Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 58

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

Speaker’s Statement

Book of condolence for John Davidson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Observance of Remembrance Day

E. Foster

Louis Riel Day and Métis Nation

B. D’Eith

Darren Fitzpatrick and observance of Remembrance Day

S. Bond

Family physicians

M. Elmore

Saanich North and the Islands constituency

A. Olsen

Anniversary of Kristallnacht

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Site C power project and electricity rates

T. Redies

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Cadieux

Government energy policy

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Horgan

Confidence and supply agreement secretariat and electricity

rates

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Steelhead protection in Fraser-Nicola area

J. Tegart

Hon. D. Donaldson

Harvesting of timber in areas impacted by wildfires

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal and resource sector jobs

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

T. Redies

Petitions

S. Furstenau

J. Tegart

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

L. Throness

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

J. Thornthwaite

S. Bond

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my pleasure to introduce some honoured guests who are with us in

the Legislature today, in the gallery. The Ministry of Education has

partnered with an esteemed group of professionals from some of our key

partner associations to create something called the leadership development

framework that enables students, educators and school communities to thrive

through skilled and effective educational leadership. These organizations

are providing training programs to support professional development, and the

framework focuses on collaborative efforts to focus the school system on

better student success for all students.

I’d ask the House to please welcome — I’ve got a few names to

introduce here — Mr. Tom Longridge, who is president of the B.C. School

Superintendents Association, and Claire Guy, executive director of the

superintendents association. Patti Dundas, who is president of the B.C.

Association of School Business Officials, is here. Mr. Kevin Reimer is here,

president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. Kit

Krieger is the executive director of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals

Association, and Peter Froese is the executive director of the Federation of

Independent School Associations of B.C.

Also, it would please me to introduce Mr. Paul Squires, who is the

acting assistant deputy minister of international education, independent

schools and partner relations. I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming all

these esteemed guests who are providing great leadership in our school

system….

Interjections.

D. Davies: It’s not very often I get to rise in this House and welcome some of my

constituents down from Peace River North, where it is a balmy minus 20 and

snowing right now. I’d like to welcome Lexie Pomeroy and Carla Cowger, the

parents of their daughters Eden Pomeroy and Courtney Cowger, who are both

attending the Western Canadian Irish dance. Would the House please make them

feel welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: Every single day that we’re working in this beautiful building, we

need a lot of people supporting us to help with our scheduling, with our

appointments and sometimes even with our meals — to look after us. I’m

really happy to see, in the House today, that I have my administrative

assistant, Cherie Wilson, along with her good friend Kate from the Minister

of State for Trade’s office. They’re both here joining us for question

period.

Hon. J. Sims: It gives me great pleasure today to add my voice to welcoming a past

president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Kit Krieger. I hope you’ll all

help me make him feel welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a former member of

the House, the former member for Cariboo North. Now we have to refer to him

as His Worship, as he’s the mayor — he’s shaking his head no — of Quesnel.

He’s an outstanding advocate for all things up north, especially for the

community of Quesnel. Please join me in welcoming Bob Simpson.

B. Ma: We have representatives with us here today from the First Nations

Financial Management Board. Brian Titus currently sits on the First Nations

Financial Management Board as vice-chair. I can’t quite see all the way into

the gallery, but I believe he is here with Scott Munro, who serves as the

director of standards and certification; and someone we all know and love,

Sue Hammell, former member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

Brian Titus is a veteran leader of First Nations companies and

organizations across British Columbia and Canada. He is also the BC AFOA

chapter president, a Chief Isaac Inc. board member and adviser for the CCAB

and Camosun College. It is an honour to have him here with us today, along

with his guests. Would with the House please join me in making them all feel

very welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. G. Chow: I would like to welcome Kate Duncan. She is the admin assistant in my

office of the Minister of State for Trade. She really wanted to see what we

do here in the House, and she’s curious. I said: “Come down. We also do

trade, too, but it’s trading our conversations.”

R. Singh: It is my honour to introduce a very dear friend and, I’m sure, a very

dear friend of many of us in the House, Sue Hammell, former MLA for

Surrey–Green Timbers. Would the House please make her feel very

welcome.

L. Krog: In addition to the guests introduced by the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale — and Sue Hammell, my old colleague — is one of the

province’s leading intellectuals and commentators, I believe. He’s certainly

in the building this morning, if he’s not in the gallery. That’s Will

McMartin. Would the House please make him welcome as well.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to add my welcome to that introduced by the Minister of

Education. In the gallery is Tom Longridge, the superintendent of school

district 72.

School district 72 has long been a leader in progressive education in

this province. It’s got a great reputation. It continues to have a great

reputation, and that takes leadership. I think the whole school district is

extremely lucky and proud to have Mr. Longridge as the superintendent. He’s

been there for eight years, and I hope he’s going to be there for a number

of years more so he can continue to guide and work with the board so we

continue getting the high quality of education in school district 72. I hope

the House will once again welcome him.

A. Olsen: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce a few members of the campaign

team that helped get me into this place — Linda Brown; Marcus and Marilyn

Redivo; Laura Parker; Thomas Toyvin; and my mother, Sylvia Olsen, who keeps

showing up in this place to keep an eye on us. I just want to say that the

love and passion that they showed for democracy in our province flowed out

during the months leading up to the election, and I have a great deal and

amount of love and respect for them. Would this House please make them feel

welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

BOOK OF CONDOLENCE

FOR JOHN

DAVIDSON

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may, before we go further, just call your attention

to the fact that we’re compiling a book of condolences for the family of

slain Abbotsford officer John Davidson. The pages are located in the

Hall of Honour, and members are invited to leave a message for the

family.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE DAY

E. Foster: Almost a century ago the guns fell silent over Europe, and the

world breathed a collective sigh of relief. The first Great War was

finally over. In four years, millions perished, and the world would

change forever.

In 1918, it was proposed that we adopt a two-minute moment of

silence to remember the sacrifices of those who fell in service of our

country and our values. The first minute is to remember the near 20

million people who died in the war, and the second minute is dedicated

to those who were left behind.

We remember not only to mourn for the lost but to remind ourselves

to be better — to work earnestly to stop conflict and promote peace

wherever possible. In the 11th month on the 11th day at the 11th hour,

we remember the courageous men and women who have served, and those who

continue to serve, our country in times of war and times of peace — men

and women who fought bravely, many giving their lives, so that we

wouldn’t have to.

These are not faceless individuals but our grandparents, our

parents, our aunts and uncles, our sisters and brothers. Many of us here

in this House have had family members who have fought and died in the

service of their country on distant shores.

[10:15 a.m.]

Let us never forget their bravery or the atrocities that they

worked so hard to right. Let us continue to strive to be better. We

shall remember them.

LOUIS RIEL DAY AND MÉTIS NATION

B. D’Eith: As this is the last day the House sits before it takes a short

break, I’d like to draw your attention to a significant event next week.

B.C. will mark Louis Riel Day on November 16. Louis Riel is an important

figure in Métis and, indeed, Canadian history. He was a political

leader, a champion of Métis rights and culture and a leader of

rebellions. He was hanged by the federal government in 1885 for high

treason.

Now, for the Métis and many others, his killing was a grave

injustice. Each year they honour the significant place he holds in their

hearts and minds. However, Louis Riel Day is not only a day when we

remember this important figure. It’s also a day when we acknowledge the

importance of the nearly 90,000 Métis people of British Columbia. Recent

census figures tell us that the Métis population has grown nearly 30,000

in the last ten years alone, and they make up a great and valuable

contribution to the rich cultural fabric of our province.

We are working closely with the Métis leaders on priorities that

will make life better for Métis people across the province, and the

Métis Nation relationship accord between British Columbia and Métis

Nation B.C. outlines our shared commitment to improving health and

housing, education and economic opportunities, children and families,

justice, wildlife stewardship and information sharing. All of these

things I’m sure Louis Riel would, if he was with us today, be very proud

of. These are priorities that we all care about.

Next Thursday we’ll be proclaiming November 16, 2017, as Louis

Riel Day, and we will fly the Métis flag on the front lawn of these

parliament buildings at sunrise. Madam President Clara Morin-Dal Col of

the Métis Nation B.C. and representatives of the Métis Nation B.C.

executive will join the Deputy Premier to honour the Métis flag and this

proclamation.

Now, whether you are able to attend or not, I would ask that

members take a moment on November 16 to mark Louis Riel Day and to

honour all Métis people, who contribute so much to British

Columbia.

DARREN FITZPATRICK AND

OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE

DAY

S. Bond: As I waited in the departures area of the Prince George airport,

something happened that would change the way I look at Remembrance Day

forever. As we waited for our flight, a large commercial airliner

arrived and parked in front of our departure gate. It was unusual, but

the reason for the arrival would become painfully apparent.

We watched as people disembarked and began to gather on the tarmac

rather than entering the airport. Before our eyes, the underbelly of the

aircraft opened, and the flag-draped casket of a young Canadian soldier

emerged. We had become unexpected participants in the ramp ceremony of a

21-year-old soldier who had served with the 3rd Battalion, Princess

Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. No one said a word, but one by one,

my fellow travellers stood up, silently paying our respects to this

young hero.

Cpl. Darren Fitzpatrick was on foot patrol with Afghan forces,

west of Kandahar city, when he was badly wounded by an improvised

explosive device. He was flown home to Canada and died surrounded by his

loving parents, Jim and Colleen, and brothers Michael and Sean

Fitzpatrick.

Fitzie was the first born-and-raised soldier from Prince George to

die in combat since the Second World War. I have come to know the

Fitzpatrick family since that fateful day and am inspired by their

strength through indescribable grief and loss. Last year Colleen was

honoured as the National Silver Cross Mother, in Ottawa. Colleen said:

“We’ve been asked so many times if our loved one going overseas…. Was it

worth it? Was it in vain? I always say: if you value your freedom, it’s

not in vain.”

