Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 228

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act

Bill 24 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Perishable food recovery program at Kamloops Food Bank

T. Stone

Autism awareness and work of community organizations

R. Singh

Contributions of women in Surrey and Women in Business Awards

S. Cadieux

Susan Simmons and Spirit Orcas long-distance swim team

M. Dean

Determinism and free will

L. Throness

G.P. Vanier Secondary School improv theatre team

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Hon. S. Simpson

J. Thornthwaite

Lottery Corp. officials and regulation of casino operations

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

S. Bond

Hon. S. Simpson

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

S. Cadieux

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

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

Kerim Uras, the Ambassador of Turkey to Canada, along with consul general of

Turkey at Vancouver, Mr. Anil Bora Inan.

His Excellency is here on his first visit to British Columbia. I just

had the pleasure of meeting with him and discussing bilateral trade and

commercial relations. This afternoon he will be meeting with the

Lieutenant-Governor and later, after that, will also be meeting with you,

Mr. Speaker.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce some very special guests in the gallery

here today. Along with western regional director Joie Warnock, we have B.C.

area director Gavin McGarrigle, along with a number of Unifor members from

all across our great province. I look forward to meeting with them today to

talk about and discuss how we can make life better and safer for all B.C.

workers. I know they will be meeting with the different MLAs here

today.

Please help me give them a very, very warm welcome. I look forward to

meeting with them.

T. Redies: I, too, would like to welcome the members of various social services

agencies today under the B.C. CEO Network. In particular, I’d like to

welcome my constituent Doug Tennant, who is also the executive director of

the Semiahmoo House Society in South Surrey. Semiahmoo House Society

supports people with different abilities, and they’re a wonderful

organization within our community. They’ve also contributed to affordable

and inclusive housing in our communities.

I’m really, really delighted to welcome Doug and his colleagues here

to the House today and would ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

Hon. J. Sims: All of us know how hard-working our public service is, and the work

they do every single day makes us look good out in the public. I’m always in

awe of their passion, their commitment and their professionalism as they do

the work to do the very best for British Columbians, to make their lives

easier.

Today it is my pleasure to introduce to the House two staff members

from my ministry, from the corporate services division: Shane Hoag, who is

the director, project and business services, and Ronda Richardson, who is a

senior business consultant. May I ask that all here make them feel most

welcome and thank them for the awesome work they do every single

day.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Katie Currie, who is in the gallery today.

She’s here to shadow me. Katie is a fourth-year environmental studies and

poli-sci major at UVic, and she hopes to go on to do her master’s in

environmental politics, looking for solutions, as we all are, to the global

crisis of climate change. Please make Katie feel very welcome.

A. Weaver: Today I rise to introduce the University of Victoria Vikes women’s

varsity rowing team, who are in the gallery today. For anyone who might not

have seen the front page of the Times Colonist Sunday morning, the

Vikes women out-rowed UBC Thunderbirds this weekend at the annual Brown Cup

race, much to the embarrassment and shame of the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

The race itself begins under the Tillicum bridge before finishing in

the Inner Harbour. The UVic women reached the Inner Harbour nearly ten

seconds — that’s almost a lifetime in the sport of rowing — before the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey’s Thunderbirds did. Again, more shame and

more embarrassment for the member.

The Brown Cup is a UBC-UVic thing. The win for the UVic women extends

their all-time Brown Cup record to a dominant — listen to this, Member —

24-3. That’s 24 times UVic has beat UBC on this, and only three times have

they lost.

The rivalry between the two programs is intense, and I look forward to

following this again next year. I look forward to rising again in the House

next year and saying the record is now 25 and 3, and once more pointing out

the shame that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey should be

feeling.

The names of the winning crew are as follows, and they’re upstairs:

Barney Williams, Sam Heron, Lily Copeland, Piper Battersby, Gillian Cattet,

McKenna Simpson, Layla Balooch, team captain Larissa McKinley, Adriana

Rooker, Kirsten Edwards and Danae McCulloch. Would the House please make

this incredibly talented group of rowers feel very, very welcome.

L. Reid: In concert with my Richmond colleagues, I’d like to welcome Janice

Barr to this place. The Richmond Society of Community Living is in capable

hands. The programs that impact our families in Richmond: supported child

development, infant development — hugely important that they continue. Thank

you so very much for being here.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to rise today and acknowledge my

constituency assistant, Ryan Clayton, who joins us on Tuesdays in the House

and today is joining us. It’s his birthday. I want to raise my hands to Ryan

for a couple of reasons. One, because, well, he’s a pretty darn good

constituency assistant. In fact, he has a way around government, knowing who

to call and when to call and how to call them — and getting

answers.

The second is because Ryan spent a decade travelling the province,

delivering homophobia and discrimination presentations to our youth in

schools, in school districts, school boards, and has been right at the

leading edge, at the front edge, of this incredibly important

work.

Today it’s an honour to ask that all the members of this House raise

their hands to Ryan and the work that he did and help me congratulate him on

his 30-something birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — LAND OWNER

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Owner Transparency

Act.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. I’m

very pleased to introduce the Land Owner Transparency Act. This act

addresses the government’s commitment to end the hidden ownership of

land, as outlined in our 30-point housing plan.

For years, people were able to use shell companies, trusts and

partnerships to hide who really owns property in British Columbia. The

act sets out a framework for increasing transparency of land ownership

in the province by requiring disclosure from corporations, trustees and

partnerships about the underlying owners of land.

To support greater transparency, high-level information will be

available for search publicly, similar to how you can search now for

information on individual titleholders. More sensitive information will

be available to law enforcement, tax authorities and certain regulators

to help address tax evasion, tax fraud and money laundering.

[10:15 a.m.]

This beneficial ownership registry will be the first of its kind

in Canada and one of the most comprehensive in the world. We’ve heard

clearly from British Columbians, experts and municipalities that they

want their government to end hidden ownership, and we are doing just

that.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: 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 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, 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 24 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. I’m

pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019. This

bill will help prevent the misuse of B.C. companies for criminal

activities, such as money laundering and tax evasion. Currently

companies are susceptible to being used for criminal activity, as

they’re able to hide the identity of the owners of the

company.

This bill will require companies to identify and maintain

up-to-date information about true owners in the new record, called a

transparency registry. The transparency register will be kept in the

company’s records office, and information on it will be accessible to

the police, tax authorities and regulators in investigations.

This bill will also deal with bearer shares, which can be used to

mask the true owner’s identity. Although B.C. companies have not been

able to issue these shares for many years, the amendments contain a

mechanism to ensure that any pre-existing bearer shares are replaced

with share certificates that set out the name of the

shareholder.

Through this bill, our government is meeting two commitments:

first, our commitment outlined in our 30-point plan for housing

affordability to require companies to collect and hold accurate and

up-to-date information about beneficial owners of shares and, secondly,

our commitment to the federal-provincial-territorial initiative to

improve beneficial transparency across Canada.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Business Corporations 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PERISHABLE FOOD RECOVERY

PROGRAM AT KAMLOOPS FOOD

BANK

T. Stone: Fresh fruit, crisp vegetables, milk, eggs and protein — all

staples of a healthy diet and common items in most refrigerators but not

something usually provided in traditional food banks.

Every month thousands of British Columbians access food banks, and

every month farmers, food producers and grocery stores produce an

enormous amount of food waste — waste that goes into our landfills. So

how do you reduce waste and get food into the hands of those who need

it? You get creative, and you forge ahead with an innovative solution,

just like the one the Kamloops Food Bank embraced and has proven so

successful.

Led by Bernadette Siracky, the Kamloops Food Bank has found

success through the community-building initiative of perishable food

recovery. Food that is fit for consumption, but not necessarily fit for

sale, is a new avenue for food donations. Bernadette and her team have

created a system to tap into this by joining forces with local

businesses, who donate their very edible, but no longer sellable,

perishable food items. This allows those in need to get help and health

all at once. Less waste, fuller stomachs and healthier families — three

things we can all support.

This endeavour runs on the heels of a number of pilot projects

developed by the Kamloops Food Bank. FoodSHARE, Basics for Babies and

Empty Bowls are all successful programs started in Kamloops that have

now been replicated across Canada. So it is now with perishable food

recovery.

The leadership from Bernadette is something to celebrate, and all

members of her team deserve praise. Kirsten Beardsley, the chief network

services officer, had this to say: “I think what Bernadette does is

bring such positive energy and such a sense of leadership. She solves

problems, and she builds strong relationships within the community, with

retailers and with donors, to do something special.”

[10:20 a.m.]

