and support needs of our

community.”

Wait. I have another one, Ken Popove from Chilliwack. “We have

been working towards supportive housing for many years. This

new…building, in combination with the integrated case management team,

will provide hope to 46 people in Chilliwack and make a…difference in

the lives of our vulnerable population.”

But hold on. Wait a minute. The members from Kamloops might like

to know what their mayor has to say, Ken Christian. I think they might

really like to know what he has to say about this. “Kamloops city

council welcomes Spero House supportive housing. Far too many people in

Kamloops, and other cities, are homeless. Projects like this one give

people a chance to regain their health, wellness and lives.”

But wait. Perhaps the members from Kelowna would like to hear what

their mayor has to say. “We are really happy to see Hearthstone open. We

appreciate the investment B.C. Housing is making in our community and

helping us address our need for more housing for those who are most

vulnerable in our city.”

I wonder if the members opposite think that raping and pillaging

is the appropriate perspective to have on people who are

homeless.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, the people of Maple Ridge want this minister to stop

misleading the public. One rotating nurse split between three sites is

not wraparound care. The problem is the lack of comprehensive on-site

support services being made available to people who need real help. The

people of Maple Ridge need a plan that values local input and public

engagement.

[11:00 a.m.]

Instead, we have two NDP Maple Ridge members missing in action and

a top-down plan from the provincial government for temporary housing in

the wrong location without the right supports.

When will the minister stop misleading the public and stop

ignoring the people of Maple Ridge?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to say we wouldn’t be in this place if the previous

government had done its job. We have been cleaning up messes since we

took office. I want to remind everybody what was going on in the Whalley

strip. I know that there are some members on the other side…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …who remember the Whalley strip. I remember that there are some

members on the other side who remember the Whalley strip — 160 people

living on five blocks of sidewalk. That’s the legacy left by the

previous government. That’s their legacy.

I am very proud to say…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …that with our hard work….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very proud of the work that we did, together with the previous

mayor of Surrey, Linda Hepner. We worked together over a number of

months, and we made sure that every single one of those 160 individuals

got moved off a sidewalk and into a home.

I think it’s only fitting that I share with the House what the

former mayor of Surrey, Linda Hepner, had to say about the work that our

government has undertaken. “With the new accommodations available, we

are now able to offer those living in deplorable conditions on a

sidewalk suitable housing that will have the necessary health and social

supports. We are restoring dignity to these individuals by offering them

proper shelter and care.”

For the record, I think it’s also important to acknowledge what

services we are delivering from Fraser Health, along with the support

services of people who go to work every day to support people who are

homeless, those who’ve been most marginalized, who have been left to sit

in a tent city.

I think the members wanted to know what supports were available.

We have intensive case management, nurse practitioners, mental health

services, psychiatric services, Alouette Addictions Services. I can go

on.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 25, Coastal Ferry

Amendment Act, and in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued

estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: It’s a petition on behalf of 33 people from Sunshine Meadows. The

petition is to allow stratas to continue to restrict or prohibit an owner

from leasing and renting their units.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — COASTAL FERRY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. Trevena: I call second reading of Bill 25, entitled Coastal Ferry Amendment

Act, 2019. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 25, the Coastal

Ferry Amendment Act. The bill is in response to recommendations in the

report on the coastal ferry service review, which was released in

February. That review was conducted to help government consider what

changes could be made to support an affordable ferry service that meets

the needs of coastal communities.

B.C. Ferries has a long history in this province. It was really

instigated as a Crown corporation by W.A.C. Bennett, who realized that

communities needed ferry service and that ferry service had become,

potentially, a political football. So he created the Crown corporation,

which evolved over the years.

As B.C. Ferries evolved and grew in service, communities developed

around the marine highway, anticipating service of that marine highway.

It was symbiotic. B.C. Ferries grew; communities grew — establishing

routes, establishing service. But it was political and always was

political. One would always hope that a ferry service would be

apolitical, because it is part of our highway, but it soon evolved that

this was going to become a political football. The ferry service, as I

say, evolved — grew a number of routes, grew in service. Communities

grew around it.

Then the former government, in 2001-2002, decided to transform the

Crown corporation to what I describe as, using the British acronym, a

quango — the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. Which means

it’s an arm’s-length body from government, although still has link to

government. This was a political decision. And all things that came from

that, I put down to a political approach which has really hurt those

people who live and work on the coast, whose communities have grown up

on the coast. It really has been very problematic.

There has been a very strange governance structure over the last

number of years. There have been two boards running B.C. Ferries — an

authority board and a services board. The services board has the

oversight over the corporation of B.C. Ferries. The authority board

holds the government’s share, but the authority board has had very

limited authority in that position. It has an ongoing relationship with

the services board, and the services board is the one that dictates how

B.C. Ferries will operate. So the level of oversight has been very

difficult over the last number of years since the former government

decided to give this quasi-privatization to B.C. Ferries.

I think everybody can remember, in those days when we had the

shift from the Crown corporation, the Million-Dollar Man, the first CEO.

We’re now on the third CEO. The first CEO, David Hahn, came from the

private sector and was earning $1 million. This was at the same time

that communities were seeing their services cut and individuals were

seeing their fares rise. This had a dramatic impact, both on people who

were living in communities, people working in communities and businesses

— the absolute rapid rise in fares.