Thank you to the Fitzpatrick family for reminding me that our

freedom comes with a price, a cost that is unimaginable to most of us.

As we gather in services of remembrance on November 11, I hope that you

will remember Fitzie and thousands of other young people like him who

serve on our behalf and pay the ultimate price.

FAMILY PHYSICIANS

M. Elmore: The week of November 6 to 11 is Family Doctor Week in Canada,

which recognizes the contribution of family doctors in our health care

system. The 5,400 members of the B.C. College of Family Physicians are

not only the centre of health care for B.C. patients; many are also

teachers of family physicians of the future, through the UBC medical

school sites and the family practice residency program, located at four

sites across the province.

[10:20 a.m.]

This year a B.C. member is receiving a national honour, the

College of Family Physicians of Canada B.C. Family Physician of the Year

award — Dr. Joy Russell. Dr. Joy Russell has been a family physician in

Vancouver for 33 years. Since 2014, her practice has been located at the

UBC Health Clinic, where she’s also a preceptor, teaching family

practice residents, nurse practitioner students and undergraduate

medical students.

The college is also very active in advocacy. They issued a B.C.

report card listing five health care indicators that they are

prioritizing: a family doctor for every British Columbian, addressing

mental health and addiction, Indigenous health, rural and remote care,

and support for the patients medical home.

They also advocate a poverty tool, a clinical tool for primary

care providers. They distribute that throughout to all physicians across

British Columbia to identify poverty as a risk factor, and one of their

key principles and strategic priorities is to empower family physicians

to address the social determinants of health. They are also active with

Walk with the Docs 2017. It’s a global movement to make history towards

accessible, quality primary care for all, and they’re advancing family

medicine globally.

I hope I can ask all of us here to please join me in thanking

family physicians and recognizing them. They are such an important part

of our primary care in British Columbia.

SAANICH NORTH AND

THE ISLANDS

CONSTITUENCY

A. Olsen: Saanich North and the Islands is home to amazing communities,

great schools, abundant food-producing land, the Saanich Inlet and the

Salish Sea. We’re home to Swartz Bay, the primary connection between

Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland. The award-winning Victoria

International Airport connects us to the world beyond, and we have some

of the last remaining industrial land in greater Victoria.

The New York Times named the southern Gulf Islands one of

their 2016 top 50 places to see. Central Saanich is home to the

world-famous Butchart Gardens and Boulders Climbing Gym, a world-class

rock climbing facility. In North Saanich, the Panorama won the 2015

Kraft Hockeyville and finished fourth in the 2017 MoneySense

Best Places to Live list. The town of Sidney is a jewel seaside village

and the commercial heartbeat of our riding.

I’m excited about the future of Saanich North and the Islands. Our

limitless intellectual capacity, investors, entrepreneurs and

risk-takers have produced a long list of successful change-making

enterprises, leaving us well positioned to be leaders in the disruptive

and innovative 21st century economy.

The world is rapidly changing. We are rethinking everything from

how resources are extracted and refined to how products are manufactured

and how they’re sold and purchased. How and where we live, move, work

and play are in transition.

Next week I’ll visit a group of manufacturing companies on the

Saanich Peninsula. I’m excited to connect with them. Their success is

all our success. But we have some work to do. Housing, skilled trades

and labour force and transportation provide stiff challenges. In early

December, I’m hosting a community dialogue to discuss this further. I

hope the community attends.

I look forward to working through this time of change with the

business community in my riding, and I look forward to working with

every one of you in this House to make this a forward-looking, agile

Legislature — visionary, not just leading Saanich North and the Islands

but every riding in this great province.

ANNIVERSARY OF Kristallnacht

R. Kahlon: “Early in the morning, we suddenly heard a loud banging on the

door, then shouts and boots stomping up the stairs. We didn’t know what

was happening, but it was clear — something terrible. We closed the

shutters facing the street and sat on my parents’ bed at the end of the

corridor. We hugged each other and trembled with fear. Then we heard the

noise of furniture being thrown from the top floor to the street and

then a terrible shout and a thud. They threw our neighbour, Mr.

Ulfelder, out the window, and he was killed.” This is the story of

Daniel Heiman. He was describing November 9, 1938.

[10:25 a.m.]

When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he immediately began

implementing policies to ostracize the Jewish population. By November 9,

1938, he had so stoked hatred against Jews that mobs of Nazis, stoked

with hatred, roamed the country, torching hundreds of synagogues,

destroying thousands of Jewish homes and businesses. They murdered

almost 100 people that day. Streets of Jewish communities were left

littered with broken glass from vandalized buildings, giving rise to the

name “night of broken glass,” or Kristallnacht.

These words are from another survivor, Ervin Staub: “What I will

remember is not the perpetrators but the bystanders. Bystanders can

exert powerful influence. They can define the meaning of events and move

others toward empathy and action, or in their passivity, they can affirm

the perpetrators.”

As we mark this day, we note seeming increasing intolerance and

hatred in our society. May we all commit today to taking action against

it and ensuring that we are not passive bystanders in this

world.

Oral Questions

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ELECTRICITY

RATES

T. Redies: Yesterday this government rushed out an announcement just before

question period, a question period where they knew they would face

questions about a $4 billion write-off of Site C and a completely

unnecessary 10 percent shock in B.C. Hydro rates. This government was

caught in yet another broken promise, a 10 percent rate shock instead of

a freeze.

They didn’t want to admit to this broken promise, and perhaps they

realized that the public had lost patience for their endless reviews. So

they pretended they’d done something that they hadn’t and issued a

misleading news release.

Will the minister confirm it was the Premier or his office which

ordered the misleading news release to cover up a 10 percent rate shock

if they terminate Site C?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s hard to keep track of the line of questioning. Some days they

say we’re not keeping our promises, and then when we do keep our

promises, they complain about that.

Over the past 16 years, hydro rates have gone up and up and up as

the B.C. Liberals used B.C. Hydro to fund their budgets and used B.C.

Hydro to build projects that inevitably would go over budget. For the

member to now say that by keeping our commitment to freeze hydro rates,

we’re somehow misleading anybody is completely wrong.

We made a commitment during the election campaign to do a review

of B.C. Hydro after 16 years of mismanagement. We made the commitment to

freeze the rates. We’ve asked Hydro to do that. We’re doing exactly what

we said during the campaign. Again, I don’t know whether they want us to

push forward or step back. We’re going to push forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: It appears that the Premier doesn’t understand the process for how

rates are established with B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has to make a rate

application through to BCUC. The minister’s testimony this week made it

very clear that writing off $4 billion would result in a 10 percent rate

shock to British Columbian ratepayers.

The $150 million announcement yesterday associated with the rate

freeze is incorrect because it’s not guaranteed. This is creating

confusion for British Columbians. Should the government choose to

terminate Site C, the $4 billion write-off would create an immediate

liability that has to be amortized and expensed.

Can the minister explain how the Utilities Commission could

possibly approve a zero percent rate increase in light of the fact that

B.C. Hydro could be facing a revenue shortfall of $400

million?

Hon. J. Horgan: Before the 2013 election, the B.C. Liberals intervened in the rate

hearing at the Utilities Commission and said rates would not go up.

“We’re going to shut this down. There will be no rate increases.” Then,

after they were re-elected, rates went up 28 percent.

If the member on the other side, who, if I’m not mistaken, was a

member of the B.C. Hydro board from 2014 to 2016…. If she doesn’t

understand how the process works, perhaps she could take some advice

from the Leader of the Opposition, who intervened in a rate hearing and

then jacked the prices up 28 percent for ratepayers.

[10:30 a.m.]

We ran on a campaign to freeze hydro rates. That’s exactly what

we’re doing.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the question will go to the member standing.

The member for Surrey–White Rock.

T. Redies: It’s very interesting to me that this government, which has spoken

out longly about the importance of the independence of the BCUC, is now

dictating a rate freeze without getting proper approval. The government

can try and deflect, and they can try to blame others and past history,

but it is this government that is contemplating a completely unnecessary

$4 billion write-off and a 10 percent rate shock.

The Minister of Energy confirmed that Site C was on time and on

budget as of June 30, 2017. She confirmed that B.C. Hydro was actually

performing above budget expectations. Within four months, this

government has completely bungled this file.

My question is for the minister. Will she come clean with British

Columbians on how much they will have to pay, as ratepayers, to pay for

this government’s mismanagement?

Hon. J. Horgan: Normally, I would say “for the member’s information” because she

wasn’t a member of this House. But as a member of the B.C. Hydro board,

she oversaw the approval of a project, which did not go to the Utilities

Commission, that could put us billions and billions of dollars behind,

on her watch. So if there’s any blame to be apportioned, it’s right over

there.

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: The B.C. Liberals exempted the smart meter program, a $1 billion

expenditure, because it was convenient to do so. The B.C. Liberals

exempted the northwest transmission line — it went $400 million over

budget — because it was easy to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: In 2005, we had deferred debt accounts at B.C. Hydro to the tune

of $182 million — $182 million, with an “M.” In 2011, that number had

risen to $2.2 billion. While that member was on the audit committee of

B.C. Hydro, it went to $5.7 billion. I will take no advice from a person

on the other side who increased debt by that much.

S. Cadieux: Is the Premier really calling into question the accuracy of the

statements made by his minister yesterday, when she confirmed that, in

fact, the B.C. Hydro Site C project was on time and on budget as of June

30? Or is he saying that she misled the House? Or is he misleading the

House with his statements today?

The government needs to come clean to British Columbians. The

facts simply don’t match their claims. They are contemplating a $4

billion write-off that would mean a 10 percent rate shock for B.C. Hydro

customers. Nowhere in the news release does the government acknowledge

that the decisions on setting rates are entirely up to the independent

BCUC. Instead they have prejudged the outcome. Despite all their

rhetoric, once again, it’s “say one thing; do another,” with this NDP

government.