It is with pride that I ask, on behalf of the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson and myself, for this House to please join us in

thanking Bernadette Siracky and her entire team at the Kamloops Food

Bank for the difference they continue to make in the lives of folks in

Kamloops and right across Canada.

AUTISM AWARENESS AND

WORK OF COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATIONS

R. Singh: We are at the beginning of Autism Awareness Month, and today,

April 2, is World Autism Awareness Day. I’m hoping all hon. members are

wearing their autism awareness pins. The pin symbolizes and reinforces

our commitment to families living with autism spectrum disorder and to

the selfless professionals who serve them.

Autism, as many of us know, is the most common neurological

disorder affecting children and one of the most common developmental

disabilities affecting Canadians in general. I understand how

challenging it is for a family to raise a child diagnosed with

autism.

As in most of the world, the prevalence rates of autism have

continued to rise in B.C. as well — from one in every 209 children in

2007 to one in every 45 now. The need to raise awareness about this is

as urgent as ever.

B.C., however, I was pleased to find out, is considered a leader

in providing autism services and is the only province in Canada that has

a no-wait-list policy for families to access funding following a

confirmed diagnosis. Families can access support and funding for

children at home and in school and may be eligible for a variety of

other services, including respite, family supports and early

intervention therapies.

The government’s work, however, would not be effective if it

weren’t well supported by community organizations. So today should also

be the day to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of organizations

that work to provide services to families affected by autism.

I hope you will all join me in extending a special thanks to the

Autism Society of B.C. and to the Canucks Autism Network, to name just

two. I would also like to ask all British Columbians to join me in

recognizing World Autism Awareness Day.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF WOMEN IN SURREY

AND WOMEN IN BUSINESS

AWARDS

S. Cadieux: March 8 was International Women’s Day, as this House knows. Every

year many organizations choose March to honour women and their

achievements. My colleagues from Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale

and I did just that, celebrating three local women living quite

inspiring lives in our community.

Christina Marcano is the founder and CEO of Silver Icing Inc.

She’s a wife and mother to three young children. She founded Silver

Icing to provide herself and other women an opportunity to fulfil their

entrepreneurial journey.

Louise Tremblay, who works with UNITI and Semiahmoo House Society,

supporting people with disabilities to live their best lives, has also

just written a book titled Boiled Frogs .

Loretta Hibbs’s passion for helping others has resulted in the

development of the City Dream Centre in Surrey, providing an array of

services and supports, including free dental service, to those in need

in our community.

The Surrey Board of Trade also held their tenth annual Surrey

Women in Business Awards. I, along with 400 people, gathered to

recognize the success of Surrey’s businesswomen and their contributions

to the community.

This year’s winners were: in the entrepreneur category, Santoshi

Desai, who is the co-founder of Orange Oranges Technologies; in the

professional category, Rupinder Khunkhun, who is a family law lawyer and

partner at Grandview Law Group LLP, in my community; in the

not-for-profit leader category, Ninu Kang, who is director of

communications and development at Mosaic, a woman well known to members

of this House; and in the corporate and leadership category, Alison

Fuller, who is the senior vice-president of finance at Venturis Capital

Corp.

Last but not least, our social trailblazer for the year: Sonia

Andhi Bilkhu, a leader in the field of social services and mental

health. She’s a registered social worker, a family counsellor and has

worked in the non-profit sector since 1987. Sonia founded the Shakti

Awards.

I congratulate them all on their achievements, their community

service and their awards and wish for the House to do the

same.

[10:25 a.m.]

SUSAN SIMMONS AND SPIRIT ORCAS

LONG-DISTANCE SWIM

TEAM

M. Dean: Fifteen years ago local resident of Esquimalt-Metchosin Susan

Simmons was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This is a condition often

characterized by fatigue, motor weakness, spasticity and core

balance.

In the years after her diagnosis, Susan’s health declined. Then

one day she woke up, became a vegan and began exercising. With tenacity

and perseverance, she built up her strength from not being able to walk

a block to swimming the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It’s 34 kilometres from

Port Angeles to Ogden Point, and she swam it two years ago with no

wetsuit. The swim took her ten hours and six minutes, and she did it to

help raise funds for a new MS Centre in Victoria.

A project she’s working on now is supporting a team of

developmentally delayed young athletes, called the Spirit Orcas, to

preparation this year, the team of six will swim Gunboat Passage near

Bella Bella Háiɫzaqv territory, in

Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest. As she says: “I wholeheartedly believe

everyone is worth the effort it takes to be healthy, and for those of us

with disease, our first line of defense should be a healthy and fit

self.”

Susan is an inspiration in my community and beyond. She’s showing

all of us what tenacity, perseverance and daring to push beyond can

achieve. Because, as Susan knows, everybody is capable of achieving

something great.

DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL

L. Throness: An important public policy issue is a philosophical debate about

determinism and free will. What our society believes about this issue

affects a wide range of decisions in areas like justice, addictions

treatment and social benefit programs. We know that inanimate things are

entirely determined by outside forces. But is a person so determined as

well, with choice just an illusion?

In the 18th century, the pendulum swung far toward personal

choice, with little or no allowance made for a person’s environment.

Today the pendulum has swung the other way. The belief that only matter

exists means that human behaviour can be reduced to its physical

determinants and human thought and emotion reduced to synapses in the

brain. The consequence of the materialist view is that people are

victims of their circumstances and, therefore, not ultimately

responsible for their choices.

One of the reasons for accepting a theory, as Thomas Kuhn relates

in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , is

its explanatory power. The Copernican system was accepted over the

Ptolemaic in part because it better explained the movements of the

heavenly bodies. With this idea as a guide, our environment does explain

much behaviour. But determinism fails to explain a person’s triumph over

bad circumstances or poor decisions made under the best of conditions.

Free will provides a better explanation here.

The intellectual heritage of Western civilization is that we are

at once material and spiritual beings — in retrospect, bound by material

causes but, in prospect, still free to choose. In my view, this is the

most satisfying explanation. We are deeply affected by our environment,

so we must show mercy to those in difficult circumstances. But we are

not powerless victims. We can rise above our circumstances, so it is our

duty to try.

Public policy makes the most sense when it accepts that our past

may be determined, but our future is truly free, and we are responsible

for the choices we make.

G.P. VANIER SECONDARY SCHOOL

IMPROV THEATRE

TEAM

R. Leonard: There’s an irony in my spending hours preparing a speech to pay

tribute to an improv team, a team of eight high school students who take

suggestions and perform a series of four-minute-long improvised skits

after only 15-second huddles.

As a regional finalist, G.P. Vanier Secondary’s improv team from

Courtenay is one of the top 18 student teams who are in Ottawa right now

participating in the annual Canadian Improv Games. Joining the finalists

in this theatre sport is another proud B.C. student team from the Gulf

Islands, who’ve won a wild card spot in the tournament.

But back to Vanier. Theatre and dance teacher Lori Mazey is

obviously a motivating force, as this is not her first team to make the

trip to Ottawa. In fact, improv is so popular at Vanier that this year

there are 40 students in two junior and two senior teams.

[10:30 a.m.]

Ms. Mazey explained how part of the rigorous routine of the team

is for the seniors to practise with younger students in grades 8 to 10

to become mentors as they prepare for interschool competitions. She has

cultivated a lifelong sense of belonging and an ethic of giving back, as

alumni are regularly seen returning to the fold. The improv games key

into their creativity, teamsmanship and leadership.

The students excel in other studies, and improv helps expand their

horizons to go on to success outside of improv. In this year’s cohort,

one student does plan to go into the performing arts, perhaps to join

the ranks of other Canadian improv alumni, like Seth Rogen and Sandra

Oh. It’ll be worth watching the live streaming of the Canadian improv

finals this Thursday at 4:30 Pacific Daylight Time.

Go, Team Vanier.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

A. Wilkinson: Three weeks ago we learned that the Ministry of Children and

Family Development has completely surprised the community services

sector by essentially rolling out a forced unionization program. The

minister has their letters. This is what the B.C. CEO Network of social

service agencies wrote: “This decision will have widespread and damaging

implications. It is simply unacceptable.”

To the minister, how is it fair to pay non-unionized workers less

than unionized workers for exactly the same work in this critically

important sector?

Hon. C. James: I suppose I should be pleased that the other side is finally

acknowledging that there is a social services sector in this province

that matters to the people of British Columbia. Let’s remember that the

other side gave zero dollars in 2010 and zero dollars in 2011 for the

social services sector. That had devastating impacts on the people that

they serve in this province.