We had, I know, on some routes in my own constituency…. I

represent absolutely ferry-reliant communities, whether it is the

Campbell River over to Quadra, where I happen to live, to Cortes,

up-Island or some of the more major routes in the north. We saw, in some

of those routes, 140 percent increase in fares and the cutting of

service and the removal of the seniors rate through that

period.

We also saw the shift in the procurement and construction of B.C.

Ferries, where ferries were no longer being built in B.C. We had ferries

built in Germany, in Poland and in Romania.

The development of the amenities within those ferries…. I do hear,

and I have said in this House, and have heard comments from many people

that the ferries have been evolved like cruise ships. We’re talking

about short journeys for the most part, from the south Island over to

the Mainland. We’re talking about an hour and a half.

[11:10 a.m.]

The only really long journeys are the Inside Passage, which is

sold as a cruise ship experience and not sold as a ferries route, and

the very important link between Haida Gwaii and the mainland, to Prince

Rupert. Those are really the long journeys, where there is the need for

better capacity for users — realizing that what ferries are,

essentially, are the ability to get from A to B.

The other issue we’ve seen is political decision-making. We’ve

seen the issue in the fares, in the reduction of services — which, as I

say, devastated communities — and also the removal of specific routes.

I’ve talked about that. We lost route 40. That was where the Queen

of Chilliwack had had $15 million spent on it, leaving

communities stranded. Indigenous communities — from Port Hardy through

Bella Bella, right up to Williams Lake — were impacted by this. Then, on

the eve of the election, the former government, in fear of losing one of

their ridings, decided that they would demand that B.C. Ferries

reinstate a route there. B.C. Ferries was scrambling to get a ferry and

had had a very costly refit.

Now a year late, a much smaller vessel than the original Queen

of Chilliwack will be going into service, serving that route.

Really, the loss of the route and the reintroduction of the route was

done on a political whim, rather than a sound business case. That is one

of the problems. The previous government had no desire to really look at

B.C. Ferries, look at it as part of our marine highway and develop a

vision for B.C. Ferries. That is something that we are going to

do.

In the short term, we as a government have reduced fares on minor

routes. We’ve frozen fares on the major routes. We’ve reintroduced the

free seniors rate. We’ve reintroduced those routes that were cut by that

former government. This is all an evolution, as we move to really

rebuild and give a commitment to this marine highway. The next stage is

this bill, which I’m talking about, Bill 25. Then, subsequent to that,

will be the visioning — working with B.C. Ferries, working with

communities about that long-term vision of how B.C. Ferries should

evolve. That is what has been missing for the last 16 years.

In Bill 25 there are amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act, and

they’re consistent with the recommendations in the ferry review to

ensure that the public interest is at the forefront of decision-making.

That was lost in the last 16 years — that sense of public interest and

of making sure that that was at the heart.

The Coastal Ferry Act requires that the regulator of B.C. Ferries,

the B.C. ferries commissioner, regulate according to certain principles.

The consideration of the broader public interest — that which was lost —

will now be a requirement for the commissioner when regulating ferry

service. The commissioner, whose role is bolstered through this, will

also be explicitly required to consider the province’s greenhouse gas

emission targets, to further the important public policy

objective.

The principle that ferry operators adopt a commercial approach to

service delivery is being eliminated, and we are looking at the public

interest. This doesn’t mean that the commissioner will no longer

consider B.C. Ferries’ financial viability when making regulatory

decisions, but it won’t be the primary consideration. It will be the

needs for communities, the needs for the economy on the coast, the needs

for our province that will come first when we’re looking at the public

interest. The commissioner will still be required to encourage ferry

operators to be innovative and to minimize costs without affecting

safety.

The legislative amendment proposes a new

section to the act, to

enable the commissioner to pay all or part of the costs incurred by

consumer advocates to make submissions in the regulatory process. This

is something that again comes from the report and comes from

conversations that I think all members who represent coastal communities

have heard. For those groups that want to advocate but have trouble

navigating the system, it will facilitate greater consumer advocacy and

participation. It will enhance accountability through stakeholder

engagement.

The

section of the act relating to the alternative service

providers, or ASPs, is being removed. When B.C. Ferries was made

independent from government, the idea was that it would contract out

services on routes, in an effort to reduce the cost of delivering those

services — sort of that private model — and just sell off

routes.

[11:15 a.m.]

Despite a number of attempts, that never actually happened since

the act was brought into force in 2003. So it is redundant, and it just

makes no sense still having that

section in the act. Removing this

section of two ASPs, which is redundant, won’t limit B.C. Ferries’

ability to subcontract with another ferry operator if the need or the

opportunity arises.

Consistent with another of the report’s recommendations is the

increasing of the number of provincial appointments on the B.C. Ferry

Authority board — as I say, the shareholder of B.C. Ferries, which holds

the government’s share. That’s going to increase from two to four. The

additional two appointees are going to replace the two community

at-large members. The change isn’t going to result in a majority of

authority members being appointed by the province — it’s still a

nine-member board — but I think it will ensure that the authority

represents that broad public interest perspective when undertaking its

role as the shareholder, which is responsive to the needs of the public

and responsive to the public interest.

One of the responsibilities of the authority is to appoint members

to the B.C. Ferry Services board. The proposed amendments also ensure

that the authority will be required to limit the terms for appointments

to the B.C. Ferry Services board, oversee the strategic direction of

B.C. Ferries and report annually on the authority’s activities with

respect to overseeing the strategic direction of the corporation, all

very important for accountability — making sure that B.C. Ferries is

responsive to that public interest.