To the Premier, why did he issue a news release that prejudges the

independent B.C. Utilities Commission? Will he retract it and

apologize?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She will know, as she’s been

a member of this place for some time, that B.C. Hydro was increasing

rates year after year, after the previous government ran on a campaign

to make sure that didn’t happen.

We ran on a campaign to make life more affordable for British

Columbians, and that’s exactly why we’re doing it. That’s why we removed

tolls, the only tolls in British Columbia, on the Golden Ears and Port

Mann bridges. That’s why we’re cutting MSP premiums in half. That’s why

we’ve made sure the people that needed a raise in British Columbia, the

lowest-paid workers, got an increase in the minimum wage.

We’re focused on people. You’re focused on headlines. Good luck

with that.

Mr. Speaker: The Member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: I think the headline that the Premier is looking for is:

“Hypocrisy Starts with a Capital H.” The government is choosing to

double down on their defence of something that’s clearly wrong. Even the

Third Party leader knows this is wrong.

The news release is misleading, and they’re disrespecting the

independence of the Utilities Commission. They’re saying one thing and

doing another. When asked what would happen if the B.C. Utilities

Commission turns them down — the members and the Premier may want to

listen to this — the minister said and could only say: “We’ll cross that

bridge when we come to it.” Now, “we’ll cross that bridge when we come

to it” isn’t a plan. It’s a symptom of this government’s complete

bungling of the B.C. Hydro file.

To the Premier, will he retract the misleading news release about

a rate freeze and issue a formal correction?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall…. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I know there are bridges we’re going to be crossing without

tolls in the Lower Mainland. That’s what people here care

about.

Now, I appreciate the members on the other side had 16 years to

drive B.C. Hydro in the ditch, and we’ve only had 16 weeks to try and

pull it out. Our commitment is to make…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …sure the people who pay the bills in British Columbia get a break

for a change. They were used as a cash cow, an instant teller machine by

the B.C. Liberals. Our commitment is to the people of B.C., making life

more affordable.

For the member for Surrey–White Rock, of all people, to point

fingers after she saw a $3 billion increase in deferred debt is

hypocrisy in the highest order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY

A. Olsen: This week in the House, British Columbia’s energy policy has been

canvassed in great detail. In doing so, we’ve spoken a lot about the

legacy of the B.C. Liberals, a government that let industry set the

energy agenda for B.C. Those companies determined how many wells,

pipelines, roads and water dams were needed and where they’d

go.

Interjections.

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

A. Olsen: Even Site C is a clear industry connection. For the Liberals, it

was all about politics. The problem is we’re now seeing the same

approach to energy policy from the new government.

This week questions were dodged or avoided altogether. A B.C.

Hydro rate freeze was announced with short-term political gain in mind,

not responsible energy policy. This approach will simply saddle us and

our children with additional costs. No different than the last

government. The NDP government claims at every turn that they’re

different than the B.C. Liberals, yet we’re just seeing more of the

same.

My question is to the Premier. According to Moody’s, B.C. Hydro’s

financial position is among the weakest of any Canadian utility. Now,

how is freezing hydro rates doing anything different than continuing the

B.C. Liberal legacy of putting politics before good public

policy?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I do agree with him that the

disastrous record of the people on the other side of the House deserves

attention.

[10:40 a.m.]

I also know that by working cooperatively with the Green caucus, a

fully recognized political entity in this Legislature, we can come up

with better policy for the people of British Columbia. We ran on a

platform to freeze hydro rates while we did a thorough review. I expect

B.C. Hydro to find those savings, not at a cost to taxpayers, not at a

cost to ratepayers. We are going to get the job done. I welcome the

member’s participation in that work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, please be seated until you can hear yourself

speak.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: We are rapidly approaching a crossroads. We can continue to follow

the B.C. Liberals’ path of fiscal mismanagement, or this government can

be better by developing our energy policy in a way that is fiscally

sound, environmentally sustainable and respectful of First

Nations.

The opportunity in front of us is a generational one. This

government has an unparalleled chance to set the course for 21st century

energy policy in this province. Failing to take advantage of this moment

will see this government’s legacy become just another

chapter in the sad

legacy of the B.C. Liberal energy policy.

My question is for the Premier. In order to rise to this

opportunity, we have to do more than say the right words. We need to

take clear, bold action that takes us into the 21st century. Mr.

Premier, are you prepared to do that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the question has been directed towards the

Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you for the question from the member for Saanich North and

the Islands.

I think that it’s interesting to watch the response from the B.C.

Liberals when you have a former board member at B.C. Hydro who knew full

well they were proceeding down the wrong track on Site C, a board member

who knew that the deferred debt was going up by $3 billion.

For them to heckle a legitimate question about a generational

opportunity not just in energy policy but in the decorum of this place,

where legislators from across British Columbia can come to one location

and build a better British Columbia…. It’s questions that want to

inspire people that are appreciated in this place, not the crap that

comes from the other side.

In anticipation, I withdraw that last comment. However, the

challenges that the member from Saanich North has laid down for this

government and for this Legislature are real challenges. I think all

members of British Columbia want us to act responsibly as we go

forward.

Hon. Member, we are where we are, we found what we found, and it

was a big, stinking pile. We’re going to do the best we can to fix

it.

Mr. Speaker: Premier, if I may ask you again to withdraw that

comment.

Hon. J. Horgan: I unreservedly withdraw the comment.

CONFIDENCE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT

SECRETARIAT AND

ELECTRICITY RATES

S. Bond: Well, I am incredibly surprised that the leader of the Green Party

didn’t leap to his feet today to continue his animated and very

passionate line of questions about the B.C. Hydro rate freeze news

release. Yesterday, in his questions to the Energy Minister, we got a

little more insight into the confidence and supply agreement, so let’s

do a little refresher.

[10:45 a.m.]

This government is billing taxpayers a quarter of a million

dollars every year for a political secretariat to manage the NDP-Green

coalition relationship, but we know this relationship counselling office

isn’t, apparently, working. The confidence and supply agreement is

supposed to be “founded on the principle of good faith and no

surprises.” Well, the leader of the Green Party wasn’t the only one

surprised yesterday. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the press

release touting a hydro freeze was apparently completely contrary to

discussions held at the $1 million secretariat.

Let’s look at what the Green Party leader had to say yesterday,

referring to a hydro freeze: “The only message we took from our

no-surprises, good-faith confidence and supply agreement discussions

about this issue.... This is a surprise — that we are not actually

freezing hydro rates.”

Can the Premier tell us when this item was on the agenda and

exactly how the conversation in the secretariat was different from what

the government announced yesterday?

Hon. J. Horgan: As the member would have known if she’d paid attention, we ran on

a campaign of freezing hydro rates. That’s exactly what we’re

doing.

S. Bond: I can assure you that this member does pay attention. What I heard

from the members opposite, non-stop, was the fact that going to the BCUC

before announcing a project is a pretty important principle. What

happened yesterday?

Let’s look at what the NDP’s coalition partner has done. He’s been

alternatively shocked, outraged or disappointed by the government’s

failings on everything from ride-sharing to affordable housing, tolls,

NDP fundraising, and so the pattern goes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question, please.

S. Bond: Yesterday the leader of the Green Party said the government had

broken their promise of the no-surprise, good-faith confidence and

supply agreement. On his blog, he wrote: “So imagine our collective

surprise during budget estimates debate for the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources when we found out that in fact this isn’t

yet confirmed.”

My question to the Premier is this: exactly what discussion took

place at the $1 million secretariat? What led his government to break

the no-surprises, good-faith principle and send out a press release

about a hydro rate freeze that hasn’t even been approved by the BCUC and

that was a complete surprise to his coalition partner?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, we campaigned to freeze hydro rates. B.C. Hydro is asking

the Utilities Commission just that. We’re fulfilling our commitments to

the people of British Columbia. I know that’s anathema to the people on

the other side. They don’t understand that concept. But we’re doing

exactly what we said we would do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may get to the next question.

STEELHEAD PROTECTION

IN FRASER-NICOLA

AREA

J. Tegart: The Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead run is threatened and

perilously close to extinction. Steelhead returning this year may not

exceed 240 fish. This is truly alarming when 30 years ago there were

10,000.

I know the Minister of Forests is aware of the concerns of the

B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus because we wrote to the minister and his

colleagues over a week ago. I’m talking about fish today, and I’m hoping

that the minister will answer in a way that talks about what we need to

do today.

My question to the minister is: what immediate actions will this

government take to protect the steelhead so it does not face total

extinction during our time in this House?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question on steelhead from the member. We have

fairly healthy steelhead runs in my part of the province. I appreciate

the importance of steelhead, not from a biodiversity aspect for the

ecosystem health but from an economic aspect as well. In my area of the

province, the steelhead fishery generates a significant amount of money

for local people in local areas — money that’s recycled within the

communities.

As far as the steelhead runs the member mentions, they are

perilously low in numbers, just an unbelievable lack of fish returning

to the river systems in her part of the province. We have worked with

Fisheries and Oceans, which has ultimate responsibility for the fishery

on the Fraser that impacts the steelhead. We are emphasizing

conservation. Fisheries and Oceans has taken our concerns into account

in the way they’ve managed the fishery this season on the

Fraser.

HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN

AREAS IMPACTED BY

WILDFIRES

C. Oakes: Families in the Cariboo are worried. Thousands of families rely on

the forest sector to feed, clothe and house their loved ones. After this

devastating wildfire season, these families know all too well that the

fires ripped through and destroyed the fibre needed to keep industry

running. They also know that the hope for Christmas paycheques relies on

access to this fire-damaged wood.

The burnt fibre has a limited shelf life. We got messages, during

estimates, contrary to what we saw yesterday released in press releases.

After the leadership of the MLAs on this side of the House, the

government conceded that 21 permits have been issued for

salvage.