We’re funding social service agencies to support fair increases

for their employees — 6 percent across, which is the same as union and

non-union members are getting. They’re also receiving 0.25 percent for

staff and client im­provements and service

improvements.

We believe in the social services sector. We are supporting them

in record numbers when it comes to support for community living and for

MCFD contracts for child care, in a way this province hasn’t seen under

the old government.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We see now the Finance Minister standing up on behalf of the real

minister, because this is a government that seems to think that

righteous indignation solves every question.

The workers this minister is now discriminating against are the

lowest paid in the social services sector, and they’re overwhelmingly

women. So we can turn to the NDP and say: “Well done. You’ve created a

whole subclass of people…

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: … who are being treated poorly.” This is a gratuitous, unnecessary

move by the NDP to trash a sector of our hard-working public sector that

is probably the most deserving of all.

This is what the executive director of Board Voice said last week.

“Good and important services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the Leader of the Opposition to get through

his question.

A. Wilkinson: …delivered by caring people who really know their stuff are at

risk as never before.” Congratulations to the NDP.

Why are these caring people not good enough to be treated

equitably by this government?

Hon. C. James: Well, I think the real question is: why didn’t that side care when

they were in government for 16 years? I know they had people in their

constituency offices, as we had people in our constituency offices, for

16 years talking about the drastic cuts that happened in social services

in this province under that side.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Leader of the Opposition talked about support for women. Well,

let’s actually take a look at some of the funding pieces that have been

put in place. We’ve included funding: $109 million for home share —

foster parents, adoptive and extended family caregivers. First time in

over a decade that they have seen an increase.

We have shown our commitment to the child care field by building

an affordable, quality child care system and providing a $1-an-hour

increase wage boost for early childhood educators across this

province.

Finally, our government has increased supports — again, that

wasn’t done by the past government — for ending-violence services in

communities across B.C.

We are going to continue to support this sector that contributes

so much to the people of British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We have just heard from the NDP that it’s just fine to

discriminate against a whole collection of people — women who are

working hard in the social services sector — and they can be treated

badly. It’s just fine to say: “You’re in the union. You’ll be treated

well. You’re a hard-working…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: …not well-paid woman, and that’s tough.” That’s called

discrimination, Minister, and you’re doing it.

This is what the NDP has given rise to. This is from Board Voice:

“Every day is a fight to stay alive in this sector.” New threats are

looming on so many fronts.

Why is this minister standing in this House defending

discrimination against low-paid women? Stand up and explain

yourself.

Hon. S. Simpson: The B.C. Liberals’ question period epiphany on social programs

doesn’t dismiss 16 years of ignoring and neglect for this sector. Let’s

be clear here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we do not want to recess in the middle of

question period.

Hon. S. Simpson: That side neglected and devalued these workers. They neglected and

devalued the people they serve every day for 16 years. This isn’t the

government saying that. Let’s see what the Caledon Institute of Social

Policy, the leading social policy think tank in the country, said about

the B.C. Liberals’ time in power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: “The government’s social program agenda can be summed up as

restricted eligibility; income-testing; rate cuts; offloading to

families and the community; user fees; withdrawal of home support

services; cuts to long-term care beds, hospitals and hospital beds;

school closures; program cuts to communities in crisis; cuts to child

care; tuition increases; and cuts to legal aid, victim services and

programs for youth at risk.”

That’s your record. We’re working with that sector. We’re

rebuilding that system. It’s working. We’re proud of that. You should

apologize for what you did for 16 years to undermine this

sector.

[10:40 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of all social services providers in

British Columbia are non-union — 50 percent. Hollyburn Family Services

in North Vancouver is under contract with the Ministry of Children and

Family Development, and they provide local support services to families

and children with special needs.

As of yesterday, unionized social service providers are receiving

almost three times the level of increase that non-union agencies like

Hollyburn are provided. This will severely impact their ability to

retain staff and to provide services to vulnerable kids and families.

They have been blindsided by this minister.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Why won’t

she stand up and explain why she’s discriminating against

Hollyburn?

Hon. S. Simpson: Well, as we hear the griping from the other side, who now, all of

a sudden, have discovered the issues of social programs, for the first

time in a decade and a half…. You would think, as they talk about our

friends who are here from the CEO Network, that you might recognize most

all of those are in this ministry, not Children and Families. But you’d

have to pay attention to the sector to understand that.

The Minister of Children and Families and myself have worked with

this sector for 20 months. We have worked to collaborate on

the…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …poverty reduction strategy. We have worked to collaborate on new

child welfare initiatives…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …related to Indigenous people. We have worked with this sector on

Reimagining Community Inclusion on what the future looks like for people

with developmental disabilities. That’s the reality.

We understand the importance of people with lived experience at

the table, we understand the importance of advocates, and we understand

the importance of service providers. We will work with them to build

this sector, to make it strong and support the people who need the

support, unlike the last decade and a half of the performance over

there.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: That’s simply not true. They have not worked with the sector for

20 months. They were blindsided three weeks ago. They just found out

three weeks ago, plus the fact that we still haven’t got an answer to

our question.

This discrimination is a blatant attempt at forced unionization.

This is what Alan Kwinter said, with Hollyburn Family Services. These

are his words, not mine: “I don’t understand why the B.C. government

thinks that the kids and families served by unionized agencies deserve

better services than those served by non-union agencies. This is

discriminatory.”

My question, again, is to the Minister of Children and Families.

The workers at Hollyburn are under contract with this minister, and they

are watching. Why doesn’t this minister think they are good enough for a

raise?

Hon. S. Simpson: When the member over there talks about services…. Let’s talk about

services. I referenced the Caledon Institute earlier. That was early on

in the 16 years of neglect. What happened after that? Well, what did the

B.C…?

Interjections.

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

Hon. S. Simpson: What did the B.C. assisted-living coalition say about the last

government? They said: “The budget to Community Living B.C. has

flatlined — and that at a time when new investments are crucially needed

to keep people off wait-lists. The total lack of vision or new

investments confirms that the provincial government’s great goal to

build the best system of support in Canada — for persons with

disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors —

is dead.”

[10:45 a.m.]

Well, we’re resurrecting it. It’s coming back to life under this

government. It started in July 2017. Working with our partners — the

service providers, the advocates and people with lived experience — we

will build that system to meet people’s needs. They won’t have to fret

about going through what they went through for a decade and a

half.

LOTTERY CORP. OFFICIALS AND

REGULATION OF CASINO

OPERATIONS

A. Weaver: I must say that it feels like I’m rising midway through an episode

of the Twilight Zone here today in this Legislature. Frankly,

while last night I was busy trying to prep up on the money laundering

going on, it seems like far too many members of this chamber were

enjoying casino night a little bit too much and probably are a little

grumpy as they lost far too much money there last night.

Over the past eight months, we’ve learned that senior officials at

the B.C. Lottery Corp. repeatedly demonstrated wilful blindness to the

problem of money laundering in B.C. casinos. Now we know they went

further. In fact, they went directly against the regulator’s

recommendations and increased betting limits, per hand, to over 1,000

times the maximum betting amount allowed in Ontario. I’ll say that again

— 1,000 times larger than you can bet in Ontario.

Now, I can only assume that senior officials and people perhaps in

the minister’s or former minister’s office were blinded by the revenue

stream. They appear to be singularly focused on hitting revenue targets

and bringing in more government revenue with little, if any, concern as

to whether the law was being broken or if it was fuelling an opioid or

housing crisis.

My question to the Attorney General is this. What controls has he

put in place within the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ensure that meeting

revenue targets does not come at a price of condoning suspected illegal

activity?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve made a number of significant changes in the just over a year

that we’ve been in government to address the issues that the member has

been talking about. Some of the most important, I think, are around

separating the revenue-generation functions, the revenue-generation

piece at B.C. Lottery Corp., from the regulator piece.

Having those under the same roof is obviously an issue. So we have

given the gaming policy and enforcement branch authority to regulate and

oversee the B.C. Lottery Corp. Giving them this authority and this power

is a really important piece and something that was obviously missing.

Why was the regulator not overseeing the conduct of the B.C. Lottery

Corp.?

Beyond that, the member knows about basic things we’ve done —

telling the casinos you’re not allowed to accept bulk cash anymore, that

revolutionary idea that immediately ended the practice of bringing

duffle bags full of cash into our casinos — after we formed

government.

Now, I know the member for Langley East doesn’t like to hear about

this. But he was there….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: If there is a public inquiry, he’ll have his chance.

Now, these are very serious issues. We’ve taken very serious

steps. I thank the member for the serious question, and I wonder when

the member for Langley East will rise and ask a question about

this.

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

A. Weaver: We have no shortage of questions to ask on this file, and we will

continue to do so until we start to get answers through the calling for

a public inquiry.

Here’s the next question. In February 2015, after finally

contacting the RCMP organized crime unit about possible money laundering

going on in their casinos, the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp. continued

to strategically focus on attracting players willing to pay $100,000 per

hand. When questioned about his decision, he said this: “We know them

very well. We know their source of wealth. We know all their personal

information. They need to share that with us for regulatory reasons.”

That’s a quote from the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp.

What we found out through the E-Pirate investigation is that it

eventually became clear that these VIPs, the same ones that the CEO

apparently knew so well, were part of an organized crime scheme linked

to the fentanyl crisis. Yet the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp. still is

there.

My question is to the Attorney General. How can British Columbians

have any confidence that those involved in perpetrating money laundering

in B.C. are being held accountable for their actions, particularly given

the reluctance of this government to launch an independent public

inquiry?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows why we have not yet called a public inquiry.

That’s because we have been acting quickly to address the issues that

the previous government left for us — the giant, gaping loopholes in our

casino industry that allowed this activity to continue up until the

point that we actually formed government.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, we will hear the response.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I hear the member for Langley East saying that there’s an

issue with the police. I would say there was an issue with the police

when the member for Langley East called the RCMP to criticize a member

for going on the news and saying we had a money-laundering problem and

causing him to be disciplined. Now, that was a problem.

We’ve taken a number of steps to ensure….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: He also disassembled the policing team that was dedicated to

investigating casinos.

Regardless, we’ve replaced the board at B.C. Lottery Corp.

entirely. We have confidence in the team at B.C. Lottery Corp. to be a

good partner in addressing these issues. We’ve given oversight to the

gaming policy and enforcement branch to oversee what’s happening at the

B.C. Lottery Corp. to ensure that the public can have confidence. And

we’re all trying to move forward on this — well, with some notable

exceptions.

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

S. Bond: Community social service agency representatives are here today

because of a specific policy decision made by this government, and it’s

a serious concern. This government has decided to provide unionized

social service agencies with almost three times the level of funding

increase for wages from the non-union agencies.

Now, the minister can stand up. He can brag and yell louder. The

fact of the matter is he admonishes about listening. Then maybe he needs

to listen to the workers who said this — not members on this side of the

House but people who are in the gallery and will be here today — about

that specific decision.

Here’s what the B.C. CEO Network wrote: “This inequity in funding

will rapidly lead to the destabilization of services for children,

youth, families, people with intellectual disabilities, Indigenous

people and communities. Agencies where there are both union and

non-union workers will be thrown into chaos.”

The minister wants to stand up and bluster. He can. But these

workers, these agencies, are concerned about his policy decision. I ask

him to stand up and answer their question.

Hon. S. Simpson: And this from a party that when they were government, rolled back

the wages of community social service workers — rolled back the

wages.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the government side listened to the question.

Now please listen to the response.

Hon. S. Simpson: We used a collaborative process. We engaged people in this

community.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Simpson: Yeah, it’s a pretty shameful performance over there,

absolutely.

We have worked with the sector.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: The CEO Network, a dedicated group of service providers who are

here today…. They’re here, and we will…. We’ve talked to them. I talked

to them last week. We’ll be talking more. What they’re here to talk

about, something that side might want to learn something about, is….

They’re here to talk about the people who get served.

We have worked with this sector. We have worked with the

advocates. We have worked with the stakeholders. We’ve worked with them

to evolve and develop a system moving forward that works for vulnerable

people who need help, who have been desperate after over a decade and a

half.

This system is working. The system works. We’re supporting the

system. We will continue to support it, and it will provide the change

we’re looking for in people’s lives.

[10:55 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: That answer was the height of disrespect to the workers and the

agencies that are here today. He can actually duck, dodge and try to

weave, but let’s be clear. They made a decision. This government made a

decision. If they’re so convinced it’s the right one, then he should

have the courage today to stand up, look them in the eye and explain why

certain workers will receive significantly less increases than other

workers.

The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. represents

over 140 agencies that support vulnerable people in this province.

Here’s what they wrote to the government — not me, not anyone on this

side of the House. Here’s what they wrote: “There are serious and urgent

concerns.” It’s not about anything other than this decision made by this

government. They go on to say this: “Agencies will have to reduce

services to cover the costs, and the sector is more fragile than

ever.”

That’s on this government’s watch. This minister needs to stand

up. These agencies deserve an answer to their concerns, not listening to

bluster and bragging. Answer the question, Minister.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Social Development and climate change. Sorry,

Poverty Reduction.

I guess maybe I’m trying to change the weather in here.

Hon. S. Simpson: This side is proud of the work that we’re doing with people who

work hard every day for vulnerable British Columbians. We’re proud of

that partnership we’re building with them, and we will build and move

that partnership forward in the interests of those organizations and of

the people they serve. What we won’t do is take advice from a group of

people who ignored, neglected and devalued people every day in

here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: The government is using bluster and applause, of course, to hide

its real game. We know what that is. It’s forced

unionization.

I want to quote Rick Mowles, head of a non-union social service

agency in North Vancouver. Here’s what he said: “We believe that our

employees are being punished because they’ve chosen to remain non-union.

The government is coercing them to join a union.” These words were not

spoken today. They were spoken 20 years ago, the last time the NDP tried

to take away equal wages from non-union social sector

workers.

Who are these workers? They are the lowest paid. They’re taking

care of the most vulnerable, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the

mentally ill. Why would the minister try, once again, to rip them

off?

Hon. S. Simpson: The member over there talks about the low-paid workers. The member

over there talks about the discrepancies. What the member should

understand…. I’m sure he does, if he would read the historical material.

We created this situation under your watch. They became the lowest-paid

workers because you neglected them. We provided 2, 2 and 2 across the

board for everybody in the public service. We settled those collective

agreements on that basis. We’re going to move forward with organizations

like the CEO Network and their members, like other organizations in the

sector.

[11:00 a.m.]

We’re going to succeed in supporting the people who need that

support every day because of their hard work, the government’s

initiative and the strong voices of advocates. Together we’ll create the

system we’re looking for.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: Well, in the year 2000, the NDP were, happily, forced to back down

in their fight to penalize non-union caregivers. It was the B.C.

Liberals who reinstated a policy of equal pay that lasted, sadly, until

just three weeks ago. I can hardly believe that the NDP, who love to

cast themselves as a caring government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We shall hear the question.

L. Throness: The NDP love to cast themselves as a caring government, but

they’re totally heartless. They’re being totally heartless in trying to

pull this stunt again. The NDP are being totally heartless in trying

this stunt again.

How can this government call itself caring when it doesn’t care

equally for every caregiver?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m glad that the member raised what the Liberals did, because I

remember it well. I lived through 2001, when they cut the social service

sector so devastatingly, so devastatingly. They cut community living.

They cut social services.

Interjections.

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

Minister, if you could take your seat for a moment.

Hon. K. Conroy: That member remembers well the core review and what it did to the

social sector. In fact, a number of members in this House remember that

well — how they struggled to make ends meet. And now they have the

audacity to suddenly remember about the social service sector? Not

taking lessons from you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you are out of order.

Hon. K. Conroy: For the first time in ten years….

Mr. Speaker: End question period. Ring the bell.

The bell ends question period.

Sorry, Minister.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: And now for something completely different.

In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 10. In

Section A, the

Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the ministry estimates debate on

the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

[11:05 a.m. - 11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; J. Isaacs

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

section 1 (continued) .

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order on Bill 10, Income Tax

Amanemdnet Act, 2019, and resuming discussion on the

agreement.

M. de Jong: Yesterday we had an opportunity to canvass some of the provisions

of the operating agreement and some of the other components of the

arrangement that had been arrived at between the Crown, the government

of B.C., and LNG Canada. One of the areas that we touched on were some

of the assumptions the government is proceeding on the basis of with

respect to employment.

[11:15 a.m.]

We learned that for budgeting purposes, the minister says that she

is assuming that 35 percent of the employment labour component will be

filled by British Columbia resi­dents and 65 percent by

non–British Columbians. They could be other Canadians or international.

That, we have learned, approximates with what LNG Canada believes is the

case, though the minister also points out that she believes that number

will be higher and has identified a best-case scenario where 55 percent

of the labour component would be filled by British Columbians and only

45 percent by non-British Columbians.