Finally, the definition of an executive at B.C. Ferries has been

changed to include all vice-presidents, not just executive

vice-presidents. I think there has long been a question — I know in my

own community and other coastal communities — about the number of

executives, how the executive works. So this really will just provide

greater transparency and oversight of executive compensation.

All these changes, the number that there are, may seem small, but

I think that they really will have a great impact because they do build

in that concept of public interest within the Coastal Ferry Act. They

are, as I mentioned, one of many ways our government is supporting the

provision of affordable ferry service that really does meet the needs of

coastal communities and the travelling public in British Columbia and,

by doing that, meets the needs of the economy of British Columbia and

people who live and work on the coast.

I thank you for this, and I look forward to hearing the rest of

the debate.

M. Hunt: I would like to introduce to you and have the House welcome

students from….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, hold it.

Is leave granted?

M. Hunt: I’m sorry. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Hunt: I am so thankful for my friends opposite wanting to so eagerly

support my introduction.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to introduce the second wave of students from Adams

Road Elementary that are with us this morning. There is a total of 74

students, with Mr. Kori Langston being the teacher. I would ask the House to

please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Sturdy: While I wish I was able to say that I am pleased to stand to speak

to this Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, unfortunately, I cannot.

This act, which proposes, as the minister suggests, a seemingly

innocuous change, is nothing less, frankly, than a stealthy return to

the dismal years of the ’90s for B.C. Ferries. I’m not generally a big

fan of referring back to the ’90s. I think if you looked at my

Hansard record, you’d see that I haven’t done that in the

past. But in this particular case, I cannot help it, because the

initiative very much looks like that is the objective. The act is aimed

at gaining government and cabinet majority on the B.C. Ferry Authority

board.

[11:20 a.m.]

This is about giving that board undefined powers to mandate

strategic direction and public interest without definition or

limitation. This is about creating a complexity of governance, a

complexity for the authority, a complexity for the board, a complexity

for the operator and a complexity for the commissioner.

This is about creating a complexity of governance, a complexity

for the authority, a complexity for the board, a complexity for the

operator and a complexity for the commissioner. This is about dropping

the imperative to operate in a businesslike manner, to contain costs, to

keep fares sustainable and allow the corporation to keep investing and

keep improving the service. This is about eliminating the Ferry

Commissioner’s mandate that “ferry operators are to be encouraged to

adopt a commercial approach to ferry service delivery.”

The real question is: how will this support a robust and resilient

ferry corporation that will weather the ups and downs, the changes in

the operating environment? Will these changes set the Ferry Services

operator up for success or for failure? All I can say with certainty is

that the idea that politicians are better able to manipulate the levers

of control of this organization, through majority appointments to the

board, alarms me.

The only limitation on government, of this stealth and indirect

return to government control, is that they must, I am sure, be aware

that the Auditor General has been alive to the concern. As much as you

say you are not directing the company, if the Auditor General believes

that government is telling the ferry company how to do their job, then

it’s one of those walks-like-a-duck scenarios, and she will roll the

debt back onto B.C.’s books, into the province’s books, and further

limit opportunities for government.

Is this where we’re going? Are we going back to the ’90s? Is this

back to that terrible decade where B.C. Ferries was run from the cabinet

table, where everything from routes to schedules to pricing was fiddled

with by politicians for their own purposes? It was a decade of labour

problems, of aging fleets, of crumbling infrastructure and a political

football heading for the rocks. Then, of course, in the ’90s, I can’t

resist suggesting, they decided to go at high speed onto the rocks and

ended up with an organization mired in debt, a disaster of

demoralization, with little pride in the fleet and little vision as to

where they were going. Something clearly had to change.

A new structure was created that was at arm’s length from

government, that got the politics out of the operation, that had a

mandate to manage the debt in a sustainable way, to operate with a

commercial lens, knowing that the shareholder was the taxpayer — to run

it like a business. This organization, over the course of the last — yes

— 16 years has made tremendous strides. B.C. Ferries has the largest

fleet of vehicle ferry vessels in the world.

B.C. Ferries is internationally respected. B.C. Ferries has

regular inquiries into whether they would be interested in managing

other services outside of the province, because they are so well

respected, because they do such a good job. B.C. Ferries has had regular

inquiries into how the model works and how the model works so well: “Can

it be replicated?” B.C. Ferries is one of the biggest and the best

operators in the world, and the NDP want to restructure it back to the

cabinet table — because, you know, the NDP does know best.

In the meantime, B.C. Ferries has, over the last number of years,

over the last 15 years, reduced the age of the fleet. They have a

capital plan for more. One of the pieces of the capital plan going

forward that I’m pretty excited about — and I hope the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast is as well — is to replace an existing large vessel

with two smaller vessels and, rather than having a single sailing every

couple of hours, to have a sailing on the hour.

[11:25 a.m.]

These are not inexpensive directives; these are not inexpensive to

do. They need to be well financed in a solid organization. There are

many other initiatives that the ferry corporation has — like simplifying

the rate classes. Instead of having 17 different styles of ferries,

we’ll bring it down to three, four or five different styles that allow

for interoperability, that allow these ferries to operate into this

terminal or that terminal. It’s actually picking up on the airline

model, for example, with WestJet, where in that case they have a limited

number of aircraft that simplify the maintenance plan, that simplify the

training or crewing and that allow for interoperability, all the while

making the organization more efficient.