For the families in the Cariboo, can the minister confirm that

these permits were indeed for standing fire-damaged timber to support

keeping industry operational and not — I repeat not — part of permits

required for fencing, roads, fireguard, cleanup or other permits? And

can the minister tell us what that volume of released permits

is?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This government is investing in our forestry sector and protecting

jobs here in B.C., unlike what members on that side did when they were

in government, when 30,000 jobs were lost in the forest

sector.

It’s very surprising to me, the line of questioning from MLAs in

the area impacted and the former Minister of Forests this week. I’m

surprised because it seems to me the theme is calling into question the

hard work and dedication of staff in the areas affected to get the

permits out.

I visited those areas frequently this summer. I witnessed the

staff working hard. It’s the same staff now in those areas who are

working on salvage permits, working on this topic. In many cases, they

were working on the wildfire situations, evacuated from their own

communities. They went straight from that into working hard on this

topic as well. I just want to recognize their outstanding

efforts.

The logging of burnt timber under pre-existing permits is

underway, and that dedicated staff is working hard on the approval of

additional cutting permits for salvage logging. The member is right. Due

to their hard work, they’ve already had 21 permits approved, and more

are in process. To date, well over one million cubic metres' worth of

new cutting permits have been issued.

KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL

AND RESOURCE SECTOR

JOBS

M. Polak: Day after day in this House, we find ourselves longing for a

government minister, any government minister, who would defend resource

sector jobs in this province. Finally, a hero has arisen, a champion,

someone who is going to fight for British Columbia jobs in the resource

sector. It’s Rachel Notley, the NDP Premier from Alberta.

[10:55 a.m.]

She says: “I’m a mouthpiece for the tens of thousands of British

Columbians who also lost their jobs when the price of oil went down.”

She goes on to say: “What I’m a mouthpiece for is the view that we need

to always be focused on ensuring that working people have jobs to go to

in the morning so they can bring paycheques home in the

evening.”

While we have the Premier of Alberta defending resource sector

jobs, we have a government in British Columbia in court fighting the

Trans Mountain pipeline that could bring thousands of jobs for British

Columbians here in this province.

When will the government do its job, defend British Columbia jobs

instead of fighting in court to take those paycheques away?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her impassioned comments about this side of

the House standing up and defending jobs right now in the Lower

Mainland, right now that affect our marine environment. I’m sure the

member will know…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …one of the first things I did when I was sworn in as Premier is I

went to Washington to defend forest workers by standing up for the

softwood lumber agreement. I just came back from the north coast, where

I visited the AltaGas site, where 600 people are working right now,

developing resource industry jobs.

I appreciate that we’ve only had 16 weeks to get things moving in

the right direction, making sure all British Columbians benefit from the

bounty and splendour of this great province. But after 16 years of

focusing on the people at the top, the people that wrote the cheques,

which they can’t write anymore.... Thank goodness for that. After 16

years of all that, there’s a new government in town. There’s a new

government focused on the interests of British Columbians, making sure

people benefit from the bounty of this great province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

T. Redies: I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: So moved.

Petitions

S. Furstenau: I rise to present a petition to the House. Last week I met with

Shawnigan RCMP, three Cowichan Valley regional directors and representatives

from South Cowichan Community Policing, who presented me with a petition

signed by nearly 1,000 residents. They’re advocating for the Shawnigan RCMP

detachment to stay in the South Cowichan region. There was agreement from

federal, provincial and local government to keep the RCMP detachment in

South Cowichan.

J. Tegart: I rise today to present a petition from South Green Lake volunteer

fire department, signed by over 175 residents — doesn’t seem like much, but

it’s everyone who lives there — asking government to work with them to

institute a forest fire hazard prevention program within Green Lake Park

B.C. boundaries.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call debate on Bill 8. In Committee A, I call estimates

for debate of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to recognize the two staff members who are here with me

today — Renee Mulligan, legal counsel, justice services branch; and

Julie Williams, legal counsel, justice services branch — to assist me in

providing members with the information they need about this proposed

legislation.

Before I begin, I’d just like to take a moment to thank all the

members for their comments and interventions on this legislation in

second reading.

The main goal of this bill is to introduce a new two-year

prohibition on lobbying for all former public office holders, which runs

from the date the individual ceases to hold public office. It adds a new

registration requirement for lobbyists who are lobbying a person on

behalf of the staff of a minister or MLA in order to influence the

minister or MLA. In this situation currently, the act only requires that

a lobbyist disclose the name of the minister or MLA on their return.

With this bill, lobbyists will be required by law to disclose both the

name of the staff person and the name of the minister or MLA on their

return.

Now, as I’ve had the opportunity to say before, this is just the

first step in a longer process of review and reform of the lobbying

regime in British Columbia. What we want to do is end the revolving door

between government and lobbyists.

To assist members in understanding the context of our committee

stage here, I wanted to let them know that this is just the beginning.

We’ll be doing a comprehensive review of the Lobbyists Registration Act,

including the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists’ mandate, to ensure

that our democratic institutions and the interests of British Columbians

are adequately protected from the influence of special

interests.

We’re going to start that in early 2018. We expect further

amendments, through a more detailed bill, to be introduced by the fall

of 2018, which will include…. You’ve heard the Office of the Registrar

of Lobbyists call for, and this bill will include, a mandatory five-year

review of the act as well as a 30-day reporting requirement for all

lobbyists.

I hope that that context helps members direct their questions

during the committee stage.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[11:05 a.m.]

L. Throness: I have a number of questions for the minister. I’d like to preface

my questions with a couple of remarks.

As the minister knows very well, former staff of cabinet ministers

are directly affected by this legislation. They were caught unaware by

it. The election took place on May 9. The government was not formed

until July 18. The bill was introduced on October 2. That was a

five-month period. There were about 120 who were let go from the

Legislature. Some staff, not being independently wealthy and needing to

work, found jobs in the industry which is the subject of our bill today,

and they’re working right now in it.

I want to question the minister, in terms of legal questions and

in terms of fairness as well. The employment which is legal today may be

illegal tomorrow. So my first question for the minister is: was this

legislation flagged green, yellow or red, in terms of the Charter or

other legal risk, by legal advisers?

Hon. D. Eby: For the member’s information, staff do not flag legislation with

any type of flag like that. That’s for regulations. Even if they did,

that would be solicitor-client advice, anyway.

L. Throness: Could the minister comment on the possibility of a legal challenge

and how he would approach a challenge?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is asking if we’re introducing legislation that

we either know or reasonably anticipate is in some way illegal or

unconstitutional. The answer to that, obviously, is no. As Attorney

General, I have a responsibility to ensure that legislation that’s

introduced, especially legislation in my name, complies with the laws of

Canada, the constitution and the rule of law in the province and the

country. I can assure the member that the legislation that is being

tabled here is no exception to that principle.

L. Throness: Certainly, the minister knows that…. Employees may have known in

broad terms that legislation was coming, but they had no idea of its

contents or its timing.

If the minister won’t comment on how he will approach a legal

challenge, will he admit that this legislation is grossly unfair to

former staffers? I do think that the minister ought to care about former

employees of this place, of whatever political stripe they

are.

Hon. D. Eby: I understand the concern that the member is raising. There are a

few points that I can review in response to his concern with respect to

the fairness issue that he raises. I do want to underline, though, in

terms of the context of his question, that it’s not that I’m not

commenting on the litigation risk. People might sue the government on

any piece of legislation.

What I can advise the member is that the proposed legislation that

we’re putting forward here, we believe, is constitutional, is legal.

People might still sue the government, but they won’t be successful.

It’s not designed to be in that way. It’s just that we put forward

lawful legislation for this House to consider. So I’m glad to comment on

that. I mean, if he doesn’t accept that, then that’s fine, but I feel

that I’m commenting on his question.

With respect to what has been incorporated in the bill to try to

address the fairness issue. First of all, the prohibition on lobbying is

not a prohibition on employment across the board for individuals. It’s a

very specific type of prohibition on a very specific type of activity.

Former public officers can still find other employment in many different

areas.

[11:10 a.m.]

It’s a very specific restriction to a very specific activity, and

it only applies to former public officers who become paid lobbyists. It

restricts their ability to be paid to communicate the concerns of others

to government, and it’s time-limited. It’s only a period of two years

post-employment. That doesn’t restrict a person from interacting with

government, generally, in order to express views or restrict their

freedom of expression at all.

The intent behind the bill is really directed at levelling the

playing field for a lobbyist. There might be a lobbyist coming from

government with information that they obtained through their role in a

minister’s office, and they are competing in the industry with people

who don’t have that inside knowledge. So that’s one piece.

It also reassures the public that people aren’t using the

information they gained through employment to benefit certain interests

that can afford to pay them for access to that inside knowledge of how

things work within government. It’s really intended to prevent doubts or

suspicions rising on the part of the public.

Currently, as far as we know, there are only two former public

office holders in the registry who will be caught by the prohibition

once the amendments come into force, which we anticipate to be in the

spring. It doesn’t mean there aren’t other people out there who might

contemplate going into this kind of work — we don’t know — or maybe who

haven’t self-disclosed on the registry, as they are required to do, that

they’re former public office holders. But I can tell the member that

there are only two that we know of.

The bill was introduced October 2, 2017. It’s not going to come

into force for five months. It goes through the full process of first

reading, second reading, committee stage, like all bills do. So there

will be a significant amount of time, before the prohibition is brought

into force, for a person who’s engaging in this activity to address the

new legislation and ensure they’re compliant with it.

The final note. There might be a particular circumstance where, in

the public interest, the registrar deems it appropriate to allow

somebody, despite the prohibitions in the bill, to move from government

to lobbying within that two-year window. In the bill, there’s a

proposal, if it passes, that will give the registrar the discretion to

exempt individuals from prohibition if the registrar is satisfied it’s

in the public interest. We chose the public interest as the test because

that’s what we believe the test should be for engaging in this kind of

activity: is it in the public interest that it take place?