We learned that yesterday. We attempted, as best we can, to

compare that with some of the expectations and demands that the minister

and her colleagues had had when they were sitting on the opposition

benches. What I didn’t have at the time — and someone kindly this

morning provided to me — is a document, a decision note. I’m going to

send it over, because I always find it is unfair for me to be referring

to something that the minister may not have at her fingertips. So I’m

going to send a copy over.

It’s fairly heavily redacted. It’s the product of an FOI. I’m not

going to apologize for that because it’s the minister’s government that

redacted it, so the fault lies with her.

It is a decision note dated November 28, 2017, prepared for the

Jobs Minister and appears — and I’ll go through the relevant portions —

to relate to a specific decision that the government has made with

respect to facilitating access to temporary foreign workers.

In the first paragraph, she will note the reference to: “Timely

access to temporary foreign workers to address labour shortages was

considered a key factor in the feasibility of the LNG Canada

project.”

On page 2 of the note, at the top, the decision note says the

following: “They may still” — they being LNG Canada — “feel that

temporary foreign workers” — the abbreviation is TFWs — “are an

essential part of project feasibility and would want to have access to

an international workforce to address specialized skills not available

in Canada.”

There is then reference to something called the “global talent

stream, GTS,” of the temporary foreign worker program, a federal pilot

project launched in June 2017, coincidentally right around the time the

minister and her colleagues took conduct of government. I’m reading

again from the note: “Although the GTS is focused primarily on the

technology sector, it provides a model that could be considered for LNG

and would address both processing timelines and domestic training

issues.”

There’s a description of the global talent stream of the temporary

foreign worker program, and then in the next paragraph: “In exchange,

the employer receives an exemption from the four-week advertising

requirement, an expedited application process and an exemption from

doing a transition plan for each temporary foreign worker.” So in short,

expedited access to temporary foreign workers.

There’s then a quote: “Using the annex would send a public signal

of B.C.’s support for the use of temporary foreign workers for LNG

projects. To date, B.C. has not used the annex.”

Then the final paragraph on that page — again, I’m quoting: “The

final consideration is the implication on the relationship with LNG

Canada. The willingness of both the federal and provincial governments

to establish such a document was perceived extremely positively by LNG

Canada and seen as a signal of support for the project more broadly. A

decision to continue that support or to rescind it will be interpreted

similarly.”

[11:20 a.m.]

Then on the final page of the document that I’ve handed to the

minister, there’s a signature block. It’s dated December 13, 2017. It

appears to be the Jobs Minister who has signed, and the word “approved”

is circled.

My question is: with respect to facilitating greater access to

temporary foreign workers, what has the government approved?

Hon. C. James: We reiterate again the discussion that we had yesterday around

jobs and around the strategy that LNG has in place, around local first,

around B.C. first, around Canada as they need further workers in this

project. I expect that there will be a number of jobs

available.

I’m not going to speak to recommendations that were prepared for

another minister, which, the member knows very well from the information

that is here, have been redacted for privacy purposes. The member could

ask in estimates — a discussion for the Minister of Jobs. In any

discussions that have occurred with us, I come back again to the

agreement that we have in place with LNG Canada.

M. de Jong: It is precisely that agreement that I am seeking clarification

around. There is strong evidence presented in the document received that

the government has taken specific actions to facilitate access —

speedier access, more ready access — to temporary foreign workers as

part of the LNG Canada project. I’m asking the minister to confirm

whether that is so.

If her answer is “I’m not going to answer; it’s up to another

minister,” she’s going to have an irate critic on this side. Because we

went through this yesterday. She has told this committee that other

ministers who are in a position to answer questions won’t be made

available, because she’s going to answer all the questions.

The question is entirely in order and entirely appropriate. There

is a document suggesting that the government has come to a specific or

unique arrangement or taken unique steps to facilitate access to

temporary foreign workers with respect to the LNG Canada project. Is

that the case, and if so, what steps?

Hon. C. James: We had this discussion yesterday. The member may not like it, but

we had this discussion yesterday that if the member has questions that

he wants to raise with individual ministers, there are opportunities in

estimates for the member to raise the individual questions. The issue

that the member is raising is not part of the agreement, as I’ve already

talked about. The letter that we have in place with LNG Canada outlines

the jobs and the direction that they are taking around jobs.

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s the information that we have presented to the member, and

the information around the strategy of local first, B.C. first,

apprentices on jobs, contractors bound by those requirements as well, to

ensure that the jobs are here for British Columbians.

M. de Jong: You know, I appreciate that the minister and her colleagues would

like to persist in presenting this notion to the public that — having

come around to accept the value in the establishment of an LNG sector in

British Columbia and Canada and having regard for all that they’ve said

when they were in opposition — they want to say nothing more than: “Fear

not. All of the employment associated with this will be local persons.”

That’s what the minister has said. That’s what she wants to continue to

say.

We virtually had to drag out of her an acknowledgment of her own

ministry’s projections. It is disingenuous in the extreme for the

minister to stand and say to this committee: “I want to be able to give

you my version of the employment numbers around this, but you dare not

challenge those numbers, even confronted by documentation from the

government.”

So no, I don’t accept the minister’s proposition: “Let me, as

minister, tell you my version of what the employment numbers are. Then

when you present evidence that that’s not quite the reality, I’m going

to tell you that we’ve had enough of a conversation on this

front.”

The question for the minister, speaking for the government on an

agreement that she and the government and the Premier have described as

the single biggest, most important private sector investment in the

province…. She will get no argument from me or people on this side of

the House about the significance of the investment, but she has chosen

to designate herself as the speaker for the government on this matter.

The question is: has the government come to a unique arrangement to

facilitate the participation of temporary foreign workers on this

project?

Hon. C. James: I’ll come back again to the original discussion we had about

bringing forward the agreement, which is not part of the legislation

but, obviously, is a big part of this project. That’s why we have an

agreement to ask questions around the agreement.

The discussion that the member wants to get into is a program that

is administered through the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry. The

member has the opportunity, as I mentioned yesterday around the B.C.

Hydro issue and around the responsibilities that are there, to ask those

specific questions with the ministers, under programs and services that

they are responsible for, in estimates.

The member is talking about jobs and the strategy that we have

with LNG Canada. I have talked about the letter. I’m happy to reiterate

that again. But those are the areas that are involved with this

agreement and that are part of this agreement with LNG

Canada.

M. de Jong: Apparently, there’s more. Look, any veteran observer of these

types of proceedings — who, by the way, is alive to the skill of the

minister and the experience of the minister as a parliamentarian — knows

why she’s not answering the question. They know what the answer is.

That’s why she doesn’t want to answer the question. Because they know

what the answer is.

Here’s what the minister said to us yesterday. She has included:

“Projections around employment are relevant and impact fiscal

projections.” I’m with her. Got it. She made the point that she has

provided employment projections that she termed conservative and

cautious. She’s the Finance Minister. She doesn’t want to

overproject.

[11:30 a.m.]

What is the relevance? B.C. labour pays B.C. income tax. Foreign

labour doesn’t. This is directly relevant to her role as Finance

Minister. She knows if the government has come to a specific

arrangement, a unique arrangement, to facilitate the use of temporary

foreign workers. And you know what? It may be eminently defensible. But

the fact that the minister won’t answer the question is not defensible —

as the Finance Minister who herself said that these numbers influence

the very projections that she is laying before the public.

I’m going to ask her again. Has the government initiated a

specific, different program to facilitate access to temporary foreign

workers for the LNG Canada project?

Hon. C. James: I’ll go back, again, to the discussion that has been had with the

member. The member asked questions yesterday about local jobs. The

member asked questions about what percentage there was. The answers were

provided. We provided the answers around the range for a generic LNG

plant, what those would look like for both local jobs and otherwise. We

gave those numbers.

The member asked for the estimates that we used in the budget for

revenue purposes. We, again, provided those numbers to the member, so

the member has the answers around the expectations and the numbers that

we have built into the documents that are available to the public when

it comes to budget and LNG.

M. de Jong: The minister doesn’t want to say. It’s a yes-or-no answer. If

there was no additional agreement or initiative launched, she would

stand in this House and tell the committee: “No. The government has done

nothing different with respect to access to temporary foreign workers.”

I don’t think she can say it, because I think she knows it’s not

true.

Well, let me try this. The minister asked the committee to accept

at face value the projections that her ministry has developed. What

percentage of those numbers, somewhere between 35 percent and 55

percent, are they anticipating to be temporary foreign

workers?

Hon. C. James: The member knows the numbers. We talked about the 55-45. We talked

about the estimate that was used for revenue. Obviously, the upper

number is the local hires. The other number is hires that could be

Canadian. We don’t break it down. It’s basically whether people are

paying income tax here or whether they may not be, so those are the

numbers that the member already has.

M. de Jong: So it follows, logically, that the minister and her team would

have turned their minds to the question of what component of that labour

— the labour on the project, 10,000 — would be temporary foreign

workers. What’s the number?

Hon. C. James: The number includes non-local.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Is the minister saying to the committee that she and the

government never turned their minds to the question of temporary foreign

workers on the LNG Canada project?

Hon. C. James: In fact, we had great discussions around local jobs, where jobs

may come from and where other companies may have been looking for jobs.

That’s exactly why we have the letter that is in front of us that talks

about the importance of local hire, that talks about the importance of

training and that talks about the investments that need to be

made.

M. de Jong: The minister can’t even say the term. She can’t even say

“temporary foreign worker.”

How is the committee supposed to take your material seriously if,

in the face of overwhelming evidence, the minister stands and refuses to

even acknowledge that there was a conversation within government, and

steps taken within government, around the issue of temporary foreign

workers.

Does she not realize how ridiculous she looks? A senior,

experienced parliamentarian.

Hon. C. James: I understand the member doesn’t agree that questions, specifically

around an area that is the re­spon­sibility of the Jobs

Minister, should go to the Jobs Minister. I understand that.

The reality is…. The answer to the member’s question around where

discussions took place on jobs is very clear in the letter and the four

conditions that were put there by the Premier, which were to look at the

best approach that we could have for British Columbians, which meant

local hire first, which meant the opportunity for jobs in the community,

which meant training in place so that temporary foreign workers weren’t

maximized on the worksite.

That’s exactly the reason we have the letter in place. That’s

exactly the reason that we have the agreement around the jobs strategy,

and it’s exactly the kind of conversation that we had based, as I said,

on the Premier’s four conditions, which were very clear.

M. de Jong: Does the minister agree with this proposition? If she doesn’t, she

can say so. I’m approaching this conversation on the following basis:

that British Columbians, whose resource is very much at the centre of

this equation and discussion, are entitled to know if the proponent has

a unique arrangement with respect to accessing temporary foreign

workers. I think British Columbians deserve to know that. Does the

minister share that opinion?

Hon. C. James: I know that the member will have his opportunity, in estimates, to

ask the Jobs Minister specifics that are related to his

portfolio.

I believe that British Columbians expect the government, their

government, to do everything they can to ensure that the jobs are there

for British Columbians — locals first, British Columbians,

Canadians.

I expect that there will be a number of jobs related. Obviously,

the numbers are out there. I think it’s important, from British

Columbians’ perspective, to be able to know the estimate that was

utilized. We’ve talked about that, and I’m happy to reiterate it again

for the member.

M. de Jong: I have great respect for the minister, and I have some

appreciation for the burdens and the challenges that she faces in the

position she occupies.

[11:40 a.m.]

With the greatest respect, that is an insulting answer: “You can

ask some time later.” We are talking about the agreement. I recognize

that it is a part of the agreement that the minister and her colleagues

are uncomfortable talking about. They’d rather those forecasts around

employment never saw the light of day. But I’m going to ask her

again.

On the day the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is

considering the merits of an agreement that the Crown has reached with

LNG Canada, does the minister believe it is appropriate for British

Columbians to know whether or not that contracting party, LNG Canada,

has secured unique access to temporary foreign workers?

Hon. C. James: There is no question that, as I said yesterday and will continue

to repeat, we as a government are accountable to the people of British

Columbia for the work that we are doing around LNG and to the agreement

that was put in place. The discussion that the member is having is not

part of the agreement.

Let’s be clear. We are talking about jobs that are part of the

letter that has come from LNG Canada and one of the conditions. That’s

why we’re having the conversation, because I believe it’s important to

talk about those jobs. I believe it’s important to talk about the

estimates that were both built in for revenue as well as for

jobs.

We’ve had that conversation. We can continue having that

conversation, as the member has requested. But the letter is very clear

about the direction that we have taken as government in maintaining the

criteria that was put in place and the four conditions by the Premier,

which was to ensure jobs for British Columbians. The letter speaks for

itself and, again to reiterate, speaks about local hires, speaks about

apprentices, speaks about support for Indigenous workers. And the

estimates are very clear for the member.

M. de Jong: What the minister would like and apparently persists in is: “I’ve

got some public documents that are aspirational. I’m going to give them

to the public, and I’m going to tell the public this is what we aspire

to. These are our goals. We think we have a good partner, and we think

they’re going to work to try to achieve those goals.” We learned

yesterday that what that translates into on the ground is a little bit

different than what the minister and her colleagues were telling the

public — somewhere between 35 percent and 55 percent localized

employment.

“Then behind the scenes, we’ll have a different conversation.

Behind the scenes, we’ll talk about facilitating access to temporary

foreign workers that surely impact those numbers. But that conversation

is off bounds. I’m not prepared to have that. I’ll rely on the

aspirational documents. I’ll rely on the tinsel, but no one gets to look

behind the tree. No one gets to hear about what else we have done, in

this case, to facilitate access to temporary foreign

workers.”

Again, I say: does the minister not appreciate how ridiculous that

looks and sounds? Maybe more importantly, does the minister not

appreciate that the unreasonableness of her position is casting doubt,

much wider doubt, on the reliability of anything else that she

says?

It’s not a difficult question. I understand it’s an uncomfortable

one. I’ll ask it again. Has the government taken steps or come to an

agreement that will facilitate a unique type of access to temporary

foreign workers on the LNG Canada project?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I know the member may not like the answer. The answer has been

given, and I’ll give the answer again.

The numbers that we have presented and that we’ve discussed here

in committee stage are the numbers that are being utilized. They are the

numbers that are built in, for the purposes of revenue, into our budget.

They speak to the expectation and the letter that is given to us by LNG

Canada to the number of jobs that we are looking for, for British

Columbians.

As I said yesterday, I am proud of the work that was done around

the negotiations. I’m proud of the work that got this agreement forward,

and I believe it will benefit British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Well, she’s doing her best today to drive support away, quite

frankly, by her refusal to answer a basic, fundamental and entirely

relevant question. I mean, do I have to go back and read what the

minister and her colleague said 2½ years ago? They sure didn’t have any

trouble saying the words “temporary foreign workers” back then. I mean,

we can do that.

I actually had enough respect for the minister that I assumed,

confronted by pretty overwhelming evidence, she would say…. Oh, she’s

dismissing…. She’s apparently laughing off the document, which is pretty

clear what it is. And her colleague, who’s something of an expert at

reinterpreting documents, is laughing as well.

It’s a pretty basic question, and the minister doesn’t want to

answer it, apparently. She doesn’t think British Columbians should know

if her government has come to a unique arrangement with LNG Canada

around the provision for temporary foreign workers. She won’t tell this

House. Dollars to doughnuts, she hasn’t told any of her friends in the

labour community. Maybe that’s the crux of the matter here.

When she, if she, does, her answer today is, I think: “Well, yes,

I agree it’s a relevant question, but you should ask it later, after the

votes have happened. You should ask it after this Legislative Assembly

has passed judgment on the legislation and the agreement that will

breathe life into that agreement.”

Does the minister not see how indefensible and ridiculous that is?

A senior parliamentarian, the Deputy Premier of the province, saying to

the Legislative Assembly, as it considers what she has properly

described as the single biggest private sector investment resulting from

a negotiation with the government: “I’ll give you the information after

you vote.” Shame on the minister.

I ask her again: is there an arrangement in place between the

government and LNG Canada to facilitate access to temporary foreign

workers?

Hon. C. James: Answered, Member.

M. de Jong: I actually hadn’t anticipated the kind of unreasonable

intransigence….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, apparently there are members who, today, think the question

of the labour component of the deal is not significant. I don’t know if

he or his colleagues….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The members on this side of the House worked hard. I have, I

think, fairly pointed out that one of the key differences between the

agreement we’re discussing here and the one that came before the House

2½ years ago is that this one actually gave rise to a final investment

decision. That’s a pretty significant difference, and one that the

government should and can rightly celebrate.

[11:50 a.m.]

The previous agreement fell short in that regard. I thought that

we had one — didn’t happen. This has given rise to a final investment

decision and the good things that will flow from that. Yet the minister

today, as we discharge our responsibilities, brings legislation calling

for significant tax concessions with respect to the project. There are

other facets of the deal — the postponement of PST obligations worth

nearly $600 million, all of these things that the minister presents as

being components of an agreement to establish an LNG sector.

She is largely speaking to a receptive audience. But that changes

when she withholds information and when she behaves

irresponsibly.

I’m trying to imagine what this minister’s response would be,

sitting on this side of the House, if a minister of the Crown, asking

for support for an agreement in legislation on a matter of this sort,

said to her: “I’m not going to answer that question. I’m not going to

tell you whether the government has a unique arrangement in place for

access to temporary foreign workers. You can ask one of my colleagues,

but you can’t do it until after you vote on this. You can’t find out

until after you vote.”

The minister should congratulate herself for setting a new

standard in parliamentary ridiculousness, and that’s a polite term. I’ll

give her another chance. Is there an arrangement in place whereby LNG

Canada will have unique access to temporary foreign workers?

Hon. C. James: We’ve canvassed this issue. The member knows, as we had the

discussion at the beginning, that we are having a discussion on an

agreement that is in place. If there are specifics that are the

responsibility of individual ministers, they will have the opportunity

to be able to ask those questions in estimates of individual ministers —

the specifics around the jobs and the job numbers and the

estimates.

Government is fully accountable for those numbers. They have been

canvassed, have been talked about, have been released. I’m more than

happy to continue to have those conversations. Those are issues that we

are accountable for. I expect we’ll come back for discussion after

lunch.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: Noting the hour, we’ll see everybody shortly. I move that the

House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $508,192,000

(continued) .

[11:10 a.m.]

C. Oakes: What is the budget for the Cariboo Fire Centre?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As has been well canvassed and publicized, the fire response

budget has increased from $63 million to $101 million in this coming

fiscal year — a 58 percent increase. Rather than waiting…. We’re getting

the information for the member’s question around the budget for the

Cariboo Fire Centre, but I’ll continue with questions so that we don’t

waste a lot of time waiting.

C. Oakes: I appreciate that. I just look forward to the information at your

convenience.

In the same line of questioning around budgeting, what is the

budgeting around the capital resources for things such as pumps and

hoses? I certainly understand, in 2017, where we had a deficiency in

actually supplying or having available pumps and hoses on the ground.

But I am a little concerned why, at the start of 2018, we actually

didn’t have the necessary pumps and hoses and specific types of capital

resources necessary to address the 2018 fire season, specifically in the

Cariboo Fire Centre.

Can the minister respond to why there aren’t adequate resources to

meet the very basic needs, such as pumps and hoses?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: In our view, there wasn’t a deficiency in the pumps and hoses that

were available to fight fires in the Cariboo Fire Centre. We have two

equipment caches for pumps and hoses that we manage on a provincial

scale and are constantly adjusting to make sure that equipment is

available where it’s needed during the season. We spent $300,000 on new

equipment for pumps and hoses in this past year, and $2.2 million on

pumps and hoses after 2017. So it’s our intention and belief that we

have the pumps and hoses in place when needed.

We also have a scalable ability to bring in pumps and hoses from

other provinces through CIFFC, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire

Centre. We’re able to acquire those as needed. But we’re not aware of

any deficiencies in pumps and hoses to fight fires.

C. Oakes: I think what the minister has articulated is the very challenge

that we see continuously on the ground. We canvassed it a little bit

yesterday, about all the provincial nature of the funds that are being

put forward. It is the very nature of what the ministry is doing that I

feel, and the constituents I talked to, is going to create the exact

challenges that we’re going to continue to have in communities around

wildfires.

The challenge becomes that if there are fires in multiple

communities across the province, there is a technique where we

prioritize, as a government. We prioritize areas where there are

populations. For rural communities, such as folks in the Cariboo, we

have found, two years running, that the challenge becomes that, if there

are fires that break out in the Okanagan or in other jurisdictions

across the provincial government, the provincial assets, the provincial

resources and those provincial teams that go in become prioritized into

the communities where those populations are.

My constituents are taxpayers just like any other taxpayer in the

province of British Columbia, so they wonder why they’re receiving less

services than, say, somebody in another area of the province. The reason

I’m asking the line of questioning around specific resources for the

Cariboo Fire Centre is because unless we understand the need to make

sure that we are investing and putting those resources into our fire

centres in our communities, I fear that we’re going to continue to be in

a situation where we receive calls requesting services….

We are on calls with the fire centre where we hear the challenges

firsthand, day after day: “I’m sorry. We do not have the resources to

put teams out on those fires because of the prioritization process that

we have.” As taxpayers in the Cariboo, we feel that we deserve the same

types of services that other parts of the province have.

Speaking, again, on the structural…. I know there are pumps and

hoses. I guess I’m responsible for being so specific in that

articulation of the gaps. Last year we sent members from the Cariboo

Fire Centre to support the floods in Grand Forks. We sent our Cariboo

Fire Centre’s hard-working men and women to Grand Forks without the

appropriate structural turnout gear to meet the challenges of the flood.

Traditionally, a structural fire protection unit would go in with

certain masks and certain types of turnout gear. We sent our Cariboo

Fire Centre without the structural protection that they need to ensure

that they’re going to be safe on the ground.

Again to the minister, where is the uplift in resources to cover

capital and resourcing such as structural turnout gear and the supplies

that our Cariboo Fire Centre requires to do its job?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll talk to the second part of the statement by the member. The

situation and floods…. They were being called upon, under the B.C.

Wildfire Service, to respond and have a role in all hazards, beyond

wildfires. In this situation, floods. So we’re not limited under a

capital program as far as we have $500,000 to purchase specialized

equipment, and we’ll access those funds as needed in order to ensure

that there is the proper safety gear.

The member typified it as structural turnout gear. Actually, in

relation to floods, it’s things like waders and gloves. Those can be

purchased and will be purchased to ensure that our staff have the

appropriate equipment to deal with situations other than fires, like

floods.

As far as the start of the member’s statement, the people in the

B.C. Wildfire Service are professionals. They make decisions based on,

yes, priorities. Public safety is number one. They’ll prioritize

resources where they’re needed around public safety. I do not want to

leave the impression, from the member’s statement, that people’s safety

will be ignored in any place in the province.

In fact, we have improved the ability to directly fight fires by

allotting a 58 percent increase in the direct firefighting budget, which

means being able to have crews on earlier, to have them stay later as

fire seasons are changing, to have air support on earlier and on later

and to increase technology. This is in direct response to the fact that

these kinds of initiatives, as has been pointed out through Filmon

report and through the Abbott-Chapman report, were not paid attention to

by the previous government. So we have public safety as number

one.

I don’t want to leave the impression that was left that people

will be ignored when it comes to public safety. I think it’s incumbent

upon all of us to ensure that people out in the public understand that

we have dedicated professionals within the B.C. Wildfire Service that

are making public safety their number one priority and that they’ll

ensure that people are safe when it comes to wildfires in any part of

the province.

C. Oakes: I appreciate that. I think public safety of our hard-working men

and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service is paramount, and I will always

continue to advocate for their safety and their resourcing

needs.

The minister talked a little bit about the needs of making sure

all communities are prepared, and we certainly understand. I’d like to

applaud the work that is being done around fire-smarting. I think that’s

an incredibly important initiative that is being done in

communities.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’ve just finished visiting multiple volunteer fire departments —

I think I hit seven last weekend — just to see where communities are on

their readiness around responding to fires. I believe that it’s not just

the B.C. Wildfire Service; it’s communities, in general, that respond to

the changing needs of our communities.

What has been asked for, for the past two years from our

unincorporated volunteer fire departments — our fire brigades, our

amazing men and women who volunteer to make sure our communities are

safe and answer the call and help support the B.C. Wildfire Service in

situations such as the fires of the last two years — is…. They require

resources. I know that the minister has talked about trying to find

avenues, as has the Red Cross.

We’ve waited two years for any kind of capital program to come out

to help these volunteer fire brigades to look at…. They continue to

require needs such as pumps and hoses. I hear it in every single

community we go to — really basic issues. Fire-smarting. We need a

mobile wood chipper to address all of the fibre that is being cleaned up

around fire-smarting communities.

The third pillar of that is we have many unincorporated volunteer

fire departments that want to create fire-smart communities. I know that

that’s a program of the government, but they are wondering: how do

unincorporated communities access any of these types of

resources?

Yesterday the minister reminded me — and, of course, he probably

didn’t need to remind me — of the CRI program. The challenge that we

have with any of the resourcing that the ministry currently has is that

it doesn’t allow for unincorporated communities or areas to access any

of the types of services and funds that the government has in play.

Municipalities can access it for any kind of interface, for any kind of

support to help fire-smart or make sure communities are ready, but there

are no programs for remote rural communities that are unincorporated to

access the necessary funds to help support their communities get ready

for the fire season.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go backwards through the member’s questions.

As far as unincorporated communities, well, I happen to live in an

unincorporated community, and unincorporated communities are within

regional districts in virtually every part of the province. There’s one

exception in the far northwest corner of the province, in the

constituency I represent, but virtually every other unincorporated

community lies within a regional district, and regional districts have

the ability to apply under the community resilience investment program,

a program that has been expanded, under this budget, by another $10

million.

That’s $60 million over the next three years and a program whose

criteria have expanded as far as how that money can be spent and the

ways it can be spent through the application process. Also, it covers

within regional district or municipal or First Nations community

boundaries, which also is of benefit, because under the previous

program, the municipalities were responsible for two kilometres outside

their boundaries. So regional districts can apply, and most

unincorporated communities are within a regional district.

[11:30 a.m.]

As far as volunteer fire departments, we value volunteer fire

departments greatly. I’m very familiar with them. The area that I live

in is covered by a volunteer fire department in agreement between the

unincorporated community I live in and a couple of other communities

nearby. We’ve come to a funding agreement where we’re covered by

volunteer fire departments.

We are working with volunteer fire departments. under our new

programming, in order to provide training for wildfire suppression

activities. Volunteer fire departments are often focused on structural

protection, so we’re doing some training in that regard. We’re

coordinating with the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., which includes

representatives from volunteer fire departments.

As far as the capital equipment that volunteer fire departments

are looking for and acquire, that capital resource is under the Minister

of Public Safety, under emergency management B.C. That question is

better canvassed under that ministry, although I believe they’ve got

some positive news to contribute once the member asks the question to

that minister.

C. Oakes: I know, Minister, that you understand, coming from a rural

community, the challenges that we have. So I have a humble request of

you, because there still exists a gap. You identified the ability,

through regional districts, for these communities to apply for funding.

What happens, and the minister knows this, is that in unincorporated

communities that have volunteer fire departments, those volunteer fire

departments are not taxed through a regional district.

Therefore, that challenge is that any of the flow-through funds

that come from the regional district go to the volunteer fire

departments that are within the attachment of the regional district. So

you’ve got gaps throughout many of our communities. Nazko, Horsefly,

Likely, Big Lake — I could go through multiple communities that do not

have the ability to apply through the funding that the government

currently has and the ministry has. If there is a tool to address that,

I think you will see significant results on the ground. So I just humbly

put that forward.

I have one final question, because I recognize that many of my

colleagues have lots of questions. It’s around the riparian repair and

restoration piece. Of course, the fires of 2017-18 were absolutely

devastating our communities. It’s incredibly important that we get out

and that we’re doing the adequate cleanup.

I’d like to focus on the riparian areas, if I may. I understand

that the first funds for riparian recovery out in the Nazko area, which

was devastated by the Plateau fire in 2017, came out in January of this

year. So fires hit in 2017, and we’re finally starting to see funds

coming out the door in 2018. It had to be used up by March 31, and that

put some pretty significant challenges on the stewardship groups to do

that work.

I guess my first question is…. I am hopeful that we’re able to

actually get some of these funds on the ground for restoration a little

bit quicker. I was reading the most recent FESBC forest enhancement

document. It has $65 million going to Zanzibar Holdings Ltd. for the

Cariboo wildfire forest carbon reforestation. I’m just wondering. We’ve

got $65 million that has been put over here. I’ve heard from some of the

stewardship groups on the ground that they continue to struggle with

getting funds out the door in a fashion that will actually help ensure

that the needed restoration is done.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It took a little while to gather the information, because there

are quite a few funders, quite a few partners and quite a bit going

on.

I know the member mentioned $65 million and Zanzibar Holdings in

the same breath. Zanzibar Holdings is not receiving $65 million to do

the work that they’ve been contracted to do. The $65 million is work

mostly funded through the federal government’s low-carbon-economy fund,

and that is directly targeted towards activities that are associated

with the forest carbon initiative. However, there are other co-benefits

that we’re able to leverage, at the same time, around restoration work.

Although much of that funding is toward surveys and seedlings and seed

prep, we’re also able to leverage that money and do restoration

work.

As far as the timing of how things happen, well, we announced $22

million after the 2017 season in the budget in that year, for over three

years, for habitat restoration and recovery after the wildfires. So $5

million was allotted in this fiscal year, and $7 million will be

allotted in the fiscal year 2019-2020. It does take time to get the

proper systems in place before that work begins.

[11:40 a.m.]

A lot of the work and the restoration is in salmon-bearing

streams. I know the member is familiar with that, coming from where she

comes from. So to get the permits for workers to work in streams that

are salmon bearing, as well as to ensure that the proper advance work is

done on archeological assessments and potential impacts, which are

high-incidence in the areas described…. It takes time to get those

permits in place.

That speaks somewhat to the member’s question about getting

funding in place. We’re working on getting the funding on the ground

sooner now that these permits are in place. It’ll make the rollout for

’19-20 for restoration work more expedited and get into the areas more

quickly.

S. Cadieux: I’m here to raise with the minister an issue related to the

cancellation of the cutthroat trout hatchery at the Semiahmoo Fish and

Game Club in Little Campbell River. Back in the fall, the hatchery

received a notice from the ministry that it was going to be cancelled —

not the entire hatchery but the cutthroat piece. At that time, they

raised immediate concerns and asked for clarification and so on. Over

the next number of months, there have been numerous back-and-forths, or

attempts at back-and-forths, with the ministry on this, but with little,

I would say, adequate response.

The Semiahmoo Fish and Game Club is a volunteer group that has

been providing hatchery operations to B.C. for 30 years plus. They’ve

got an excellent record. They do an enormous amount of work in terms of

stream restoration and so on. They’re extremely concerned about fish and

wildlife and making sure those things continue. The decision to cancel

that operation came at great shock to them, given that no one from the

ministry ever visited the site nor the hatchery to discuss concerns or

to see what was going on.

Apparently, there was no study or examination of what is actually

happening in the river itself, but the ministry is now citing research.

That research, at least to the knowledge of the fish and game club, is

research from Michael Blouin at Oregon State University, who is often

cited in these types of reports. In one

article from Mark Hume in the

Globe and Mail in November 2017, Dr. Blouin states himself

that his research shouldn’t be used in the way that the ministry is

currently using the research to justify the cancellation of hatcheries.

Moreover, it’s one piece of information.

It would appear from conversations that the trout hatchery has had

with DFO and their representatives that they don’t see that research as

in any way evidence to close the hatchery. I find it totally concerning

that the ministry has decided to do this without providing any reasoned

rationale, without doing any in-location research and without consulting

with the First Nation that this stream and hatchery reside

on.

The chief is concerned and has raised that in letters, along with

the hatchery itself, to the ministry. They’ve requested meetings with

the minister and have heard nothing back. The member for Surrey–White

Rock and I wrote more than once to the minister, the last time in

December, and it took 2½ months for us to get a response of: “Thanks

very much, but we’ve already reached our decision, being guided by

research.” Again, none of which has occurred in the actual stream or

river where this is happening.

[11:45 a.m.]

Once again, I would request of the minister that he provide to the

Semiahmoo First Nation and the hatchery a thorough explanation of the

research related specifically to this river that is being taken into

consideration, with no site visits and no testing, to make this decision

and to explain why the ministry doesn’t feel it is possible to work with

the hatchery and the First Nation with their request, which I think is

eminently reasonable, to hold that decision and do the research in the

particular area with them, in consultation. Take a look at it, do a

study, and then make a decision a year or two hence. I think that that

is reasonable.

I would like to hear from the minister why it has taken more than

six months for them to, essentially, provide any level of response to

the project, and only to then say, “Well, thanks very much, but if

you’re concerned about the establishment and improvement of monitoring

programs aimed at conserving wild trout, please contact,” and the

contact for that.

They’ve been talking about that since November and are asking for

the minister and/or appropriate staff to come and take a look and have a

conversation about how, collectively, they do that monitoring — not just

an arbitrary cancellation of a program which volunteers have worked hard

on for 30 years and recently had to raise and invest more than $30,000

into new equipment to do it properly.

I think it’s an eminently responsible and reasonable request from

a group that has been doing this work for 30 years. I would ask the

minister to make a commitment today that he will at least take a meeting

with the fish and game club and the First Nation.

The Chair: Noting the hour, we do have to move adjournment of this

committee. If it’s okay with the member, I could ask the minister to

respond after we get back from the lunch break.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

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