B.C. Ferries has renewed much of the terminal infrastructure in

the province. They have more work to do, and clearly, Horseshoe Bay is

one of them. The organization is out there right now doing consultation

with the community, as the district of West Van looks at a new

neighbourhood plan for Horseshoe Bay: how does the ferry operate or fit

into that community, and how does it best serve the province of British

Columbia and the people of the coast?

They’re on their way to lower-emission vessels. They have put in

place — as we all know, I think — a cable ferry, which is an innovative

device that has reduced emissions. Basically, what it does is that it

pulls itself back and forth across the channel, reducing cost, reducing

emissions and embracing innovation. It has brought in place LNG and

electric-drive ferries. Some of the new ferries that are coming into the

system will be fully convertible to full electric drive as battery

technologies and the hydro-servicing infrastructure improves.

This is a globally leading company, but it seems that this

minister and her ideologically driven big-government-knows-best mantra

is going to erode — or is working to erode — the foundations of this

organization. They want to complicate the governance to a point where

nobody really understands the structure or mandate. I wonder if the

minister is doing it just for the sake of doing it. As I’ve said and as

is well documented, B.C. Ferries is an internationally well-respected

and domestically well-respected organization. It rates extremely well in

customer satisfaction. It has great on-time performance

metrics.

It is an internationally award-winning company for public safety,

for crew safety. It has been awarded numerous awards because it’s a

great place to work. It has demonstrated that it has excellent labour

relations. This is a company that is where it needs to be. As I said, it

has a robust capital plan. It has voluntarily reinstated sailings and

covered the cost of those sailings with its own-source revenues, all

within an acceptable 2.3 percent cap on fares and taxpayer support for

the next — proposed, anyway — performance term that is out right now,

put out by the Ferry Commissioner, for consultation.

I think all of this is at risk. This government intends to fiddle

with this proven model. This government can’t resist: “Well, if it’s

working, let’s fix it.” The plan seems to be trying to indirectly

control B.C. Ferries without rolling the debt back into the government

and taking on that responsibility. It’s a stealth move.

B.C. Ferry Authority is the shareholder, on behalf of the public.

The plan is to gain control through majority appointments to the

authority. The NDP plan is to fire the directors at large, who have been

recruited for particular skills, replace them with NDP appointees —

again, majority control — and expand the role of the authority. The

authority currently has the responsibility of appointing directors to

the B.C. Ferries board and to set executive compensation. But going

forward, this same NDP majority board in the future will have expanded

authority to not only appoint the operations board but to oversee

strategic direction in support of the public interest.

[11:30 a.m.]

Do they define this? No, they don’t define it. What does this

mean? What are the implications of this? I suppose what it means is

whatever the NDP appointees want it to mean. Does it add complexity? No

question. Does it add uncertainty? Undoubtedly. Will it improve the

operation? Unlikely. Will it simplify governance? Not a chance. Will it

make the operator better? Frankly, I don’t see how.

The other big change is to repeal the commissioner’s mandate that

“the ferry operators are to be encouraged to operate in a commercial

approach to ferry service delivery” and replace the mandate with — wait

for it — nothing. No discussion of how you’re supposed to operate. Don’t

operate in a businesslike fashion, though. That’s been removed. Don’t

have a commercial approach. Have an NDP approach.

This is a disaster in the making. Obviously we’re concerned with

this return to political fiddling at every opportunity. How this

NDP-appointed board will define and implement “strategic direction” and

“public interest” is completely unknown. Strategic direction and public

interest could be interpreted to mean anything. It could be right down

to fiddling and dictating the price of hamburgers or identifying the

size of the parking spots.

Where I think this is probably going is looking at a mandate for

domestic shipbuilding. I think it’s worthwhile to look at this and

examine the option for a moment. Currently the corporation sources the

best ships they can at the best price they can from suppliers around the

world. The imperative is to get the best deal for the ratepayer and keep

prices down.

So if government demands, as they have indicated that they may

well wish to do, that there be a requirement that ferries are built in

British Columbia, which is not something that we currently require…. Not

only do we not require ferries to be built in B.C. at any cost, but we

don’t require all the cars in British Columbia to be built here. We

don’t require all the buses to be built here. We don’t require all the

trains to be built here. Why do we demand that ferries be built here? It

doesn’t make sense.

If government wants to expand shipbuilding in British Columbia,

well, that’s fair enough. That is fair enough. We have done that with

other industries, haven’t we? We’ve expanded and supported the digital

film and animation sector. We’ve supported the sector by providing the

sector with incentives. We don’t say that all the films you watch in

British Columbia need to be made in British Columbia. We say: “How can

we set the table so that the film industry is competitive and thrives?”

That model has worked for a variety of reasons in a variety of

industries, and that model could work with shipbuilding.

We could support the shipbuilding sector with tax credits or other

incentives and then let them compete in the market. But to require that

the ferry corporation builds here doesn’t build a resilient industry or

a resilient ferry corporation. All it does is mess with competitive

procurement and create weak industries that, in the long run, can’t

compete and are doomed to fail. I’m concerned that this is the direction

this government is going with this type of unclear strategic direction

mandate.

Honestly, though, I understand where this government wants to

expand B.C. Ferries services to coastal British Columbia. I believe that

that is a common goal. But there are other levers that government has,

rather than direct fiddling with ferry operations. Government could

decide to offer additional funds to the corporation and ask them what

they would do to change or improve the service if they had additional

resources and then make a decision about additional taxpayer

investments. They could do that, but that’s not what they’re doing.