L. Throness: Let’s talk about intent for a moment. We agree about future

employees. The problem is about past employees who have been surprised

by this legislation. I’m not sure that the number of people is relevant.

Those people matter. Given that any former government employees who

received jobs in the industry in the past five months would not be

lobbying a friendly government and therefore the prospect of undue

influence would not exist, why would the government think it necessary

to capture them in this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t agree with the member’s premise. I think that the member

understands how government works. He was here when his party was in

government and understands the vital and important role of public

servants in discharging the duties of government and the knowledge that

people obtain through those roles.

The goal, the intent, of the legislation is not to single people

out for some kind of punishment. The intent of the legislation is to

protect the public interest. They have access to this public

information. They have access to this inside information. And they

should not be permitted to sell that information when they leave the

public service in terms of leaving a minister’s office, leaving the

board chair of a Crown corporation and then going into the private

sector. They shouldn’t be able to sell that information.

It seems totally appropriate to us that there be this prohibition.

I understand the member is questioning it. I don’t know how he’ll vote

on it. But in any event, he’s questioning the need for the two-year

prohibition. It could have been much longer, but the intent wasn’t to

punish people; it was to recognize that probably within two years that

knowledge is sufficiently dated that the person could then engage in

lobbying quite easily.

It could have been shorter, but our concern was that if you get

shorter than two years, you still have that concern about the relevance

and the currency of the information that that person has access

to.

We tried to strike a balance with this legislation, but the intent

of it is clear. It’s to restrict and prohibit this type of activity.

Yes, it will prevent people from engaging in that kind of activity.

Certainly, there are lots of opportunities for former public servants,

with the skills that they develop in government, to serve in any number

of public or private sector entities. But this very specific activity of

selling for money, representing private individuals to government, is

being restricted for a period of two years.

[11:15 a.m.]

L. Throness: Does the minister think that it would be in the public interest

that people who are caught in this situation would receive an exemption

under

section 2.3 of this bill? I would point out that the minister, if

he were to express an opinion, would not be prejudging any individual

case or interfering with the work of the lobbyists registrar, but it

might help to inform his opinion.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s my understanding that the registrar will be preparing a

policy to guide the registrar’s decisions around what the public

interest is in relation to this exception and how the registrar will be

exercising this discretion. I don’t wish to restrict or direct the

registrar in determining that. I think it’s up to the registrar to

determine that — the guidelines and the characteristics.

If we had wanted to direct the registrar in that way, we would

have put, in the legislation, specific directions and guidelines, and so

on. We felt that the public would have more confidence in a process

where the registrar is the one who determines the application of the

public-interest test to a request from any particular person who is

lobbying or who wishes to lobby and who is caught by the prohibition and

wants to be exempted under the public-interest exemption.

L. Throness: I’d like to move on to a different subject. This is a more

technical question now.

Section 8 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest

Act relates to lobbying by former executive council members and

parliamentary secretaries. I’m not sure if it does or not, and I would

like to have the minister’s opinion, if there’s any overlap between that

bill and this one —

section 8.

The Chair: Member, we are still on

section 2.

L. Throness: I’m still on

section 2, Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer for the member is that both acts have a two-year

cooling-off period. The Lobbyists Registration Act prohibition is a

broader group of people, which includes within it ministers, former

ministers and former parliamentary secretaries. The Members’ Conflict of

Interest Act speaks strictly about former cabinet ministers and former

parliamentary secretaries.

The Lobbyists Registration Act, similarly, has a broader

definition of lobbying and of activities than the Members’ Conflict of

Interest Act — which, in addition to having a more restricted group of

cabinet ministers and former parliamentary secretaries, also has a more

restricted group of prohibited activities, specifically from accepting

or trying to influence government about awarding a contract or a

financial benefit. So no taking government contracts and no trying to

influence government about awarding contracts.

It’s important to note that under the Members’ Conflict of

Interest Act, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has no authority to

enforce compliance with that prohibition, but the Lobbyists Registration

Act does provide, under the proposed amendments going forward, the

ability for the registrar to enforce compliance.

L. Throness: If a former public office holder — that is, a member covered by

the conflict-of-interest act — lobbies and is charged under the

Lobbyists Registration Act, could that person appeal to the

conflict-of-interest act as a defence, given that it is narrower in

scope?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not our understanding that you could use the narrower scope

of one act as a defence against the more broad application of another

act. You could potentially have a situation where a complaint is filed

under both regimes, with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and with

the registrar of lobbyists. And those processes would run in parallel,

the key difference being that post employment, the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner does not have enforcement powers; but post employment, the

lobbyists registrar does.

A concerned member of the public might file complaints with both.

There would be separate processes under separate rules and separate

procedures. Under one, with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, even

if there was a finding of conflict, there would be no direct

consequence. There might be political consequence, but there wouldn’t be

direct consequence. Under the other, the proposal that we’re putting

forward here in this bill, the registrar for lobbyists actually would

have enforcement powers to restrict that kind of activity.

L. Throness: I would simply point out to the minister that there is a potential

for great legal confusion there in the future, and I’m sure the courts

will sort that out.

I’d like to move on to subsection (

c) now. According to the Public

Service Agency’s human resources policy No. 13, which is entitled

“Post-Employment Restrictions for Senior Management in the B.C. Public

Service” — it’s dated April 12, 2016 — senior managers, once they leave

the public service, are banned from lobbying for one year, not two

years, and that one-year ban can be reduced by the head of the Public

Service Agency, given special circumstances.

I assume that this legislation will trump the public service

policy, and the public service policy will be changed. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct on both of his assumptions, yes.

L. Throness: Did the government consult with the head of the Public Service

Agency, Lori Halls, in the crafting of this legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, we did.

L. Throness: Are any union staff captured within this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: Apologies for the delay in response. We were just trying to think

through whether there might be a specific example.

The bill is not written with the intention of capturing either

union or non-union employees. It is certainly possible that staff in a

minister’s office could become part of a union, for example, and they

would still be captured by the act. It’s not a consideration in the

bill.

I can say to the member’s question that for the categories of

employees who are generally described, the intention is to capture the

political staff — and they tend not to be unionized — or the chair of a

board or a senior decision-maker in a Crown corporation.

I take the member’s point, in terms of the question — that it

tends to be that this bill captures employees who are not part of a

union. But it isn’t a requirement. If in future, for example,

ministerial staff did unionize, they would still be captured by the

bill. It’s not a factor for the bill’s consideration.

L. Throness: I’m simply wondering if the minister or the government consulted

with public service unions about this change.

Hon. D. Eby: No, I don’t believe that we did.

L. Throness: I’m wondering if the government has consulted with the lobbyists

registrar concerning the contradiction between the public service policy

of one year and this legislation with the two-year prohibition. If so,

what did the registrar say?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we did consult with the registrar,

not on that specific point.

I can also advise that the prohibition that was in the public

service requirements was there because there was no other prohibition

anywhere else, so it’s intended to create restriction in the absence of

another policy. This will overtake that, and the member is correct that

the public service agreements will be updated to reflect the bill,

should it pass.

L. Throness: What problem is the government trying to fix by adding another

year onto the ban for lobbying for senior executives? For example, has

there been a problem identified among senior executives lobbying earlier

than 24 months after leaving the public service?

Hon. D. Eby: There is a five-year prohibition for individuals at the federal

level. There are other jurisdictions that have similar prohibitions

which are shorter: Saskatchewan, a one-year prohibition for cabinet

ministers and six months for other positions; Quebec, two years for

former public officers and their executive staff; Newfoundland and

Labrador, 12 months for cabinet ministers and members of executive

staff.

The two-year proposal is the same as Quebec and a little bit

longer than Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. It is significantly less than

the federal prohibition, which is five years. I say that by way of just

helping the member understand where we fall within the national

framework around the attempts to regulate this kind of

activity.

Here in British Columbia, we have the two-year prohibition under

the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. I agree with the member to the

extent that there’s no magic that happens at one year and 364 days that

changes at two years and one day between what the member knew or what

the public’s impression is of what they knew. In that sense, I take his

point.

The two-year prohibition brings this bill in line with the

Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. It is in line with other

jurisdictions. It is reflective of the public concern around the

activities of lobbyists and how they are regulated. And it gives the

registrar powers that we believe should be there to enforce

this.

Ultimately, we believe that two years is the appropriate solution

for B.C. to reflect public concern but also to provide people with the

opportunity to return to this kind of work once their knowledge has

passed the point of freshness. That’s a legal term.

[11:30 a.m.]

L. Throness: I would just like to point out that the minister is not making an

evidence-based decision here, because he has presented no evidence on

which he based the decision. Instead, he’s sort of playing a provincial

game of keeping up with the Joneses. It’s a political decision. We just

need to be really clear about that.

I want to move on to sub-subsection 2(c)(iii) and ask a few

questions about that. I’m just wondering what sort of thing is being

contemplated here. For example, could the minister give an example of

any position that has been added by cabinet in the past?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad the member raised this issue, because this a significant

improvement over the existing legislation.

Currently it’s very difficult for people to understand, if they’re

part of external government, whether they’re captured or not by lobbyist

prohibitions because the way the act works is that if you’re a part of

the government reporting entity which is under the Budget Transparency

Act, then you are caught by the rules around reporting your lobbying

activity. There is not a definitive list anywhere, though, where someone

can go and find out whether they’re part of the government reporting

entity.

The intention of this

section is to provide the ability for

government in council to have a definitive list for people so that they

can govern themselves accordingly. If your organization isn’t on the

list, then you know that you’re not captured by the act. But if it is,

then you know that you are. It’s something that we’re hoping will assist

people in governing their conduct accordingly.

I can give the member a couple of examples of organizations where

it might not be immediately intuitive to people that they’re captured by

this. For example, they might join the board of a local college, like

Douglas College, they might be part of an organization like the Real

Estate Foundation of B.C. or they might be part of the First Peoples

Heritage, Language and Culture Council, and they’re currently captured

under the act, but they might not realize it.

We think that by providing a list under this

section in the

regulations so that people can find it, so the registrar can point to

it, and that will assist with general compliance with the act. So I

appreciate that the member raised that.

L. Throness: I can see, Chair, that there might be some benefit to

that.

Just one more question on this part. I would point out that this

section would give cabinet the power to name regular MLAs as former

public office holders who are not captured right now under the law — who

are not cabinet ministers, who are not parliamentary secretaries —

without going through the statutory process that we are conducting right

now. Does the minister think it would be appropriate for cabinet to add

an MLA in using this section?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It took us a second to work through that, because it’s certainly

not the intent of

section (c)(iii). The intent is to capture what’s

happening under the current act, under the government reporting entity

and create the ability to have a list that’s easily accessible for

people to understand whether or not they’re captured.

This, in conversation…. We think that, technically, you might

actually be able to add MLAs through that as a group of people within an

entity. It would be a bit of a stretch of the powers, for sure. I’m sure

that there would be some interesting debate in the Legislature about

that.

I think that, technically, the member is right. It’s certainly not

the intent of this section. The intent of the

section is to maintain the

government reporting entity prohibition and to make it easier to

understand. I also note that it’s a prescribed position in a provincial

entity. So you couldn’t, for example, provide a list of names in the

regulation of John Smith and so on, that are former MLAs, for example,

who are now prohibited from lobbying. It has to be a prescribed position

in a provincial entity. So you’d have to say, “Member of the Legislative

Assembly within the prescribed entity,” I guess, “of the Legislative

Assembly of B.C.”

If the member is interested in including MLAs, you could certainly

make a proposal around an amendment. The appropriate

section would

probably not be to do it through regulation but to do it through the

sections that relate to defining a former public office holder under

section (

a) more likely or a separate subsection as opposed to trying to

do it through a regulatory change like that.

L. Throness: I want to move on now to just ask a few general questions about

this section. The minister said publicly that he was patterning this

bill after the federal Conflict of Interest Act, which includes the

transition team of the Prime Minister.

I want to read

section 2(3) of that act — the Lobbying Act

federally: “

(3) Any person identified by the Prime Minister as having

had the task of providing support and advice to him or her during the

transition period leading up to the swearing in of the Prime Minister

and his or her ministry is subject to this Act….”

This bill before us does not include the transition team. Why did

the government omit the transition team from this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The individuals that the member is asking about were hired as

contractors to provide short-term advice. There were many people hired

by government as contractors to provide short-term advice to government.

There were many people under the previous administration. There are and

will be many people under the current administration hired in those

kinds of roles.

[11:40 a.m.]

Essentially, this was a line-in-the-sand drawing exercise about

who do you include and who do you not include. MLAs, for example, which

the member just asked about — backbench MLAs and opposition MLAs are not

included, and third-party MLAs. Similarly, people who were on short-term

contract on the transition team are not included, either in the current

government’s administration or in the transition that took place

following the 2017 election on the opposition side of the

House.

The decision was made not to include these various groups of

people simply because of the fact that these are short-term contracts,

not the long-term relationship-building process of working in a ministry

office. Any individual who took on these kinds of jobs after transition,

obviously, would be caught, and I can advise the member that we’re not

aware of anybody that is a registered lobbyist that took on one of these

responsibilities.

L. Throness: Well, the minister’s stated intent of the bill is to target those

with insider information who want to, as he said, sell that information.

So I want to ask a few more questions about the members of the

transition team to find out about their access to that kind of insider

information. Did transition team members take an oath or affirmation of

office or of secrecy or of confidentiality when they signed their

contracts?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know the answer to that question that the member has

raised, and to be totally honest, I don’t understand what it has to do

with the bill.

L. Throness: What kind of powers did the transition team have? Did they have

direct or indirect contact with potential ministers, deputy ministers,

other senior public servants and appointees? I think this is important,

because we’re trying to find out about categories of people who have

insider information, which is what this bill is all about. So we’re just

trying to establish whether this could be another category.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll try to be as helpful to the member as I can. I’m afraid that

I did not bring a bunch of details about the government’s transition

team, as I just didn’t anticipate that this was particularly germane to

the text of the bill.

In any event, as far as I understand, the transition team was on

short-term contracts, which were complete, in many cases, before

ministers were appointed. Some people went on to work in ministers’

offices. Those people would be captured by the bill. So trying to be

helpful, but again, I’m not sure how it relates to the bill.

L. Throness: I would point out to the minister that if the transition team were

to be included, it would include former and future B.C. Liberal

transition team members as well as NDP ones. Probably the transition

team would have access to what kind of legislation might come forward;

budgetary decisions, the timing and content of those; input into the

Premier’s staff; possible appointments to major Crown corporations and

so on. So I do think that they would have access, and premium access, to

insider information.

Now I want to go on to talk about the confidence and supply

agreement. Under that agreement, regular meetings, it says, will be

established between the Premier and the B.C. Green Party leader —

consultations on major policy issues, budget parameters, access to key

documents and officials. I would suggest to the minister that that kind

of access is equivalent, at least, to the access that a parliamentary

secretary would enjoy, and in some cases, far more.

I would ask the minister: why were members of the Green Party, and

their employees who are signatories to the confidence and supply

agreement, not included in this legislation?

Hon. D. Eby: I know that many members of the opposition have already taken

advantage of briefings with staff. Members of the opposition should take

advantage of that. I know that the members of the Third Party, as well,

both through confidence and supply and also through requests for

briefings and so on, also take advantage of that. There certainly was a

discussion — do we include MLAs who are either government backbench MLAs

or that are opposition MLAs, Third Party MLAs? — and the decision was

not to include these individuals, because they don’t have the same level

of access to information as parliamentary secretaries and ministers

do.

[11:45 a.m.]

I understand that the member, through his question, is testing

whether we should draw another line. It was a different line that was

drawn in this proposal. I would encourage, actually, if the member, or

members of the public or others — members of the opposition or of the

Third Party — are of the belief that these groups should be included in

the bill…. As I said in the sort-of contextual remarks that I made at

the beginning, we’re engaging in a larger process of reform around

lobbying. It going to start early next year. We hope to have it conclude

with a bill before the House in the fall of 2018. It’s a great time to

talk to the registrar about that, to put that proposal forward in the

review process that we’ll be having.

There was a line drawn in this bill. That line was ministers and

staff of ministers’ offices and parliamentary secretaries, similar to

the conflict-of-interest legislation. Backbench MLAs, MLAs from the

Third Party and opposition MLAs were not included.

L. Throness: I would further point out that employees of the confidence and

supply secretariat are not included in this legislation. But they work

out of the Ministry of Finance. They’re very closely connected in one of

the most powerful ministries. They work with Premier’s staff and so

on.

We, on this side, would like to include several new categories. To

that end, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 8. I wonder if I

could give that amendment to the Chair.

SECTION 2 by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 1(1) is amended by adding the following

definition s :

“former public office holder” means

(

a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual

formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than

administrative support staff,

(

b) a former parliamentary secretary,

(

c) any individual who formerly occupied

(

i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the

title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or another

title,

(ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy

minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, or

(iii) a prescribed position in a Provincial entity;

(

d) any individual employed or otherwise contracted as a

member of an incoming government’s transition team,

(

e) any individual formerly employed in the Confidence and Supply

Agreement Secretariat, or

(

f) any former members of the Legislative Assembly, or any individual

formerly employed in the former member’s office, who may have had

access to inside government information or otherwise been informed

of government business through the Confidence and Supply Agreement

Secretariat.

“transition team” means any individual

identified by the Premier or a member of the Executive Council as

having had the task to support and advise the Premier, a member of

Executive Council, or a person employed in an Executive Council

member’s office during the transition period leading up to and after

the swearing in of the Premier and Executive

Council. ]

Would it be an appropriate time, if all members need a few moments

to read the contents of the amendment that I’ve suggested, to call a

recess and then, perhaps, come back after lunch? Would that be

appropriate?

Noting the hour, I would suggest that the committee rise, report

progress and beg leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 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 resolution and

progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $244,539,000.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to begin with an opening

statement?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I do, Mr. Chair. I want to thank everyone who’s here, and I

particularly want to thank and introduce my deputy minister, Jacqueline

Dawes, and my assistant deputy ministers, Greg Steves, Tara Faganello

and Kevin Volk. Greg Steves is responsible for housing, Tara Faganello

is responsible for local government and Kevin Volk for community and

legislative services. I also have with me here today Tracy Campbell,

executive financial officer and management services.

I want to just take a moment to say how impressed I am about these

experienced professionals, who are really key to the ministry’s work.

Certainly as a new government coming in, I’m really appreciative of

their expert counsel and guidance. I’d like to thank all of the staff of

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their dedication to

serving the people of our great province. When we do work together, when

we can come together, we really can do some amazing things. I know that

we have a strong team and strong leadership that will help us make

progress.

My ministry has a significant role to play in improving the daily

lives of ordinary people throughout the province. My ministry is

responsible for providing British Columbians with access to more

affordable, safe and functional housing through policy, programs,

technical codes, standards and services for landlords and

tenants.

We also work with British Columbia’s 189 local governments to

support communities throughout the province. We help them to thrive, and

we help them to deliver the best service that they can to the people

that they represent. I’m also really proud to be working with the Mayors

Council to support the ten-year vision for Metro Vancouver

transportation.

Just after a short time in government, I’m proud to say that we

have hit the ground running with decisive and meaningful actions to

address many of the issues facing British Columbians. With Budget Update

2017, we’re just getting started on delivering on our comprehensive

strategy to make housing more affordable for people in need. We are

looking at the full scope of affordability, not just bits and pieces

here and there.