They’re trying to bring political control back to the cabinet table. It

is unfortunate and naive to think that politicians are better operators

than this company. I see where this Coastal Ferry Amendment Act is

going, and it scares me.

[11:35 a.m.]

We are exploring this at committee stage. We will be exploring it

further in committee stage, but at this point, it’s hard to imagine how

this bill sets the B.C. Ferries corporation up for success in serving

the ferry users of coastal British Columbia. I am disappointed in what

the minister has brought forward, but I must say I am not

surprised.

M. Dean: I’m very proud to stand up and speak to Bill 25 on behalf of

everybody across the province of British Columbia, and especially my

constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin.

This is a bill that brings us into modern times. This actually

brings us up to speed into 2019. It puts the public interest first. That

has been missing for far too long.

Now, in my community and across the province, we know that ferry

services, ferry routes and capacity on the ferries were cut under the

previous government. We know that fares went up, and that made B.C.

Ferries inaccessible and unaffordable for members of my constituency and

people right across British Columbia. People, indeed, were left

stranded. We’ve heard stories of people who were left stranded because

B.C. Ferries was cut back so far that the capacity couldn’t take people

back to their homes at night in coastal communities.

I am extremely proud of our Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure. She lives in a coastal and a ferry-dependent community.

She understands these matters. This bill is designed for people who live

in coastal communities. What it does is put those people at the heart of

the future of planning and designing for B.C. Ferry Services as

well.

I want to tell you about my constituency, Esquimalt-Metchosin.

It’s beautiful, and it’s all coastal — from Esquimalt through DND on to

Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, View Royal, Colwood and through to

Metchosin and Scia’new, or Beecher Bay, First Nation. All of our

communities have access to the coast, and all of our communities have a

long history of travelling on the water.

Even myself. I can tell you that when I first came here, and I

lived in Victoria and Esquimalt, I lived on a boat. I voyaged around the

south coast. I went around all of the islands and all of the ports and

inlets and anchorages. I saw our beautiful province from the perspective

of the water. I know it’s a privilege. I know it’s an honour.

Of course, today you wouldn’t rely on a sailing boat if you needed

to get to an important appointment, if you needed to get to a sporting

commitment, if you needed to get to a family event or a business

meeting. You would, of course, use a reliable source of transportation

for that. Now here on the Island, we use our highways, yet those of us

living in Esquimalt-Metchosin are also living on an island, and we need

to get off our island and get from our island to other destinations. So

then, of course, our highway is the sea, and here in the province of

British Columbia, B.C. Ferries are our source of transit on these water

highways.

So many people in my constituency rely on B.C. Ferries to get to

important events and appointments. A young woman I know has to get to

Vancouver to see an eye specialist. She has a condition that cannot be

treated here locally. Families from my community have to travel to other

islands as well as the mainland, not only to visit with family but also

to attend important family events like weddings and funerals. Members of

Indigenous communities have relatives across British Columbia and travel

to keep in touch and keep cultural ties strong. I received an e-mail

this morning from a woman in my community who was in the ferry lineup

yesterday. She got there at 5:50 a.m. because she had such an important

medical appointment to get to in Vancouver.

I’m very proud that Bill 25 introduces amendments that will

strengthen the Coastal Ferry Act to serve the needs of people living in

coastal communities that rely on the ferry service. As the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure said: “People living in coastal

communities depend on the vital service provided by B.C. Ferries, but

for many years, they experienced service cuts and climbing fares. Our

amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act will put people at the heart of

decision-making.”

[11:40 a.m.]

In particular, the legislation will require the B.C. Ferry

Commissioner to prioritize the public interest when regulating ferry

services. It facilitates the participation of consumer advocates in B.C.

ferries commissioner’s regulatory processes to consider the needs of

people in the review of ferry services. That means the needs of coastal

communities, like the one that I serve, will be taken into account. It

means the local economies of our coastal communities will be given due

consideration.

I’d like to remind members and the critic that the ferries are the

highway for coastal communities. People living in my constituency need

to be able to run their businesses, attend specialist appointments,

build networks and attend to family needs. All of these demands on them

need to be considered when regulating and reviewing the ferry services

on which they rely.

Adding public interest to the description of the role of the

commissioner is intended to put the needs of people at the heart of

decision-making and reinforces the view that ferry service is an

integral part of B.C.’s overall transportation network. Ultimately, we

want to better integrate ferry services with the broader transportation

network. We know this will better serve British Columbians, and it’ll

certainly help families and businesses in my community of

Esquimalt-Metchosin.

The amendments also ensure that the B.C. Ferry Authority oversees

the strategic direction of B.C. Ferries, in support of the public

interest, including safe, reliable and affordable coastal ferry services

in British Columbia. These are services that families and businesses in

Esquimalt-Metchosin rely on. We need to make sure that their ideas,

their experiences and their expectations are heard in future

planning.

Another change to make sure that all British Columbians will be

included is that the B.C. ferries commissioner will have the authority

to pay all or part of the costs incurred by a consumer advocate. Many

consumer advocates don’t have the resources to prepare submissions and

engage in consultation processes, so this new allowance will actually

help with their cost of report-writing and research. Ultimately, this

will facilitate greater consumer advocacy participation in regulatory

decisions made by the commissioner.

The amendments also include ensuring the consideration of the

province’s greenhouse gas emission targets. With CleanBC, we are

striving to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation is a

key component of that. People in Esquimalt-Metchosin want to know that

when they use the ferry, they’re also doing their part to contribute to

our protection of the environment.

I would also like to comment that while the B.C. Liberals might

not like to see new ferries being built in British Columbia, I would

like to see them being built — being built in the constituency of

Esquimalt-Metchosin and the constituency of North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

These legislative amendments are one of the many ways that our

government is working to improve ferry services to keep them

affordable…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Dean: …and ensure they meet the needs of coastal communities and people

in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, take a seat.

M. Hunt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: You’ll see in the gallery right now we have the third wave of students

from Adams Road Elementary in Surrey that are here with us. I ask that the

House would join me in making these students welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Dean: I was talking about the many ways that our government is improving

ferry services already. For example, we’ve restored sailings on the

majority of ferry routes that were cut in 2014, so that will see over

2,700 additional round trips added to schedules on ten minor and

northern routes. We’ve provided funding to B.C. Ferries to reduce fares

on the smaller and northern routes by 15 percent. Freezing fares on the

major routes — fares will continue to be frozen this year.

[11:45 a.m.]

We reinstated the Monday-to-Thursday 100 percent discount for

seniors passenger fares. I can tell you that there are many seniors who

enjoy and appreciate this discount. There was a grandmother in my

community who actually stopped seeing her grandchildren on the mainland

when this discount was terminated, because she couldn’t afford to go

over and visit and help take care of them.

Another senior couple I know use this discount to meet regularly

with friends and to enjoy socializing and catching up — on a round ferry

trip, getting out and about.

So I just want to reinforce my support for this bill. Putting the

public interest at the heart of B.C. Ferries services will better serve

families, businesses and local economies in Esquimalt-Metchosin, coastal

communities and the pro­vince of British Columbia.

A. Olsen: I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

and appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill —

indeed, important amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act.

I just want to acknowledge the impact that the ferries have on my

riding. Indeed, the Saanich Peninsula is connected to the Lower Mainland

and the rest of the world through Swartz Bay, as Vancouver Island is

connected by the B.C. Ferries. But as well, I represent a number of

ferry-dependent communities in and throughout the southern Gulf Islands

— amazingly vibrant, creative places that require the ferries in order

for them to be able to be connected not only to Tsawwassen and Swartz

Bay but also, again, to the rest of the world.

A lot of the economic activity that’s generated on the southern

Gulf Islands comes through those ferries, either in the form of tourists

that come and visit through the summer months and purchase the amazing

creations of island residents but, as well, through products that are

made and need to be distributed to the global economy.

So it’s important that I take a moment to take the highlighter and

draw attention to the very important work that I think that this House

is responsible for — ensuring that B.C. Ferries, the marine highway

system, is indeed resilient, reliable, convenient for people who are

dependent on it on the southern Gulf Islands and all up and down the

coast of British Columbia.

It’s not lost on me that slightly over a third, I think it was, of

the economy of British Columbia is impacted, and coastal communities are

a third of the provincial economy, roughly. So they are connected by

that marine highway network. Many of the members in this House represent

ferry-dependent communities and recognize and understand the impact that

they have.

I think that it’s important that we stand up and acknowledge that

as often as we possibly can. There has been this perception, I think,

that has overwhelmed this place that we can do without those important

aspects of our economy — that we can let those communities fall behind,

that we can let them lag behind in their transportation and

connectivity. I think that it’s important we stand up and defend not

only the physical connections through the ferries, but also the digital

connections, and that we remain emotionally connected to these very,

very important communities that are often the life of our

province.

I think that it’s important to note that the Redlin report that

was commissioned by the government over a year ago now and that has

informed and inspired aspects of this bill has 38 recommendations with

respect to the public interest. I was on a panel last week at the

College of Applied Biology, talking about defining the public interest,

and I wrote about it recently, actually, on my blog — about the public

interest.

[11:50 a.m.]

As someone who has been around the political tables and been

around the political discussion for the last decade, it’s not lost on me

that that is fundamentally the job of what we as elected officials do.

That’s to try to define the public interest. It’s an ever-morphing,

ever-evolving, ever-changing target that is nearly impossible to hit

because the public interest is ever morphing and ever

evolving.

It’s that pursuit of the public interest that I think defines the

work that we do in this place on a daily basis — the diversity of

opinions and the diversity of thought. Indeed, we’ve heard some here. We

do hear it on a regular basis in this place, that diversity. It’s

important that these Houses, that this chamber, are reflective of the

diversity of interests in the public and that the public interest is

defined as broadly as possible, recognizing that only we, collectively,

are going to be able to achieve even coming somewhere near….

I often say that I represent 50,000 different opinions in my

riding and that as many people that love the decision that I make will

be equally not so loving of the decision that I make. Just as many

people that thought I made a good decision in June of 2017 think I made

a poor decision in June of 2017. What it comes down to is the ability to

be able to have a mature conversation with people and to meet them in

their space and to say we have to do our best to balance, in the public

interest, the 50,000 opinions.

I think that it is important to highlight the governance aspect of

this. Indeed, I’m on the record, and I have no problem saying that I was

disappointed that the governance aspects of B.C. Ferries was taken out

of the terms of reference as a focus for Mr. Redlin in his report. It’s

not lost on me that it comes back that 38 recommendations about the

public interest are actually talking about the governance aspects of

this critically important service and corporation. It is a part of our

highway. The ferry system is a part of our highway system. It is an

important part of our highway system, and it need not be lost on

that.

In the interest of time, I’m just going to cover two more issues

here and then take my seat. I think it’s important to point out that

under the current governance model, some of the important aspects that

we find important and that I think that….

I’d like to thank the leadership at B.C. Ferries, who’ve been very

generous with their time with me, as someone who is not only the critic

for Transportation but also has ferry-dependent communities. The

leadership at B.C. Ferries has been generous with their time. I really

appreciate the efforts that they take on behalf of the public interest;

although, I think it is important that we highlight here, at this point

in time, that it is our responsibility to be providing transportation

services that are equitable across the province, that are accessible to

all British Columbians, that don’t hamper aspects of our communities and

of our province.

When it comes to the impacts of climate change and when it comes

to the impacts of noise — the pollution aspects of this — I know that

B.C. Ferries is working towards trying to make their ferries quieter to

ensure that there is as little disruption as possible on wildlife and

that they’re trying to have the lowest possible impact with their

emissions. They’re, indeed, in a transition. I would like to suggest

here at this point that it’s not soon enough, fast enough. It’s not

quick enough, fast enough.

Transitioning from one fossil fuel to another fossil fuel at this

point in time, when we know that Canada is warming at twice the rate….

We’ve known that for 20 years. This is not new information. We need to

be moving to those electric drives as rapidly as possible.

Finally, with respect to the shipbuilding industry in this

province, I recognize that it would be desirable for us to have a very

vibrant shipbuilding industry in this province and that we could be

building our ships, the vessels for B.C. Ferries, in this province. We

could be, indeed, competitive on a global scale with shipbuilding.

Government is going to have to make that a priority, not just to build

the 11 or 14 — or whatever the number is — future vessels but that we’re

going to have to be competitive on a global scale. That number of

vessels is not enough in order for us to keep, over the long term, those

investments in a shipbuilding industry and the kind of skills and labour

force that we need to do that. That is a specific focus that the

government is going to have to have.

[11:55 a.m.]

With that, I would like to rest my comments on that. I’m getting

the “let’s keep this moving, Member,” so I will get moving to lunch. I’d

like to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this and the

Minister of Transportation for beginning the important work of keeping

our ferry system reliable, convenient and, indeed,

world-class.

Noting the hour and the long-windedness of the speaker who just

sat down, I’d like to move adjournment of the debate.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $192,734,000

(continued) .

M. Lee: I’d just like to continue on from the last part of this estimates

discussion from my colleague’s questioning to the minister — that is, my

colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano — on the Professional Governance

Act and the questions relating to implementation, schedule, budget as

well as some other considerations, recognizing that there is going to be

quite a process here of regulation-making over the next few

years.

If I could just do a follow-on from yesterday’s questioning

regarding the joint recruitment and decision-making, both by the

Minister of Environment as well as the Attorney General. The minister

mentioned yesterday that it was an internal posting and that that

posting is going to be concluding next Tuesday.

Can I ask specifically the breadth of the recruitment process, in

terms of the external posting process as well as whether candidates are

being considered and recruited from abroad outside of Canada, inside

Canada, other provinces? Geographically, where are the candidates

stepping forward from?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ll correct one thing

that the member said. The posting actually closed two days ago, this

Tuesday, so it is closed.

The decision was made to do an internal posting consistent with

B.C. government normal hiring practice for the reasons that…. The

qualifications, which I outlined yesterday, that were being sought were

familiarity with B.C. government and B.C.-specific legislation and

policies; familiarity with government structures, in terms of

establishing an office within government; familiarity with the

interaction between the government and the regulatory bodies, the

colleges, that are currently conducted under a number of other

acts.

Of course, we believe that there is ample talent, knowledge and

skill and ability within the B.C. public service. Should, of course, a

review of the applicants and the process determine that there wasn’t an

outstanding applicant, we would then consider looking

outside.

M. Lee: I appreciate that clarification on timing as well as the pool of

candidates that would be coming forward. Yesterday the minister just

summarized a bit more in terms of the kinds of qualifications and

experience that this individual or candidates for this posting may want

to meet.

[11:15 a.m.]

Could I just ask, in terms of the regulatory oversight experience

in the province of B.C…. Recognizing that this individual will not be a

member of one of the five professional organizations to be regulated by

the superintendent, what kind of regulatory oversight experience, in

terms of the job description, will they be seeking this individual to

have?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: From our perspective, the ideal candidate would have experience in

how professional regulatory bodies regulate their members. This

qualification is a preference rather than a mandatory requirement, but

for example, the candidate could be a member of a professional body that

is different than one of the five professions regulated under the act.

For instance, they could be a lawyer. They could have been responsible

for working with a regulatory college under the act through their role

in one of the ministries that currently oversees those regulatory

bodies.

The superintendent of professional governance will be responsible

for regulating and administering the Professional Governance Act.

Because this is a unique role in B.C., we are continuing in an advisory

relationship that’s been established with an international expert during

the initial phase of establishment of the office.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Perhaps I could just also ask for a

clarification, in terms of the timeline on implementation. With the

hiring decision to be made, expected by the end of the month as the

minister indicated previously in the assessments process, what will be

the next steps on the implementation timeline for this current year and

beyond?

I do note that, on the intentions paper, in terms of the

regulatory-making process, there is indication of several years.

Recognizing that with the five regulatory bodies that are in place with

the professions, that is going to be an exercise which will be taking

place over a number of years. Could the minister please provide some

clarity on immediate steps of timing, say, over the next 90 days to that

12-month period and beyond?

[11:25 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As much as possible,

I’ll indicate an implementation timeline. It is, of course, subject to a

number of things.

I think the first thing we’re trying to do is hire the

superintendent, and that would be as soon as possible. But of course, as

I indicated, we’re expecting and hopeful that the internal posting

procedure will produce a successful qualified candidate. If we have to

go outside, then, of course, that will extend the timeline for that. We

are preparing to hire office staff. Postings will be out any day now.

That’s the office of the superintendent.

We intend, later this spring or early summer, to transition the

Professional Governance Act to the Attorney General’s ministry and bring

in regulations for council elections and requirement-based processes —

again, later this spring, early summer. For work on regulations to bring

into effect some of the authorities of the superintendent, we’re hopeful

for late spring or summer for that. And eventually, the five

professional association statutes will be repealed, as provided for in

the act, once the superintendent is in a position to oversee the bodies.

The timeline, however, for that will be determined by the

superintendent.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that basic

summary. Obviously, I’m mindful in

terms of the shift of responsibility from the Ministry of Environment to

the Attorney General’s ministry, as the minister just mentioned. Just

coming back at this, when we look at the reliance on the superintendent

to implement these changes…. We had some discussion about it when we

were doing the bill.

I ask this question in the context of the hiring decision which is

taking place in the next few weeks. We’ll come on, in a moment, to more

budget-related items. Is there any expectation that this superintendent,

or candidates for the superintendent role, would have any subject-matter

expertise in the areas being regulated, namely forestry, agrology,

applied biology, engineering and geoscience? Or would this person be

primarily focused only the on the regulatory function from a governance

point of view, as per the act?

Hon. G. Heyman: The emphasis will be on the latter point, because it’s not the job

of the superintendent to regulate the professionals. The job of the

superintendent is to ensure that the regulatory bodies are exercising

proper oversight, that the requirements of the regulatory bodies meet

the expectations that the public have, as will be outlined by the

superintendent. So the focus is on expertise and regulatory oversight,

not the actual work of the professionals themselves. We’ll leave that to

the regulatory bodies.

M. Lee: I guess that’s where the nub of the issue will be, in terms of the

actual implementation

schedule and the reliance on the superintendent.

The intentions paper, of course, speaks about issues relating to

practice rights of professionals, regulation of professional firms in a

corporate capacity, declaration of competence and conflicts of

interest.

[11:35 a.m.]

I appreciate that the overall framing is of a regulatory nature,

certainly. But there will need to be — given the parallel nature,

potentially, of the superintendent’s regulatory functions over top of

these professional organizations — some appreciation and understanding

of, you would think, the subject matter for which these professional

organizations are regulating in those particular sectors.

As the Ministry of Environment and the Attorney General Ministry

go through the actual selection process, is the minister concerned about

that risk, in terms of how the superintendent will be able to work

through all those regulatory areas?

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, the Professional Governance Act is built

around modernizing and strengthening the role of the regulatory

authorities to ensure the issues the member raised — competency,

addressing ethics and conflict of interest, ensuring that people doing

particular specialized work within a profession are qualified to do that

work and a range of other matters….

The role of the superintendent in addressing issues such as

practice rights or any of the issues that have been raised by some of

the associations as particular problems, I think, will be to hear from

the parties, to hear them talk from their own position of expertise

about what problems need to be addressed or where there may be potential

overlaps or conflicts or concerns.

So what we want in the superintendent is somebody with the skills

to dig into the information they get from these subject-matter experts

in the field, the regulatory authorities, not to take over their role.

And of course, the superintendent will have the ability to retain

independent subject-matter expertise if he or she believes that is

helpful or necessary.

M. Lee: Thank you for that. In terms of the intentions paper itself, it

says at the back, in terms of providing comment, that there would be

some inclusion of a — what we heard —

summary. Can the minister update

as to when that report on that

summary of feedback to the intentions

paper will be released? It says spring of 2019. Is there any update on

that timing?

Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, it will be this spring. In fact, it’ll be very

soon.

M. Lee: In terms of what the minister said previously in response to the

previous question about potential further consultation, is there

expectation by the Ministry of Environment or the Attorney General

Ministry as to when the consultation process…? What are the milestones

which the superintendent will be working with to get through the various

stages? It sounds like it’s late spring, summer. These are the time

frames for the initial steps. Is that correct?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: My ministry staff, as well as staff from the Attorney General’s

ministry, have been meeting with the professional regulatory bodies

regularly, on a

schedule that’s about every four to six weeks, to work

through the different issues of regulations as we go through the process

of hiring the superintendent. Once the superintendent is in place, they

will also be part of setting milestones or timelines for further

development.

M. Lee: With that in mind, in terms of the general description of the

implementation timeline, what is the expected allocation within the

budget relating to the implementation during this year of this

Professional Governance Act, including the appointment of the

superintendent?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Questions relating to

allocations in the Ministry of Attorney General budget toward

establishing the office of the superintendent of professional governance

and activities related to that should be directed to the Attorney

General’s ministry.

In terms of our ministry, we have an uplift in the sustainable

environment fund for a range of activities. Within that, about $300,000

is dedicated to our support for the Ministry of Attorney General and the

transition work to both consult and help establish the office of the

superintendent.

Noting the hour, Chair, 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