We have a much broader mandate and a greater commitment to

effectively deal with the housing crisis facing this province than

previous governments did. I just want to provide an example of bringing

together local government with Housing and TransLink to make sure that

we’re working in coordination with each other, that each of these pieces

adds to the affordability of people’s lives.

We’ve also set a target of working with our partners to build

114,000 units of housing over the next ten years. We’re working together

with our partners to create conditions for a mix of housing to ensure

that everyone has access to a safe, affordable place to call home —

housing for families, seniors, students, workers, people with low

incomes and certainly the people who are homeless or at risk of

homelessness.

To tackle the serious issue of homelessness in this province is a

key piece that is really challenging, especially as we’re heading into

the darker, colder, wetter months of the year. We’re seeing more of it.

I’m proud to be working in partnership with the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction and with the Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions to develop a homelessness action plan. I think we can all

agree we can’t do this work alone. It’s going to take a whole number of

us, with concerted effort, to address this serious issue.

Whether it’s people living on the street or families struggling to

find housing, we want to ensure that all people have a safe and

affordable place to call home. As part of the plan, we will soon be

conducting a provincewide homeless count so that we have a better

understanding of what the situation is in our communities.

We’ve already taken some concrete steps to improve services for

renters and landlords by providing $7 million over the next three years

to increase resources to the residential tenancy branch. It’s an

integral part of the work that we do, to make sure that the relationship

between landlords and tenants is a good one, a healthy one, that

everyone’s working together, playing by the same rules. Everyone knows

what their responsibilities are. They also know what their obligations

are. I’m really pleased that we’re supporting that important piece of

the work that we do to facilitate those kinds of relationships and

facilitate housing.

We’ve also introduced legislation to close the unfair fixed-term

lease loophole that is hurting renters by allowing landlords to bypass

rent control. We know that of the 1½ million renters, many of them have

been struggling for too long to find suitable accommodations, especially

given our very tight vacancy rate that we have in many of our

communities across the province. By closing this loophole, it will give

tenants the security they deserve when signing a rental lease, and it

will protect them from unfair rent increases.

[11:10 a.m.]

In addition, our government has committed to $208 million to

support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable

rental housing in communities right across the province. We’ve committed

$291 million to build 2,000 temporary modular supportive housing units

for people who are homeless. That comes with more than $170 million over

three years to provide 24-7 staffing and support services so that those

people can be supported and successful in this kind of housing. It’s

really important to make sure we are getting the people who are the most

vulnerable in our communities the help that they need so they can move

into more structured housing, more permanent housing.

Just a few weeks ago, as part of this, we announced the first $66

million of that funding towards 600 units of modular housing that will

be situated on land provided by the city of Vancouver. We’re working

with many other communities right across the province to do that. We

expect 1,000 units to be operational by early next year. That will make

a difference to many who are the most vulnerable.

I will continue to meet with local leaders, city planners,

developers, non-profit housing providers and tenant groups to identify

partnership opportunities that will help us deliver on our commitments.

We know that when we work together — when we’re all, as my colleague the

minister for post-secondary says, pulling on the paddle in the canoe and

moving in the same direction — we’re more likely to get to where we need

to go.

I’ve had some very successful meetings at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities Convention that will inform our housing conference that

we are planning for December, bringing together experts and providers

and people who are already doing this work — bringing these housing

leaders together from right across the province so that we can start and

enhance these partnerships that already exist so that we can continue

doing the great work that people are doing on the ground and doing more

of what works.

I want to make meaningful connections between the province, local

governments and key housing sector stakeholders. We want to share ideas

and make sure that we have a path forward, that we continue to move to

make housing more affordable for British Columbians right across the

province.

This is just the beginning. This work will continue to inform our

government on our comprehensive housing strategy that will make housing

more affordable for those who are looking to raise their families in the

communities where they work, the communities that they were raised in.

We need to address this housing affordability crisis, and our

comprehensive housing strategy will help us achieve that

goal.

Now, earlier I mentioned my meetings at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities Convention, which was an opportunity to hear directly

from local government officials from across the province on matters that

affect their communities. What we heard is that local governments really

have been on the front lines doing a lot of the heavy lifting on the

issues that affect their communities. I just want to take a moment to

thank those people who put their names forward for local elections. When

you’re in a public hearing and you’ve got community members coming to

you and being really clear about what their preferences and hopes and

dreams are, you have to be responsive.

I just want to take a moment to express appreciation for the work

that they do. I know that the member opposite did his role, and others

who are here in this little House with us have done that work. I have

great appreciation for the ways in which they serve their communities.

Historically, though, I have to say that those on the front lines, those

local government leaders, haven’t had the support from the province that

I think they deserve and should have. My government is committed to

doing it differently.

We’re going to work in partnership with local governments to make

life better for people — together, because we can make life more

affordable for British Columbians. We can deliver on the services that

people count on, and we can build a strong, secure economy that works

for everyone. We need to be doing that with our local government

partners.

Now, our government is focused on communities and investing in the

services that people need. That’s why we continue to support community

programming through the community gaming grant program, which provides

$140 million to about 5,000 not-for-profit organizations each year.

Not-for-profits, I think we can all agree, do a significant amount of

work in our communities that really makes us all better for it. I’m very

proud that we continue to use the gaming grants to support these

non-profits.

[11:15 a.m.]

The gaming grants go to a wide array of organizations that do make

life better for all of us, whether it’s cultural groups, sport groups,

environmental groups, public safety, human and social services and

parent advisory councils. The gaming grants really help them deliver on

the things that matter most in their communities.

Starting this year, community gaming grants is investing $5

million per year in capital projects that cost more than $20,000. By

doing this, we’re helping not-for-profit organizations invest in

facilities, infrastructure and major acquisitions.

We want local governments to know that they have a voice with this

government. We want local governments to know that we are committed to

working with them so that together we’re working for the people of this

province. That’s why one of our first actions was to ban union and

corporate donations, not just at the provincial level but also

recognizing that campaign financing reform was desperately needed at the

local level. All people should be at the heart of our politics, not just

those with deep pockets.

We heard loud and clear from British Columbians right across the

province that they wanted their democracy back, and it’s a goal that we

all share — the province, local governments and the British Columbians

we serve. They want to have successful, fair elections, free of the

influence of big money. And I’m very proud of the fact that we had a

unanimous vote yesterday in the Legislature. That made me very proud.

But I continue to be disappointed that it had to wait this long to

actually make that happen. It should have happened sooner.

Now our government is reforming this, just in time for the 2018

elections. So we will be sure…. I look forward to getting royal assent,

which will be the final indication that in fact we will have fair local

elections for 2018.

Part of this legislation is not just to ban union and corporate

donations. It’s also to put reasonable limits on individual

contributions and to ban out-of-province donations at the local level.

Contributions for the election campaign of a candidate or electoral

organization will be limited to $1,200 per donor per year, and these

amendments will go to strengthen local democracy in our

province.

I want to say just how proud I am of that and, again, thank all

members of the House for supporting the bill, recognizing how important

it is.

I just want to make a mention of my responsibility for TransLink

before we continue on. I know that communities in Metro Vancouver have

been waiting for a very, very, very long time for a government that

cares about the needs of working with Lower Mainland mayors, making sure

we can get people moving. It’s been unacceptable they’ve had to wait so

long.

Our government’s commitment to the people of Metro Vancouver and

those who visit the region is to work in partnership. And you’re going

to hear, Mr. Chair, that this is a government that’s about partnership,

because we recognize that we need to work together in order to deliver.

So we’re working in partnership with TransLink and with the Mayors

Council to develop lasting, effective and fair solutions for the

region’s transportation needs.

We’ve committed to investing in the mayors’ vision to make transit

more accessible for the millions of transit riders that rely on that

system. We also need good, safe roads, so people spend less time in

their cars. No one ever said they want to be in traffic, and people

really do want to spend more time with their friends and family and

doing the things that they really want to be doing. No one says, ever:

“I want to be in traffic.”

We will be working closely with the Mayors Council and TransLink

to increase the movement of people and goods in the Lower Mainland,

while we’re also working to make life more affordable for British

Columbians. Our government is committed to funding 40 percent of the

capital cost of the mayors’ vision, and that’s a commitment that I think

the mayors have been waiting for, for a long, long time.

We’re committed to working in partnership with all levels of

government to have these projects underway as soon as possible. This

commitment of 40 percent is a significant improvement — it’s a

significant improvement — in how we partner with the region.

Another key priority for our government is the importance of

handyDART program and the steps that can be taken to work with the

Mayors Council and TransLink to move forward with the actions under the

ten-year vision to expand this vital service, ensuring that seniors and

people with disabilities, those who need the handyDART service, can get

it when they need it.

[11:20 a.m.]

We look forward to moving ahead with the important transit

projects that the mayors have envisioned, over their ten-year plan. It

will improve the daily lives of the Metro Vancouver residents and

visitors. I just want to say we are just getting started. We are just

getting started, and our ministry is excited to forge ahead and continue

to take strides towards making B.C. better.

I’d like to, once again, as I conclude my remarks, thank the staff

for preparing all the binders — the many, many, many binders — making

sure that we have the information at our fingertips.

I also want to acknowledge that there are other people, besides

these here and those sitting in the gallery that get me prepared and

ready for these estimates — my constituency assistants, Linda Asgeirsson

and Laura Gullickson, who are back at home keeping things going

there.

I have an exceptional team here in Victoria: my senior ministerial

assistant, Craig Ashbourne; my ministerial assistant, Daniela Gardea; my

executive assistant, Matt Djonlic; my administrative coordinator,

Christine White; and my administrative assistant, Lisa Grant. I couldn’t

do this without them.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

T. Stone: First off, I just would like to thank the minister for a very

detailed, thorough

summary of the ministry. I would remind the minister

that we only have 5½ hours, I think, to do estimates here and we’re half

an hour in now. We’ll try to keep our questions tight and short, and

perhaps she could commit, as well, so that we can cover…. It’s a big

ministry. There’s lots going on. I think we all want to be thoughtful.

This is an important part of the process, the budget process — allowing

the opposition, affording the opposition an opportunity to ask questions

of the minister in detail about the operations that she’s responsible

for.

All I’m going to say at this point are two things. One, it is a

terrific ministry, loaded with exceptional professionals. I had the

privilege of working with a number of the staff that are surrounding the

minister now in a previous ministry, and they are true professionals. I

do thank them for the briefings that have been provided to the

opposition to this point, which have really enabled us to sharpen….

Sharpen is the wrong word. It’s to focus our questions on what this

ministry is all about.

I do want to acknowledge the many elected officials at the local

level across the province, whether it’s school board officials, local

officials, special purpose bodies and others who step up in an effort to

want to do good by their community. That’s what people in this sphere

are all about. It’s about serving your community. People want their

community to be as liveable, as safe, as healthy as possible. That’s

what the elected officials are all about in local government, and that’s

what the ministry is all about, working in partnership.

In terms of estimates, we’re going to have a number of opposition

MLAs ask some regional questions in what’s left of the time before we

break for lunch today. We’ve got about 35 minutes for that, maybe 30

minutes. And then in the afternoon, we’re going to come back and focus

on housing and then TransLink and then some other local government

questions after that. I did provide the minister with a heads-up on that

yesterday.

So without further ado, I’m going to sit down. I believe my

colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour has some questions.

J. Thornthwaite: My question for the minister is about the four-legged protesters

out on the lawn on behalf of their furry friends and their two-legged

loved ones. It pertains to the petition to amend the Residential Tenancy

Act. My constituent actually has a small Corgi. She wrote me that this

little dog is very well trained. She wants to change her rental

situation in North Van, but she can’t afford to move because in any of

the places that she can afford, the landlords have said: “No pets

allowed.”

According to the BC SPCA, over 1,700 domestic pets were

surrendered to shelters in 2016 due to “No pets” rental restrictions.

Animals surrendered by their human guardians make up nearly one-third of

all animals taken in by shelters. And of course, this is related to the

housing crisis. Of the nearly 400,000 rental houses in B.C., there is a

vacancy rate of only 1.3 percent. One-third of the tenants occupying

these units have pets, yet only 9 percent of the advertised rental units

actually allow cats, and 3 percent allow dogs. Anyway, half of all

homeowners have pets.

[11:25 a.m.]

I guess my question is, to the minister: moving forward in her

work as the new Minister of Housing: would she be considering a change

in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow for animals to be co-located

with their owners in rental facilities and perhaps investigating the law

that is currently in use in Ontario that would also protect

landlords?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s a good question.

But I think it’s important for the member to understand that the

Residential Tenancy Act does not state whether pets are allowed in

rental units. It’s not a law. There is nothing in the act that prohibits

pets. Landlords have the freedom to choose to allow them or not. There’s

nothing in our Residential Tenancy Act that says that pets are not

allowed, so there’s nothing for us to amend on that

perspective.

I do think that the member raises a very significant point around

the challenge to find housing. With such a low vacancy rate, it really

speaks to the fact that in this province, there hasn’t been a particular

lens or a particular focus to make sure that we have affordable rental.

That’s the focus of our government. It’s to make sure that we have

affordable rental so that we can get a healthier vacancy

rate.

We know that when there’s a healthier vacancy rate, landlords want

to make sure that there are people living in their units. So they’re

more likely, then, as a result, to make sure that there are tenants in

there. They’re more likely to perhaps permit the loved ones on four legs

to join them, their two-legged masters, in their home.

The other thing that I think is really important to consider in

the risk of taking a stronger stand is that landlords are not going to….

The appetite to have more rental stock could be diminished, because we

do know from landlords that it’s a significant investment. So trying to

find the balance, recognizing that we love our pets, and it’s a really

difficult situation.

Our government is focusing right now on getting some affordable

rental supply, making sure that we’re getting that. At the end of the

day, having a healthier vacancy rate will provide the freedom that those

with pets who want to move or who are looking for a place have the

opportunity to do that — to live with their beloved furry

friends.

J. Thornthwaite: Just a follow-up question. Would the minister consider not

allowing a blanket “no pets allowed” rule in the tenancy act so that it

would at least give landlords the option, obviously, to properly screen

their potential tenants, but also, it would put a stop to the blanket

statement that all these landlords could just say “no pets”?

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I do want to add one more thing,

because there are some provisions in here that speak to pet policy. The

act was updated and brought into force in 2004, which I think is

important, because it was when her government was in power.

[11:30 a.m.]

One of the things in there that I think is really important to get

on the record is that there are provisions around pet damage deposits

that were included in the act at the time to encourage landlords to be

more accepting of pets and to provide them with extra protection for

potential costs associated with allowing pets in their building. So

there’s already something existing in the act.

I do think the other part of this that’s really important that our

government has done is increase the resources to the residential tenancy

branch so that there are some more education officers, because I don’t

know that landlords know they can do that. I don’t know that landlords

know you can accept pets and you can have extra damage deposit — that

idea of making sure that they know the risk is covered by that extra

damage deposit.

I know that people with fur-loved friends will act on that if

that’s available to them. I don’t know that landlords know they can do

that. So by increasing resources to the residential tenancy branch….

What we’ve done is hire additional education officers so that landlords

and tenants understand better what the opportunities are. I’m hopeful

that that will also help ease some of these challenges.

S. Bond: The minister is definitely surrounded by a great team of people,

many of whom I, as well, have had the privilege of working

with.

I just want to ask a question, cognizant of the short time that is

here and the number of colleagues. I had sent a letter to the minister a

number of weeks ago, asking about community gaming grants. Obviously, I

would love to be able to have confirmation of the grants for my

community, but that’s not why I’m here today.

On behalf of a number of organizations, but particularly Big

Brothers Big Sisters…. They do an incredible job in Prince George and,

obviously, across the province — certainly an exceptional organization.

I want to confirm that Big Brothers Big Sisters applied by the

application deadline of August 1, as the program requires. I just want

to confirm that the review process is underway and that successful

applicants will receive their funding at the regular time because, as

you can imagine, organizations like Big Brothers, and literally dozens

and dozens of other organizations, require that funding to continue

their services.

I just want to know that the review is underway and that grants

will proceed to flow at the normal time for these organizations to

continue their work.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her questions.

Yes, to the letter. We received it, and it’s making its way

through the system. Yes, the review is underway. Staff have been working

diligently the entire time that we’ve been sorting out government.

They’ve continued to adjudicate. Yes, to normal timelines.

I want to say that one of the changes I have made is that all

MLAs, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, will get

notified of the grants in their communities, which have been allocated,

so that they can congratulate their community organizations for the

great work that they’re doing.

S. Bond: I want to thank the minister for that answer and for the fact that

it’s on time. I do, as I’m sure other members do, appreciate receiving

notification about our successful grant applicants.

I appreciate the minister’s time and her staff’s today.

J. Rustad: Three quick questions, Minister. Can the minister confirm the

level of funding going out for gaming grants and whether or not that

level of funding will be increased this fiscal or going into next

fiscal?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said in my opening comments, government is committed to

providing $140 million in community gaming grant funding for

not-for-profit organizations that deliver programs to benefit their

communities right across the province. This is a $5 million increase

over the previous year. That is for the new capital money. So that’s

new. That was in the February budget.

Going forward, we’re going to have that conversation, I guess, in

estimates next year, to talk about that budget.

J. Rustad: Can the minister confirm that the commitment to provide gaming

revenue to First Nations is something that is being worked on this year

for implementation for next year?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite that eligible First Nations

are certainly able to apply and participate in the community gaming

grant’s application process.

J. Rustad: I’m a little confused by that. I was led to believe by this

government that gaming revenues would be something that would be shared

with First Nations.

First Nations have always been able to apply, like any other group

across the province, but there was a specific allocation that they were

asking for and was promised to them, which is why I’m asking these

questions as to whether or not those negotiations are going on and

whether they’d be implemented.

Further to that, if there is going to be a set allocation to First

Nations, which First Nations have come to believe will be forthcoming

from this government, what other organizations will that money be coming

from in order to be able to provide that kind of an

allocation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the clarification that the member provided. I thought

he was speaking about the gaming grant program that my ministry is

responsible for.

What he’s talking about is a revenue-sharing arrangement, which is

different than the gaming grant program which is what we do out of my

ministry. Given the nature of his question, that’s a more appropriate

question for the Minister of Finance, because that’s a revenue-sharing

arrangement as opposed to administration of the gaming grant

program.

D. Barnett: Thank you very much, Minister, for having us here

today.

I have two questions. One is around our favourite topic,

wildfires. Small unincorporated communities need assistance for many

things. Are there any funds or anything dedicated in your ministry to

help these small unincorporated communities through what they need, such

as water and other things, because of these wildfires?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her question. She’s done a great

job representing her constituents and making sure that everyone in

British Columbia, not just people that work in this House, understands

what the impact has been in her community.

Our hearts certainly have been there, and I have been in regular

contact with the area directors, particularly Al Richmond, to find out

what’s happening on the ground so that I can certainly be informed and

find out what the directors, and any of the mayors and councillors,

would need from our government.

Going forward, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development is taking the lead on the fire

recovery. In order to make sure that we’re efficient as a government,

everything is being run out of that office. I would really encourage the

member to approach the minister for a meeting to identify, very

specifically, the challenges that those smaller unincorporated

communities are facing and work collaboratively to identify the ways

that they could get the support that they need.

The Chair: Minister, you have to note the hour. I can’t get in trouble

with Mr. Speaker.

Hon. S. Robinson: Noting the hour, I move we rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada