Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 57

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M209 — Right to Roam Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Adoption awareness

N. Simons

Centrepoint community facility in Squamish

J. Sturdy

Ruth Masters

R. Leonard

Community safety award recipient Kevin Krygier

J. Yap

Wanda Mulholland and advocacy on homelessness

R. Chouhan

Sun Peaks Resort and firefighters charity gala

P. Milobar

Oral Questions

Government position on resource development projects

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Wat

Hon. M. Mungall

Site C power project and electricity rates

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Natural gas royalties

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Site C power project and electricity rates

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

Government position on Site C power project

M. Stilwell

Hon. J. Horgan

Site C power project and electricity rates

T. Shypitka

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

B.C. Treaty Commission, annual report, 2017, Reconciling Prosperity:

The Role of Local and Regional Governments in Treaty Negotiations

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. K. Chen

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2016-2017

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report,

2016-2017

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. M. Mungall

T. Redies

A. Weaver

M. Bernier

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Sullivan

J. Thornthwaite

S. Thomson

J. Sturdy

A. Weaver

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

Hon. J. Darcy

A. Olsen

D. Barnett

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training

Hon. M. Mark

S. Gibson

S. Cadieux

D. Barnett

M. Morris

S. Bond

J. Thornthwaite

R. Sultan

J. Rustad

C. Oakes

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: The members will notice that I’m wearing the colours of the Westshore

Warriors football team. That would be the fall peewee football team. They

have provided me with a jersey. With the greatest of respect, I can no

longer fit into the age group of five-to-ten-year-olds, but I appreciate the

sentiment of getting the largest jersey they could find. I’m wearing it in

honour of the group of kids that are with us here today in the gallery. We

have Oden and Cruise Coleman, Austin Perry, Angelo Avila, Keegan Meade,

Jacob Hanson and Brendon Byron. They’re all representatives of the Westshore

Warriors peewee football team.

They’ll be playing on Sunday at Westhills Stadium, just around the

corner from my house. Anyone who wants to come and watch the game is welcome

to come back to my place for a cup of tea after the game. It’s just a few

minutes’ walk from the stadium. It’s going to be an exciting game. This is

the Island playoffs. Next week after that, they’ll be in Vancouver for the

provincial championships.

They’re joined today by coaches Trez Coleman, Cory Perry, Hazman

Avila, Cody Jenic and the manager, Dave Meade.

These are young people doing their level best to demonstrate what

teamwork really means. If we all work together, we all get good outcomes.

That’s what we do in this Legislature each and every day, and that’s what

the Westshore Warriors are going to do on the weekend. Would the House

please make them all very, very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the House today we have several members of the board of the

Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of British Columbia. ACEC-BC

represents 90 consulting engineering companies employing approximately

10,000 persons, including engineers, geoscientists and technicians. They are

headed by Keith Sashaw, the president and CEO. Also with us today is Kevin

Savage, the vice-chair, who is associated with Tetra Tech; Gurjit Sangha,

secretary, who is with Opus International; Tim Stanley, who is with Stratice

Consulting; and Jeannine Martin, board chair of ACEC-BC, who is also in

charge of business development for COWI North America.

As an example of what our British Columbia engineers are doing, COWI,

a North Vancouver company, has received the mandate to design the main span

of the new bridge over the Dardanelles strait, linking Turkey with mainland

Europe. This is a 2,023-metre single span. For comparison, the Alex Fraser

Bridge is a mere 465 metres, so it’s four times wider across the

strait.

Would you please welcome these wonderful engineers.

Hon. C. James: I have a very special guest who is a frequent visitor to the

Legislature in the gallery today. She is an amazing self-advocate for people

with diversabilities. She is a medal-winning Special Olympics athlete, she

is a Thrifty Foods employee, she is a volunteer extraordinaire, and she’s my

good friend. Would the gallery please welcome Sheenagh Morrison.

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to join the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to welcome

the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies here to the Legislature.

I know they’ve been having meetings this morning, and they’ll be having more

meetings this afternoon to talk about their important work for the whole of

the province and, as the member recognizes, for the world. We do have many

very talented people in this province.

[1:40 p.m.]

As he says, we have the president and CEO, Keith Sashaw, in the

gallery; along with Tim Stanley from Stratice Consulting; Gurjit Sangha,

Opus International; Kevin Savage from Tetra Tech; and Jeannine Martin from

COWI North America. They welcomed, I think, members from both sides of the

House for a very nice lunch and a lot of opportunity to have good

conversations. I hope we continue to have good conversations with

them.

B. Ma: I’m pleased to be able to join the member for West Vancouver–Capilano

and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure in acknowledging that

we are joined today in the gallery by members, very many members, of the

Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, British Columbia.

Consulting engineering companies play an integral role in ensuring the safe,

efficient and sustainable planning, development, construction and operations

of buildings, highways, roads, ports, resource extraction and many other

infrastructure projects.

I’ve had the personal pleasure of working with many of the companies

that ACEC-BC represents, in my former life as an engineer and project

manager for the Vancouver Airport Authority. I’ve always valued them for

their high levels of professionalism, skills and expertise. Would the House

join me again in making all of these members of the ACEC-BC feel very

welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: November is Adoption Awareness Month. It’s an opportunity to highlight

that all B.C. kids deserve a safe, caring home and a strong sense of

belonging. I’m honoured today to be hosting some adoptive parents and their

children, ages two to 12, for tea and treats and the chance to hear about

their experiences. They’re also taking the opportunity to watch question

period. I reiterate that for everyone. They are here in the gallery, parents

and children, watching question period today.

First of all, I’d like to introduce the director of child welfare,

Cory Heavener, who is accompanying the parents today. The parents that are

here are Russel Pohl, Sanjeeta Dewey, Kevin and Helene Hill, Ian Piears and

Kevin Romanin, Alfredo and Nozomi Franco Cea, and Sheri-Ann Cleugh. These

folks have opened their hearts and provided what all kids want and need —

and that’s love. Please join me in thanking them for making a difference

through adoption and in welcoming them here to the Legislature.

Hon. M. Mark: It’s always my pleasure to introduce my constituents to these

chambers. Mr. Fred Cummings is both the regional manager of Hatch and is a

part of the delegation that is joining us from the Association of Consulting

Engineering Companies in B.C. He’s a director on their board. Would the

House please join me in welcoming my constituent.

R. Singh: In the House today I have a very good friend, Mr. Kamaljit Singh

Thind, a longshoreman by profession. He also produces a very popular TV

program called Mehak Punjab Di . He’s also accompanied by his family

members from India, Surinder Singh Dhada and Narinder Kaur Dhada. Would the

House please make them feel welcome.

J. Sturdy: I’d like to continue the tradition of making multiple introductions of

the same people that we have seen in this House in previous sessions. But I

am pleased to introduce my friend Tim Stanley, who is a constituent of my

riding and actually much more than that to me. Tim is the president of

Stratice Consulting, as well as the past chair of the Association of

Consulting Engineers of British Columbia — which, as has been mentioned, has

been meeting here today.

For more than 35 years, Tim has provided engineering and project

management services across Canada and internationally to the public and

private sectors as well as to public-private partnerships and has an

exceptional understanding of operations and interests in all three areas. He

brings a unique set of skills to transit, highways, bridges, port

facilities, trade and convention, airports and power generation

infrastructure. I hope that the House will make him very welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: In the House with Jacob Hansen, with the Westshore Warriors, is his

mom, Lucy Hansen, who works in this building. I’m very fortunate that she

works with me in the ministry office. She is my administrative coordinator.

She is just absolutely fabulous. I’m so glad I get to work with her, and I’m

also very glad that she lets Jake and I practise our lightsabre skills in

the office as well. Would the House please make Lucy welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Hopefully, this is the final

chapter of introducing engineers today.

But the denizens of Dunbar are with us, Stephen Yates and Ken Wiki, both of

whom are Dunbar-based engineers who contribute substantially to their

community. I must note that it’s actually Ken’s wife, Debbie, who is an

extraordinary manufacturer of theatre costumes which makes our life so much

brighter. So please welcome them.

A. Weaver: I would not want the Association of Consulting Engineers of British

Columbia to feel unloved by the Green Party of British Columbia. So I, too,

on behalf of the B.C. Greens, the caucus down here, would like to welcome

the Association of Consulting Engineers of British Columbia. Would the House

once more, and perhaps for the last time, make them feel very, very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M209 — RIGHT TO ROAM ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Right to Roam Act,

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Right to Roam Act, 2017, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

now read a first time.

The ability to access and experience nature is a right for all

British Columbians, and we must protect it. Spending time outside is

vital to our well-being, as well as the protection of our environment.

The more time people spend in their local ecosystem, the more they will

care about protecting it.

Increasingly, however, British Columbians are finding themselves

fenced out of wild areas that have been enjoyed by the public for

generations. Fences, gates and signs are blocking people from accessing

Crown land.

Since the introduction of this bill for the first time last year,

my office has literally received an endless stream of hundreds upon

hundreds of emails and phone calls from British Columbians who are

struggling with this issue in their communities. It’s clear that this

right to access wilderness, especially on leased Crown land, is a debate

that we need to have in British Columbia.

At the recent UBCM conference, I also had delegations come to meet

with me on this very topic, as well as local organizations and First

Nations across British Columbia. It’s a pressing issue that’s affecting

British Columbians from north to south to east to west.

This bill, which is built on a combination of B.C.’s existing

Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act and Nova Scotia’s Angling Act, would

re-establish the rights of British Columbians to access public lands,

rivers, streams and lakes and to use these spaces to fish, hike and

enjoy outdoor recreation in accordance with the law.

Mr. Speaker: You have heard the reading of the bill. You have heard the

question.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Right to Roam Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ADOPTION AWARENESS

N. Simons: We want every child in British Columbia to have a home that they

can call their home, a permanent home. That’s the ideal we’re all

working towards for every child, youth or group of siblings in this

province.

November is Adoption Awareness Month, a time to highlight that, in

British Columbia, there are about 1,000 children who are eligible to be

adopted. Most adults — single or married, gay or straight, from all

backgrounds and cultures — could be a perfect place to provide the love

and stability that could help a child or youth to flourish.

Adoptive families comes in all shapes and sizes. Today we have a

number of adoptive parents and their children in the gallery, including

Russel Pohl, who’s a long-standing foster parent. And like about half of

our adoptive families, they have adopted the children who were once in

their care as foster kids. Russell and his husband, Darrell, are parents

of foster and adoptive as well as biological children. Or as Russell

puts it, FAB. They’re a FAB family.

By the way, we as British Columbians need more adoptive families

to look after our children and youth. Making this happen will take more

than just reminding ourselves of this. It takes a Legislature that puts

a high value on having the necessary resources in place to help children

and families get matched up, to help them in the transition and

planning, and to assist in the settlement and support of the child, the

youth and their parents in their new adoptive home.

For Indigenous children, youth and sibling groups, this means

finding Indigenous homes, making sure we have the resources to support

them. There are many ways we are doing that, and there are many more

ways we can improve. And we expect the federal government to come

through and fund First Nations child welfare the way they’ve been

told.

Adoption Awareness Month is also a chance to say thank you to the

children and youth who are such good examples of how good adoptions can

be, to the social workers who do their best to make sure that they get

the right matches and to the families and individuals who have the room

in their hearts for this calling.

[1:50 p.m.]

CENTREPOINT COMMUNITY

FACILITY IN

SQUAMISH

J. Sturdy: Today I am pleased to rise to share a story with my colleagues, a

great story from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky about vision, partnership,

creativity and dedication.

I recently attended a ribbon cutting and open house at Centrepoint

in Squamish. This mixed-use development is so much more than just a new

building close to the heart of downtown. It includes 32 affordable

rental housing suites managed by B.C. Housing; a new place of worship

for the Squamish United Church; a new home for Sea to Sky Community

Services, a not-for-profit organization which is vital to supporting

individuals and families in Squamish and throughout the Sea to Sky

corridor.

Sea to Sky Community Services Society now has new offices,

consolidated all in one location, a new purpose-built child care centre,

an outdoor playground, a community kitchen and lots of space for

community programming. Centrepoint not only contributes to affecting

affordable housing pressures for those with low-to-moderate incomes in

the Squamish area; it also creates a new community hub and an example of

how creative beyond-the-norm partnerships can bring ideas to

fruition.

The vision of committed individuals and the team at Sea to Sky

Community Services Society; the generosity of the Squamish United

Church, without whose land the project may well not have been realized;

the support of the district of Squamish; funding from Squamish Savings

and the federal government as well as cash and construction financing

from the province of British Columbia; along with a dedicated

fundraising team, made a big dream now very much an important

reality.

Centrepoint is a model for partnership and community resource

provision that I encourage other communities across the province to

consider. Congratulations to everyone involved in

Centrepoint.

RUTH MASTERS

R. Leonard: It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honour a true friend

of British Columbia. Ruth Masters passed away yesterday at the age of

97. She was born in 1920 at the new hospital in Comox, and with her

veterans’ land grant, she lived until the end in the house that she and

her family built.

Ruth joined the women’s forces and served in London, surviving the

Blitz. After World War II, she began her project to immortalize local

Comox Valley men lost in the war. She named lakes and landmarks in

B.C.’s Strathcona Park after them. She was so prolific, she was capped

at 50 names.

Growing out of her love of the mountain wilderness and wildlife

was a passion for protecting the environment. She used her skills and

connections as a legal secretary to protect important local spaces like

Hollyhock Flats in the Courtenay River estuary and Seal Bay

Park.

Ruth was not afraid to run into the front lines many times after

she retired — in front of the saws to save Macdonald Wood, on the

blockades on Meares Island, and getting between trophy hunters and

wildlife. Her one regret was that she was never arrested.

A few years ago she donated as parkland 18 acres of her property,

Masters Greenway, on the fringe of the city of Courtenay where flora and

fauna flourish and where people can come and nurture that love of

nature.

Ruth was a great mentor to me and many others in the community.

She lived a very modest life and provided such an example of generosity

of spirit that she grew a loving family of friends who took great care

of her in her final years when she needed the help. She loved and was

well-loved. She was a great model for generations of us, and she will be

missed.

COMMUNITY SAFETY AWARD

RECIPIENT KEVIN

KRYGIER

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize yet another outstanding member of the

Richmond-Steveston community. My constituent RCMP Cpl. Kevin Krygier was

recently awarded the prestigious 2017 Community Safety and Crime

Prevention Award by the province of B.C., and for good

reason.

[1:55 p.m.]

The award recognizes exemplary leadership through the development

of innovative projects to promote safe communities, and Corporal Krygier

has come up with something really beneficial to the

community.

He recently partnered with BCIT to develop a smartphone alert from

the Richmond RCMP on matters of public interest. This new communication

tool could be used to spread the word about missing children or seniors,

for example, or to advise motorists about road closures affecting their

route. He also spearheaded a 20-member volunteer team to combat auto

theft, break and enter, and mail and bike theft locally.

Corporal Krygier has also worked hard to build positive

relationships between the RCMP and students, Jewish and Muslim

communities, and the community at large. Through all of these measures,

he has facilitated good communication between the RCMP detachment and

the people it serves and improved safety and peace of mind for local

residents.

Supt. Will Ng of the Richmond RCMP detachment notes Corporal

Krygier has shown a great deal of innovation, hard work, perseverance

and commitment to public safety in Richmond. I would add that his work

reminds us that through building partnerships and working together, we

can come up with creative solutions to solve local problems.

I invite all members of this House to join me in congratulating

RCMP Cpl. Kevin Krygier for this well-deserved achievement.

WANDA MULHOLLAND AND

ADVOCACY ON

HOMELESSNESS

R. Chouhan: I am pleased to announce that a great community activist in

Burnaby has been nominated for Canada’s 2017 Everyday Political Citizen

Award in recognition of her long-standing contributions to the

community.

Wanda Mulholland has been a strong advocate for affordable

housing, services and supports for Burnaby’s vulnerable living in

extreme poverty since 2004. In 2005, she collaborated to found the

Burnaby Taskforce on Homelessness. In that work of diverse stakeholders

planning solutions for Burnaby’s homeless, she forged strategic

alliances and partnerships between non-profits, the faith community,

schools, community groups, businesses, the Burnaby Board of Trade, the

city and residents to educate and establish homelessness initiatives in

Burnaby.

She was a founding member that created and implemented services to

the homeless that provided access to medical care and services. She

coordinated and helped to design a weekly drop-in service providing free

food, clothing and linkages to services for the extremely

poor.

Wanda has been recognized for her dedication, receiving the

Burnaby Local Hero Award for her work on homelessness in 2007, and is a

recipient of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal. The Society to End

Homelessness in Burnaby has been established by the Burnaby Taskforce on

Homelessness to build sustainability and provide leadership in the

reduction and ultimately the resolution of homelessness in

Burnaby.

She was nominated by my colleague Member of Parliament Peter

Julian. The award selection will be done later this year.

Thank you, Wanda, for your hard work and your dedication to our

community to make it better.

SUN PEAKS RESORT AND

FIREFIGHTERS CHARITY

GALA

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak about a jewel of an

area within my riding of Kamloops–North Thompson, and that is Sun Peaks

Ski Resort and the resort municipality.

On November 18, we will see Sun Peaks open its runs for the first

time for the year, and it’s always a very exciting time for everyone in

that community when they can go and enjoy the hill once again with their

skis on. But that day, as we transition into evening, is an even more

exciting day for Sun Peaks, as it’s their annual firemen’s gala that

evening.

Sun Peaks has a dedicated, very professional — albeit small — fire

department in its operations, and it’s critical to their whole

community. They do not have permanent police presence. They do not have

permanent paramedics. The first responders that they do have, though,

with the firemen, are very much appreciated in the community.

For years now, they have held an annual gala, which raises funds

for things from their education fund up at the ski hill to things like

the Bluebird Day fund, the alpine ski club and many other community

events within Sun Peaks itself. It will be a very exciting day on

November 18, and I welcome anyone that is travelling in the area to

please stop in to Sun Peaks and see all that there is to

enjoy.

[2:00 p.m.]

Their fire department several years ago actually saved pretty much

the whole village in its infancy stage, when there was a hotel under

construction that burned down. They managed to contain it to just the

one building and managed to literally save the rest of the village. So

there is much pride when it comes to the Sun Peaks Fire Department, and

I look forward to the Saturday, November 18, opening of the hill and the

firemen’s gala.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

R. Coleman: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is preparing to lead a

trade mission to China. Presumably, he’s going to sit down with

investors, government and companies like Sinopec, PetroChina and SINOC,

two of which have stepped back from their investments in British

Columbia. But there’s one company still considering a

multi-billion-dollar investment that would mean thousands of well-paying

jobs for British Columbians.

Knowing the Chinese community and knowing these companies, they’re

unlikely to bring up some issues that they’re facing, but they will be

aware. I think the Premier should be aware as well. At their meeting,

they’ll be aware that there was a letter sent in March of 2016 — in

which the Premier tried to stop, along with his Environment Minister,

the Pacific NorthWest LNG approval of the Canadian environmental

assessment.

They’ll also be aware that they’re very concerned about whether

they can make an investment in Canada at all, simply because even when

there is a federal and provincial process, statutory-driven, to require

an environmental approval like the Trans Mountain pipeline, they now

know that governments will not stand behind those approvals,

particularly the province of British Columbia, which is actually trying

to stop the project after the federal approval.

My question to the Premier is simple. How will you allay these

fears, for those investors from China, to tell them there is certainty

in being able to invest in this province?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I am also, as are all members

of this House, very, very concerned about the need to continue to keep

the economy growing. That’s why two weeks ago I was in the north coast

overseeing the construction of an LNG opportunity in Kitimat — two of

them, in fact: Kitimat LNG and LNG Canada. I talked to the proponents on

the ground. I will be going to China to talk to their partners over

there.

The member will know full well that there are tremendous

opportunities between the logistics of a company like Shell, which has

upstream assets, and partners like PetroChina, Mitsubishi and KOGAS.

I’ll be meeting with all of those partners when I go to Asia in the new

year.

R. Coleman: I know the Premier must be aware that there are members of his

caucus today who have vigorously opposed both of those projects that he

mentioned in his comments a couple of minutes ago relative to LNG, and

actually have been vigorously opposed to any LNG development in British

Columbia.

The challenge about that type of opposition is it costs our

province billions of dollars, of course, but more so, it costs us

international trade. The NDP opposed LNG, plan to cancel Site C, and

they’re trying to kill Kinder Morgan’s project in the courts. It’s tough

to try and attract investment when the leadership of the province is

opposed to any projects that he can point to that he actually supports.

The overwhelming message of this government to British Columbians and,

more importantly, Premier, to the international market is there’s no

invested interest in British Columbia, and we don’t care about creating

jobs.

What will the Premier possibly say when he sits down with the

executives in China and is confronted with his anti-development record

and their already-stated concern that investments are not safe to try

and do in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should stop

reading his press releases and start reading the newspaper. Then he’d

know that just last week, Amazon decided to invest in British Columbia,

and there are going be 1,000 new jobs.

[2:05 p.m.]

He would know that AltaGas is investing in Prince Rupert right now

so that we can take advantage of our assets upstream. He would also know

that the companies that have decided not to proceed with LNG in British

Columbia did not do so because the government changed. They did so

because of the macroeconomic climate that we live in right

now.

I appreciate the boo-birds on the other side don’t want to take my

word for it, so let’s listen to what Aurora LNG said at the time:

“Aurora LNG has determined that the current macroeconomic environment

does not currently support the partners’ vision for developing large LNG

businesses in British Columbia.” It had nothing to do with the change of

government. It had everything to do with the macroeconomic

climate.

I am bullish on LNG. I am bullish on the economy of British

Columbia. I’m going to be travelling to Asia to promote international

investment like every other Premier before me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

R. Coleman: Actually, Premier, you’re not bullish on LNG. You wrote a letter

to try and kill an LNG project. Although the Premier will probably not

be told this by the executives, I have spoken to the people that made

the Pacific NorthWest LNG decision about when they wanted to invest in

British Columbia and walked away at this time.

At the table during the conversation between the seven partners on

that project was a letter you sent to CEAA and your opposition to a

regulated, already-approved permit in Canada. All they could say was:

“We can’t possibly be considering going to a next $15 billion of

investment because we can’t get any adjustments to our permit. We have

no confidence in the new government because they opposed the

project.”

You have a long record of being opposed to major projects — Site

C; Pacific NorthWest LNG; both projects in Kitimat; the northwest

transmission line; the Red Chris mine; the independent power projects;

the George Massey Tunnel; and two projects already built, which are the

South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Port Mann Bridge. You opposed both

of those as well. But the ones before that mount up to over 35,000

jobs.

When are you going to stop killing projects and try and get to

somewhere where you give somebody confidence that they can invest in

British Columbia? I can tell you this today, Mr. Premier — absolutely

true, because I’ve heard it directly from finance people and the people

who want to do these projects. They are parking their capital offshore

and not investing in this province because of the uncertainty you’ve

brought to this file.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m pleased that people are still calling the Leader of the

Opposition. I don’t know where they find the time, because they’re

working with this government to grow the economy in every corner of

B.C.

The member mentioned Site C. I’m surprised there’s not even a

modest blush on the faces on the other side, because the decision that

they made without oversight from a third party could lead to

multi-billions of dollars of debt on the back of ratepayers. They don’t

seem to care. They don’t seem to care that when they made decisions,

they always, always went over budget.

The member mentioned the northwest transmission line. That started

out at $396 million and, on the watch of the gentleman on the other

side, went just shy of $1 billion. That’s the type of government that

British Columbians don’t want. That’s why you’re over there and we’re

over here.

T. Wat: The Minister of Energy has a troubling record when it comes to

resource development. According to the minister, supporting Pacific

NorthWest LNG: “Ain’t good for nobody in this province.” International

companies looking to invest in B.C. are hearing your comments, and

they’re already going elsewhere for their investment and

jobs.

How can this Energy Minister expect companies in the Asia-Pacific

region and elsewhere to take her seriously, given the minister’s and the

NDP’s shifting policy on LNG?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: This line of questioning…. That it’s showing up in question period

is actually more appropriate, because they tried it in estimates, and it

was just absolutely hilarious there.

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: They pulled a quote from me when I was not talking about any

particular project or the LNG industry as a whole. I was talking about a

piece of legislation that the Liberals actually put forward when they

were in government, and it was ridiculous, because that’s the type of

stuff that they regularly delivered for British Columbians — things that

were not going to work for British Columbians.

This side of the House is much different. We’re working every

single day for British Columbians. We’re making life more affordable for

them. We’re building a better B.C., and that is exactly why we’re on

this side of the House and why they’re over there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: I was the Minister of International Trade in the last four years.

Let me tell the minister that trust, promise and commitment are the way

to conduct business. There is a Chinese saying. In Mandarin, it’s this:

yī nuò qiān jīn . In Cantonese, it’s this: ngàh chi dong

gàm sai . That means that whatever you say is a

commitment.

To the minister, how does she plan…?

Interjections.

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

Member, continue.

T. Wat: How does she plan to overcome the negative perception created by

this government’s shifting policy on LNG?

Hon. J. Horgan: To have the member on the other side say you should live up to

your commitments reminds me of a debt-free British Columbia. It reminds

me of the 21 LNG plants that were going to be up and running, three of

them by 2017. It reminds me of the 100,000 jobs that were going to be

created by LNG. How many jobs were there, hon. Members? Zero

jobs.

We are going to take the bounty of British Columbia. We are going

to go out into the international marketplace…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …and we’re not going to overpromise. We’re just going to

deliver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we could continue.

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ELECTRICITY

RATES

A. Weaver: I think I’m living in some kind of a fantasy world here in

question period today. It’s quite remarkable.

To entice LNG projects to British Columbia in 2014, the previous

government promised proponents electricity rates of 8.3 cents per

kilowatt hour, but that wasn’t good enough, Two years later they dropped

the rate to 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Now, we know the actual cost of

power from Site C, if the government continues with this project. It

will be over ten cents a kilowatt hour, while residential customers

today are paying 8.6 cents at tier 1 and 12.9 cents per kilowatt hour at

tier 2.

Not only are residential customers paying nearly twice what

hypothetical LNG companies would pay, but they’re also financing Site C

to provide electricity to a nonexistent industry through a business

model that will lose about five cents for every kilowatt hour of energy

produced. That’s B.C. Liberal economics for you. Fortunately for the

members of that party, they have one leadership candidate who hasn’t run

on their abysmal economic record.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines….

Interjections.

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

A. Weaver: My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources is this. Will government admit that the only reason to

continue with the construction of Site C is to provide

ratepayer-subsidized power to a nonexistent LNG industry?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. He is aware of the

process that is undergoing right now. We’ve just completed the B.C.

Utilities Commission review of Site C. That report was delivered just a

week ago, and this government has announced that we are now moving into

our analysis, and then we’ll be doing proper deliberations.

Next week myself and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation are actually going to be formally consulting with

Indigenous communities and First Nations leaders who are directly

impacted by Site C. Saying anything at present about future

decision-making would likely prejudge that, and I’m just not going to be

doing that.

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

NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES

A. Weaver: The previous government did everything industry asked them to make

their LNG dreams a reality. “Jump.” “How high? How often? Where to? How

many times?” They wanted to deliver unicorns to each and every one of

our backyards, and when they couldn’t squeeze water from a stone, they

tried desperately to squeeze even harder. They even changed the natural

gas royalty legislation so that the minister could negotiate sweetheart

deals in secret. They signed a deal with Progress Energy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: They signed a deal with Progress Energy and its partners that

would have locked in low royalty rates for years and cost B.C. millions.

But that contract had an escape valve. One of its conditions was a

positive final investment on Pacific Northwest LNG by June of 2017. Yet

Petronas decided to kill the project.

My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources is this. When will the government stand up for the people of

B.C., demand a fair price for our natural gas assets and terminate the

long-term royalty agreement with Progress Energy, and will the minister

confirm, for the record, that this government will not negotiate royalty

agreements in secret with any other gas companies?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think there’s no doubt that anybody on this side of the House

would agree with the member that the previous government made large

promises and absolutely failed to deliver on those promises. I think

we’ve canvassed a few of those: the jobs with LNG, the LNG prosperity

fund, “Debt-free B.C.,” families first as well.

That being said, moving forward, we have committed to work with

industry but also to make sure that our regulatory oversight bodies are

doing their due diligence, as well, and that they have the resources to

do so. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that government

is working for all British Columbians and that we’re all together

building a better B.C.

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ELECTRICITY

RATES

T. Redies: Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

confirmed that a decision to cancel the Site C project would result in a

10 percent rate shock for British Columbians. Now, I know that today the

minister has tried some smoke-and-mirror tactics to distract from the

fact that she and her government appear to be seriously contemplating

this 10 percent rate hike. But that does not change the fact that

failure to proceed with this project could result in the largest

write-off in B.C. history — $4 billion in lost construction costs alone

— and increased rates, by 10 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Redies: To the minister, is she seriously considering the option of

writing off $4 billion and triggering a completely unnecessary 10

percent hike in hydro rates for years to come?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said yesterday, there is a variety of details that we are

looking at in terms of making our decision around Site C. One of the

important details that should have always been there was an analysis

done by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The previous government failed to

do that because they thought they knew better than the independent body

that works in the public interest. That was the wrong choice. We have

righted that, and we’re moving forward for the best interests of British

Columbians.

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

T. Redies: The BCUC report is tabled, and the smoke and mirrors that the

minister is engaging in can’t change the facts. Yesterday she confirmed

that the project was on time and on budget as of June 30, 2017. She

confirmed that B.C. Hydro rates are among the lowest in North

America.

It is her party’s reckless plan to cancel the largest

infrastructure project in B.C. history that has put all of this at risk.

A completely unnecessary 10 percent rate shock can be added to the long

list of broken NDP promises. How can the minister seriously be

contemplating a 10 percent rate hike, writing off $4 billion and having

nothing to show for it?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that the member opposite is looking for some kind of a

gotcha moment, but there just isn’t one here. It’s called due diligence.

It’s called due diligence, which is what your government wouldn’t

do.

I know the whole concept is lost on the B.C. Liberals, but British

Columbians wanted due diligence. They had questions. They needed

answers. We’re in the process of doing that. We started with the thing

that that side of the House should have always done when they were in

government, which was go to the B.C. Utilities Commission and do due

diligence.

That’s what it is, hon. Member. Get with the program, and start

moving forward.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

SITE C POWER

PROJECT

M. Stilwell: The minister has said that she doesn’t want to prejudge the

pending cabinet decision around Site C, but the workers whose

livelihoods depend on Site C have serious doubts about this minister’s

objectivity. You can understand why. When you do a simple, quick social

media search, you can find plenty of the minister’s activist opposition

to the project.

I have here pictures of the minister at protest events, others

with her three colleagues who are at the event protesting the project.

Great photos, really. I think I’m going to start a scrapbook. One photo

has the minister standing in front of a number of big signs that

actually say: “Stop Site C.” I think it might be the cover photo for my

scrapbook.

Now, the minister is all about context. She likes context. The

Facebook post that goes along with these pictures reads: “Great to have

the MLA from Nelson-Creston, along with Zak, paddling with us. Stop Site

C.” Seems pretty black and white to me.

Will the minister at least have the courage to stand up and be

honest with British Columbians about her activities as an activist,

admit that she is opposed to Site C and that she has no objectivity on

this file?

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the member’s question. I think we should all maybe

take a pause here. We’ve had an opportunity to reflect on where we are

and what we’re doing. The people on that side of the House have taken up

the mantle of opposition, and good on them, but they have to give the

opportunity for us to do the governing as well. That’s what we’ve been

charged to do by the Lieutenant-Governor, and that’s what we intend to

do.

The first order of business was to ensure that the public and

legislators in this precinct had the information that that side didn’t

want the public to have. That’s what we did. What did we get back? A

mess: forecasts that were inaccurate, expenditures that were before

their time and a market for no electricity. Those are the challenges

that we face. We’re going to take them, and we’re going to do our level

best to protect ratepayers.

When I listen to those on the other side, it’s almost as if this

is happening outside of the real world. Someone has to pay for the

promises you made. It will fall to us to fix the mess. That’s what we

intend to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Well, I am glad that the Premier appreciates the question, because

he’s going to make my scrapbook as well.

I wonder how anyone can possibly feel that there is any commitment

from this government. The minister has articulated on a number of

occasions that there is opposition to this project. She called Site C a

“1950s dam that destroys land.” She’s had…. The opposition to the

project is overwhelming. The Minister of Agriculture has even said that

she looks forward to “stopping Site C.”

Presumably, the Premier is going to seek advice from his

ministers, unless he’s already written them off, just like the $4

billion. So at this point, how can families have any confidence that

this Premier or this minister will make a decision based on facts, given

her activist views?

Hon. J. Horgan: As a longtime supporter of the arts, I’m pleased that the former

minister has time on her hands to do scrapbooking and, if there’s

anything I can do to help out, I’m happy to send her some

negatives.

The only thing that’s been written off at this point in time are

the B.C. Liberals by the people of British Columbia. This decision will

come down to what’s in the best interest of the people of British

Columbia. Those people on that side, when they resided over here, had

one objective: to get a project past the point of no return. Who does

that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Partisans do that — that have lost sight of the people, of the

public’s interest. That’s why we’re here and they’re there. We’re going

to deliberate on this. We’re going to make the best decision for B.C.

Hydro and the people of B.C., and that’s a good thing.

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ELECTRICITY

RATES

T. Shypitka: The Minister of Energy and Mines just had a couple of really bad

days in estimates, and it looks like she’s having another bad day today.

I’d like to see….

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: No, no. Not yet. Not yet. Seeing that the Premier is doing all the

heavy lifting here….

But the bad days she’s had pale in comparison to the 2,400 people

that are going to get pink slips at Christmastime. I’m not quite sure

what that Christmas card is going to look like, but it’s not going to be

a good one. The minister can deflect all she wants and blame anybody

that she wants to, but at the end of the day, this is just another

project the NDP appears to be prepared to say no to.

[2:30 p.m.]

Yesterday in estimates, the minister completely undermined two key

factors in the arguments suggesting Site C is not needed. The first one:

when surrounded by her experts, the minister confirmed that in their

multi-decades of experience, B.C. Hydro’s low-load forecasting — I’ll

say that one again, low-load forecasting — as was used in this case, has

never been used before. Further, she confirmed that B.C. Hydro cannot

realistically use what is proposed as alternative power sources instead

of Site C.

The question to the minister, with all the blame-gaming and all

that other stuff, given these admissions, will she confirm there is no

basis on which to consider a 10 percent rate shock and writing off $4

billion?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could hear the response, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: When he’s back home next week, perhaps he’ll look up old Kootenay

Bill and ask Kootenay Bill why it is that he made a decision on faulty

forecasts that will cost 1.9 million ratepayers of B.C. Hydro — heavy

industry, commercial and residential customers — billions and billions

of dollars because of the choices that he made. The person who can give

those answers no longer resides in this House. But I understand he’s the

neighbour of that member. He can ask him when he goes home.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Fraser: I have the honour to present the B.C. Treaty Commission annual report

2017, titled Reconciling Prosperity: The Role of Local and Regional

Governments in Treaty Negotiations . It’s an honour to enter the

report into the legislative record, and it’s also an obligation under the

Treaty Commission Act.

I want to thank the B.C. Treaty Commission for its commitment to

modern-day treaty-making in British Columbia. We value the guidance of the

commission as this government works to make substantive improvements to how

treaties are negotiated. In partnership with First Nations, we are

transforming the treaty process so that it respects case law and embodies

the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This

work is critical to advance long-term reconciliation and improve

opportunities and outcomes for First Nations throughout British

Columbia.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal

privilege.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the honour of presenting the 2016-2017 annual report of the

Islands Trust.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, 2016-2017.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I called continued estimates debate on the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In Committee A, I call Advanced

Education, Skills and Training estimates.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $95,006,000

(continued) .

J. Rustad: Unfortunately, I was unable to be here the other day when you were

doing the estimates on Hydro. However, I have a number of questions that

I need to ask, and hopefully, the minister will be in a position to be

able to provide some answers.

In particular, there is a number of forest companies around the

province that are currently utilizing wood waste for producing power. So

the first question I’d like to ask the minister is: does the minister

believe or think that power production from wood waste is something that

fits into the future portfolio for the province and for B.C.

Hydro?

Hon. M. Mungall: The short answer would be yes. In fact, biofuels — and wood waste

products, particularly — play a very important role in our overall

hydro-generating capacity. Right now, we don’t have B.C. Hydro staff

with us, but the ADM responsible for Energy is just out there looking at

me to come in. So I’m going to sit down, get him in here, and then we

can give you a fulsome answer.

[2:40 p.m.]

I imagine that the member opposite is going to have a few

questions around this, so I’ll keep this answer very brief, which is, of

course, the answer remains yes and that wood waste and biomass plays a

significant role in all of our independent power project portfolio, and

that includes pulp mills and stand-alone as well.

J. Rustad: As you know, of course, there are a number of these projects that

are around the province. Does the minister see adding new potential

power opportunities utilizing wood waste to the mix in the

future?

Hon. M. Mungall: To the best of our knowledge, there is no new wood waste under

active consideration right now, and there has been no power call for

that particular power generation. There has been no approach to B.C.

Hydro, as well, in our understanding right now.

J. Rustad: I just want to be clear. So there hasn’t been any approach at the

moment. Is the minister contemplating, actually, doing a future call? I

get that could be into a future budget, so I can ask that question again

in a future budget.

I’m just curious around this, because there are a number of

components and commitments that government is making around wood and

wood waste. Obviously, generation of power is a significant potential

component of that. I’m just curious about whether those opportunities

will be there or whether that’s being contemplated, going

forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re not contemplating any power call at this time. Should that

change, absolutely, we would be anticipating biomass to put bids into

that call.

J. Rustad: I guess I need to ask the question as well. Obviously, there are a

number of projects that have been in place in British Columbia for quite

a few years. Does the minister anticipate a reduction in any of the

current capacity that we have for power that’s being generated out of

wood waste?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: As the member may know, there is actually a number of contracts

that are around biomass generation. They’re coming up for renewal, and

B.C. Hydro will be considering those renewals. This government is not

directing any type of reduction whatsoever. As B.C. Hydro considers

those renewals, our government is supportive of them moving forward in a

way that, of course, works in the best interests of

ratepayers.

J. Rustad: Yes, there are a number of contracts that are coming up for

renewal. Over time, of course, they will all come up for renewal. The

challenge, I think, that many of the forest companies are having today,

given that we wanted to get rid of beehive burners and get rid of the

burning of waste and be able to utilize that waste for other

products….

We encouraged companies to find those solutions. Power production,

of course, was a big part of that — pellet production as well. Pellet

production falls outside of the minister’s purview, obviously, but power

is a key component of being able to utilize that wood fibre.

Current negotiations with B.C. Hydro are such that it may make it

impossible for these contracts to be renewed because of the price

points. Is the minister aware of these negotiations, the price point

pressures that are being put on these companies?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate what the member opposite is saying. That being said,

ultimately these are commercial negotiations. B.C. Hydro has to make

sure that any time they enter into negotiations, one of the main things

they’re considering is ensuring that they get the best rate — the best

price point, as the member said — for ratepayers.

J. Rustad: Thanks, Minister, for that answer. I’m in agreement that as a

government, whether you’re opposition or government side, we should be

trying to get the best rates we can, obviously, on these.

The challenge, of course, is that government is proposing a carbon

tax on the burning of wood waste, particularly slash. Without these

power projects being able to continue in some fashion or another,

companies are going to be forced to have to eliminate the waste product

through burning of that product without producing power. There’s only so

much, in terms of the price point, that’s within there. The negotiations

that are going on with B.C. Hydro are focused, to my understanding,

solely around price point, where there are other conditions that need to

be taken into consideration.

[2:50 p.m.]

Would the minister consider engaging with the companies and with

B.C. Hydro to consider all factors that led to the ultimate decisions to

build these plants and what needs to be done to be able to make sure

that we can utilize the waste fibre for something like power production,

as opposed to going back to having to burn it either in the woods or

through beehive burners?

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that the member knows that these types of negotiations are

never easy. They’re always difficult, because there are a variety of

factors to consider. The big one will always be the rates and what goes

back to the ratepayers. B.C. Hydro has to do that — that primary duty of

making sure that they are operating in a function that is keeping rates

as low as possible.

They can’t just — ideally, they wouldn’t — wave any price point

and say: “Sure, that’s what we’ll do. It’s not good for ratepayers.” I

mean, I know the member knows that they have to work in the best

interests of ratepayers, and I’m sure he would anticipate that and want

that himself.

His question is about if the ministry is at all engaged in any of

this. Actually, it is. The ministry has already been engaging with

industry and with Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and

Rural Development to ensure that we are identifying best ways to use

wood waste, including electrical generation.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that obviously there are conditions that need to be

looked at in terms of how to renegotiate these agreements. But when you

look at the cost of moving fibre — carbon tax included in the cost of

moving that fibre, the cost of labour and other components — the simple

generation of power and the cost of producing the product at a plant do

not take into consideration those transportation costs and the other

factors that are required to be done in order to be able to make an

operation viable.

This is where I’m suggesting to the minister that there needs to

be another lens put on it outside of the mandate that B.C. Hydro has,

because B.C. Hydro cannot, to the best of my knowledge, take those other

factors into consideration.

The question to the minister is: is there an avenue for the

minister and the ministry to engage in this process, to be able to

factor those other components into the cost of power production so that

we can get agreements renewed and see the continual use of this waste

fibre being put towards power generation?

Hon. M. Mungall: First, I want to start by saying that I absolutely am always going

to be working in the best interests of ratepayers and wanting to make

sure that we keep rates as low as we possibly can. That being said, I

hear what the member is saying, so I’m going to take the time to look

into it and maybe have a meeting with him directly to talk

more.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that offer, and we’ll

schedule something down the

road, I’m sure, when we have an opportunity.

[2:55 p.m.]

Moving on to part of that — because a big piece of this is how we

dispose of the wood waste — it was one of the solutions. Obviously,

doing pellets — there are other types of products they produce. But

power was one of the solutions to help the mills move away from beehive

burners. It’s a critical component. It’s a direction, obviously, that

the previous government gave to the industry to try to remove the

beehive burners and the need for burning of those wastes.

Along those lines, the current government is now proposing a

carbon tax on slash burning on the wood waste that’s left behind. I’m

assuming that could potentially expand to any kind of wood waste, I

suppose, that is left behind.

Given that one of the viable options, and one of the most viable

options, for utilizing of that fibre is to be able to generate power, is

the ministry engaged with the Minister of Environment with regards to

the carbon tax components of what that will mean and the potential of

that waste being an energy source for our electrical needs going

forward?

Hon. M. Mungall: Ultimately, the two ministries that are primarily the leads on

this very issue are actually the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of

Finance. That being said, to answer the member’s question, my ministry

is engaged because we are looking at the possibility for electrical

generation.

J. Rustad: In estimates for the Minister of Forests and the Minister of

Finance, they pointed me to the Minister of Environment. But that’s

okay.

It’s an important component of what needs to be thought about. In

particular, what I’m looking at is that because of the cost factor and

Hydro trying to get to the lowest rates in terms of power production,

there may be an opportunity to be considered, an offset through a credit

or some other value system that could be set up through a tax on, say,

wood waste.

Now, if you look across the forest industry broadly, the amount of

wood that’s being wasted, that’s being burnt at $50 a tonne would equate

to about a half a billion dollar hit to the forest industry. So anything

that could be done, obviously, to recoup those costs….

Now, I’m assuming that’s going to go straight $50 a tonne. I

haven’t heard direction yet from government, and I know government’s

going and looking at these things. But if there is anything that could

be done to reduce those costs by having some sort of offset that would

allow that waste to go into power, it might be able to achieve what B.C.

Hydro is trying to do as well, which is get the rates.

The question to the minister is: is the ministry looking at these

kinds of options and considering bringing forward these types of

solutions? So for projects that are already built that are needing to be

renewed and have been struggling trying to get those price points, or

for future projects that may be proposed to try to utilize some of that

waste — whether or not she or the ministry would be advocating, for a

solution to help brings those cost lines in place to what B.C. Hydro is

trying to achieve.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The ministry is looking at a range of options. Across ministries,

as well, government is looking at a range of options to manage wood

waste, and absolutely, power generation stays and continues to stay on

the table as one of those options.

J. Rustad: I’ll just wrap up. One more comment around this. I know, from my

questioning of the other ministers around the carbon tax component, that

government has taken some time to look at this. It could be one, two or

three; who knows how many years out in terms of how the process goes. It

may happen quicker than not.

We have a challenge because we’ve got agreements that are up here

in the next few months that need to be renewed. It puts at risk

operations. For mills that do not have an alternative to be able to get

rid of the waste…. It actually puts those mills in jeopardy in terms of

having to close down. If they can’t burn the waste and they can’t use

the waste for power, what do they do with it? Where does it go? There

aren’t alternatives.

During this period of time, I would encourage the minister to

engage with the companies and B.C. Hydro around trying to find a

solution so that we don’t end up seeing situations where mills may have

to curtail operations simply because we haven’t been able to find a

solution in terms of the waste and been able to come to an agreement for

that. As the minister knows, forestry is the backbone of many

communities, including some communities, I’m sure, in her area. The need

to be able to resolve this in a timely way is critical.

I think I’ve made my point. I look forward to the opportunity to

meet with the minister and to try to work this thing through so that we

can make sure we create as much certainty as we can and overcome this

uncertainty that’s being created right now with these negotiations that

are going on between companies and B.C. Hydro.

Hon. M. Mungall: I was wondering if anybody was going to get up and ask a question.

I didn’t hear a question in there. But I just want to comment. I do look

forward to working with the member opposite on this very issue. I know

that this is near and dear to him because it is something that’s

impacting his very backyard.

As I said earlier, I hear his points about looking at the big

picture, not just the price point. I hear that, and I look forward to

working with him on this issue.

T. Redies: Minister, today you made the announcement that you’ll be freezing

B.C. Hydro rates for a period of one year starting April 1, 2018. That

was a little surprising because yesterday you’d talked about doing a

review and trying to find cost savings.

I’m just curious. Now that you’re forcing B.C. Hydro into this

$150 million hole, how is this going to be made up? Are additional

capital projects going to be cancelled?

Hon. M. Mungall: We canvassed this issue quite extensively yesterday with B.C.

Hydro staff. The announcement made today was actually exactly what I

said we would be doing yesterday. So there’s absolutely nothing

different from any of our conversation, any of the questions that the

member opposite asked. All the answers would still stay the

same.

At the end of the day, I asked if B.C. Hydro staff could go home

to Vancouver or if they were required to stay to answer any further

questions. I was told that there wouldn’t be any more B.C. Hydro

questions. So I don’t have the appropriate people to go deeper, if the

member is wanting to do that. I’m happy to take any questions in writing

and make sure that I get back to her in a timely manner.

That being said, it’s her time. If she wants to ask questions, she

can, but I’ll let her know now that my answers from yesterday would be

the exact same today.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I’m just very surprised that

you have made an announcement. That’s why we’re back today. You’ve made

an announcement. Rather, the minister has made an announcement. Pardon

me. The minister has made an announcement that is going to affect the

company by $150 million.

[3:05 p.m.]

Would there have been no discussions with B.C. Hydro in terms of

how this would be made up? I mean, you wouldn’t just make a decision

about $150 million without having some idea of how this was going to be

made up. Surely, the minister must know something.

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was saying yesterday, the rate freeze has always been tied to

a review of B.C. Hydro. Also, as I said yesterday, the rate freeze will

be starting in April 2018. If it goes forward…. We hope that it does.

The BCUC, ultimately, is going to be looking at this.

What has happened is that we have collaboratively worked with B.C.

Hydro. B.C. Hydro is changing its revenue requirements application from

the 3 percent rate increase it had in that RRA for April 2018 to zero

percent. They’ve amended their RRA that is currently before the B.C.

Utilities Commission.

The B.C. Utilities Commission will then do the due diligence that

is required and determine whether a zero rate increase is acceptable.

Should it be acceptable, then we will move forward with that rate freeze

and conduct a review of B.C. Hydro over the course of that year. Because

the rate freeze doesn’t come into effect until April 2018, it actually

gives us time, by the time all the accounting is done in that year of

review, to look at ways where we can mitigate any impacts of the

freeze.

T. Redies: I’m now very confused. The minister and her government just

announced today a rate freeze. But I think, based on her answer, she’s

saying it may or may not happen because the BCUC might decide it’s not

appropriate. Is that correct? Is there a rate freeze or isn’t

there?

Hon. M. Mungall: There is going to be an application for a rate freeze before the

B.C. Utilities Commission.

T. Redies: If it wasn’t a done deal, why would the minister and her

government go out with a public release today telling the public that

there is going to be a rate freeze starting April 1, 2018? That makes no

sense.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry if the member opposite didn’t feel that I was clear

yesterday. I felt that I was. I thought that I was very clear that we

would always be going forward to the B.C. Utilities Commission in this

very fashion. That was part of the news release that we put out, and

it’s what I said to reporters just an hour and a half ago. Members

opposite, I do believe, had staff people recording that, so they can go

back and see that. But that has always been the process that we talked

about — yesterday as well as today.

T. Redies: I know what the process is, Minister. I know what the process is.

I’m just confused as to why the minister would go out with a public

press release announcing this rate freeze, when she didn’t know whether

or not it was going to actually happen. Isn’t that a bit misleading for

the public?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said to the member opposite, the process was clear. It is in

the news release. I was clear with all of the media about the process —

that we’re bringing it to the B.C. Utilities Commission for

review.

A. Weaver: With respect to the minister, I’d like to read the formal

government press release. It says this:

“The British Columbia government is delivering on its promise to

freeze B.C. Hydro rates, putting an end to years of spiralling

electricity costs that have made life less affordable for B.C.

homeowners and renters, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources announced today.

“B.C. Hydro rates have gone up by more than 24 percent in the last

four years, and by more than 70 percent since 2001. The minister says

that in 2016, B.C. Hydro applied to the B.C. Utilities Commission for

three years of increases, with a 3 percent increase planned next year,

but will be pulling back its request, consistent with this

administration’s commitment to a rate freeze.

“‘After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians

deserve a break on their bills,’ said the minister. ‘From the moment we

took office, we’ve taken action to make life more affordable. As part of

that, we’re going to make sure that B.C. Hydro is working for the

benefit of British Columbians and that its rates reflect that

commitment.’

“The rate freeze will provide government the time to undertake a

comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro. That review will identify changes

and cost savings to keep rates low while ensuring B.C. Hydro has the

resources it needs to continue to provide clean, safe and reliable

electricity. Details of the scope and process for the review will be

developed once government has made a final decision.

“After completing a comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro, any cost and

revenue adjustments identified will be reflected in the rates starting

in April 2019.

“The rate freeze” — again — “follows government’s commitment in its

September budget update to phase out the provincial sales tax on

electricity.”

It says nothing about approaching BCUC. It’s very clear, and I

concur with the member opposite. I feel that this is quite misleading. I

would like the minister to please clarify why the press release says, on

the one hand, there’s a rate freeze, and now here today we understand

that there’s not really a rate freeze but an application for a rate

freeze.

Hon. M. Mungall: He read the press release in full, and he also read directly from

the paragraph that talks about B.C. Hydro going to the B.C. Utilities

Commission and exactly how the full process is taking place, how it’s

tied to a review.

[3:15 p.m.]

I am sorry that he finds it misleading. I personally am curious as

to how he does. I mean, it seemed to be really clear to me.

T. Redies: Now that the minister has gone out with this press release, what

does she plan to tell British Columbians if BCUC comes back and says:

“No, you can’t have a zero percent rate increase”?

Hon. M. Mungall: That’s a fair question, absolutely, and we’ll cross that bridge

when we come to it. We have to go through the B.C. Utilities Commission

first. We value the input that the BCUC has in our rate-setting process.

We value the input that they have overall in managing our public utility

from an independent, expert body looking out for the interests of the

public. So we feel that the appropriate process, as defined in

legislation and regulation, is to go through the B.C. Utilities

Commission first and foremost. We will see what their decision

is.

T. Redies: We are not quibbling about the process with BCUC. This is a

process that B.C. Hydro has undertaken pretty much every year. They have

a regular dialogue with BCUC, and if there are going to be rate

increases — I guess now zero increases — they have to get BCUC’s

permission. What we’re questioning is why the minister would go out with

an announcement that signals, I think, to the public very clearly that

they are responding to their prompt campaign promise and they are

delivering on a rate freeze when she doesn’t have any degree of

certainty that she’ll actually be able to deliver on that.

Hon. M. Mungall: I think that it’s appropriate to bring the public along with

government as we take action on a number of items. I think that it’s

appropriate to let the public know that we’re taking action on this item

that was very important to them.

It was clear on the doorsteps I knocked on and, I’m sure, on the

doorsteps the member opposite knocked on — and on any doorsteps in this

province — that people are concerned about affordability. Every dollar

counts when we’re dealing with an affordability crisis. So we committed

to freezing hydro rates as part of our larger package in dealing with

affordability. I think it’s appropriate to then tell the public what

we’re doing to meet that commitment and be upfront about it, and that’s

what we’re doing.

M. Bernier: Just trying to understand and clarify this, then. The minister

made an announcement earlier, saying that they’re saving $150 million of

taxpayers’ money through the rate freeze. She’s also on record saying

that she respects the autonomy of the Utilities Commission. But by this

announcement, she’s also admitting, it sounds like, that she’s

prejudging the outcome now of that same group of which she says she

respects their autonomy.

Can the minister explain to not only this House but to the people

in British Columbia, because now we’re really confused: are they saving

$150 million right now? Or are they, as she says, just putting the

application forward and having to wait now to see what the Utilities

Commission is actually going to say and whether they’ll approve that

application?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I just want to be very clear, for the record, that I’m not

prejudging, and nobody in this government is prejudging, the outcome at

the B.C. Utilities Commission. What we are doing is the appropriate

process, and we are being upfront and honest with the public. I think

that is the right thing to do. I think we all in this government think

it’s the right thing to do, so that is what we’re doing.

M. Bernier: Can the minister, then, clear the air in the sense of letting the

public know and letting this House know: was it an accurate comment for

her to make to say that the taxpayers are now saving $150 million? Or

was it more of a fair comment to say they’re waiting to see if the

Utilities Commission approves their application? At which point, if

approved, they might be saving money.

Hon. M. Mungall: Just to clarify. I’m sure the member meant this, but just in case,

and for the people who might be watching at home, the savings of $150

million would be felt by ratepayers, not taxpayers. I’m sure the member

knows that difference, but I just want to clarify for anybody who might

be watching.

Again, I think what is important to note here and what I’ll be

sharing — and it sounds like it might be over and over again — is that

we made a commitment during the election to make life more affordable

for British Columbians. We are living up to that commitment.

One of the ways that we said we would do that is to freeze hydro

rates. There is a process to go through to get to that place. We’re

following that process, and we’re being upfront and honest with the

public about what that process is. We intend to live up to our

commitment, absolutely, but we’re going to follow the process to do

that.

M. Bernier: I’m well aware of the process. I managed a utility company — was

part of that for 22 years. I worked with the Utilities Commission

through rate applications for that entire time, so I’m well aware of it.

Every single time, we were always told that we had to wait, because

sometimes on a Utilities Commission application, there are opportunities

for intervenors, opportunities for discussion, opportunities on a wide

gamut of things.

You could never prejudge what the Utilities Commission would say.

It’s an independent body that’s actually directed to be independent, to

look out for the ratepayers of British Columbia, as we canvassed

yesterday and as the minister was quite open on when we talked about

Site C and the role of the Utilities Commission then.

Again, I’m just trying to understand, because the minister is

publicly saying that the taxpayers, to make life more affordable, are

going to be saving $150 million, but I have yet to hear the commitment.

Is she actually directing the Utilities Commission to accept this

application? Is the Utilities Commission being told, then, by government

that they have to actually put this rate freeze in and accept

that?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: As I’ve said earlier, there’s been no direction to the B.C.

Utilities Commission. Should they disagree with the rate freeze, we’ll

deal with that when the time comes.

M. Bernier: Is the minister willing to retract her press release and the

comments, then? Her government has come out and announced that the

taxpayers of B.C. are saving $150 million. I think it’s fair now to say,

from the line of questioning here and the answers, that they’re actually

not. It’s still a maybe.

I know her government has made promises. I know her government and

the ministry have made commitments. I’m not trying to take away from

that. What I’m trying to ascertain is whether those commitments are

actually still a pie in the sky. Are they happening? Are we waiting for

reviews? Or is she actually telling BCUC what to do?

It sounds like the minister is not directing the Utilities

Commission to accept this application. So in essence, is the minister

willing to retract the press release and say that in essence, again, the

people of British Columbia aren’t necessarily going to be saving $150

million yet?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. I feel very, very

solidly that our press release, everything I’ve said to media and

everything I’ve said in this House has been consistent. There is no

inconsistency, from my perspective. I feel that we’ve been upfront.

We’re being transparent. The members opposite may disagree. I’m not

really surprised by that. I mean, they’re the opposition, and that’s

their job. But we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

A. Weaver: Before I ask the questions, I’d like to seek leave to make a brief

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I’d like welcome a group from Vancouver Montessori School here who are

accompanied by their teacher, I understand, Mr. Michael Lee, from Vancouver.

I just saw them come in the audience, and I thought we’d introduce them and

give them a little idea that what we’re debating here is actually budget

estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The

Liberal members opposite, with the Green Party members, are debating with

government on this particular topic. With that, I welcome you, and I’m sure

the rest of my colleagues here would welcome you as well.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m really troubled by the line of questioning here, and I’m

really troubled by what’s being revealed. I have read that press release

carefully. It is very clear from that press release that the government

is telling British Columbians that they are going to freeze hydro rates

by April 2018. That’s the only message that you can take from this press

release. It’s the only message that we took from our no-surprises,

good-faith confidence and supply agreement discussions about this issue

here.

This is a surprise that we are not actually freezing rates, but

we’re going to the BCUC to ask them whether they will give us permission

to freeze rates. We’re not going to influence them, on the one hand,

because we respect the independence of the BCUC, but on the other hand,

we’re saying that we’re saving $150 million. You can’t have it both

ways.

So I would like to reiterate the concerns expressed by the member

for Surrey–White Rock and the member for Peace River South and suggest,

in emphatic terms, that I believe the minister owes British Columbians a

formal correction in a press release. I will ask: will she be willing to

do that in response to the line of questioning that we have seen here

today?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I guess, also, the Leader of the Third Party and myself and our

government are going to maybe have to agree to disagree in terms of the

wording of the press release. I feel it’s very clear. He did read it

out. I don’t know what is unclear about that, but I think we’re just

going to have to agree to disagree on this.

A. Weaver: The press release should have said this, “B.C. government will

seek the ability from BCUC to freeze rates,” not “B.C. government will

freeze rates.” But they said, “B.C. government will freeze rates,” and

that’s simply not correct. There’s no other

interpretation

here.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Sometimes it’s okay to admit that you’ve made an error, but it is

not okay to double down in defence of something that is clearly wrong.

Again, to the minister: will she correct this publicly? It is

misleading, and people across British Columbia think that their rates

are going to freeze in April 2018, when they’re not. They’re not going

to freeze unless the BCUC says they will.

Hon. M. Mungall: We’ve been canvassing this issue for about just over 45 minutes

now. I haven’t offered any new information or anything different, and I

think we’ve come to the conclusion that this government and members

opposite are just going to have to agree to disagree in terms of the

wording of a press release.

The Chair: Member, just a caution. We must try to word it better than

this when we are asking questions. So if the question has already

been canvassed several times and the answer was the same, maybe we

should move on.

This is just a caution. I’m not stopping the members from

doing it, but that’s a caution from the Chair.

M. Bernier: It is unfortunate. We were expecting to be finished estimates

yesterday. I’m now seeing that we might end up even going into tomorrow,

because we do expect answers to these questions. And I think the member

of the Third Party, the leader of the Green Party, raises a very good

point. When a press release goes out from government that says they’re

saving $150 million when they truly might not be, all we’re asking the

minister to do is stand up and clarify that this is a maybe. That’s all

we’re asking her to do.

She will try to say that it’s “agree to disagree.” The press

release doesn’t even talk about the fact that they’re going to send this

to the Utilities Commission for a review. The press release doesn’t talk

about that this might happen. The press release doesn’t even reference

the fact that the Utilities Commission has a say in whether they’ll

approve this or not. The press release is actually very

clear.

They’re trying to make it very clear to the people of British

Columbia that $150 million to the taxpayers is going to be saved. That

is absolutely false if it’s not approved by the Utilities Commission. So

again to the minister, it’s one of two things: either the press release

is misleading to the public, or the minister is actually going to be

directing the Utilities Commission on what to do. In either case, the

public deserves to know what the answer to that is.

Hon. M. Mungall: Hon. Chair, I request a five-minute recess, please.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I believe that I answered the member’s question on multiple

occasions this afternoon.

They’re entitled to their

interpretation of whatever this

government does. I don’t expect them to agree with this government. I

don’t expect them to agree with how we word our press releases. They’re

the opposition. It’s their job to provide an alternate perspective.

However, that being said, I will keep saying the same thing. We’re going

to have to agree to disagree here.

M. Bernier: It’s unfortunate that the minister is taking that position,

because I think it’s quite apparent that it looks like she’s misleading

the public, when you actually have a situation where a press release

goes out and says they’re saving $150 million when it sounds like they

truly aren’t.

I guess an easy question, hopefully, if she can give me a yes or

no. If I actually go on Twitter right now and I tweet out that

government is wrong and that you’re not saving $150 million from the

announcement today, is my tweet correct?

[3:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, I think the minister has said very clearly that you

can agree to disagree. The answer is going to remain the same. So

are we going to continue with the same angle over and over again?

How long…? Because we can’t have a stalemate here.

M. Bernier: With all due respect, it’s a completely different question. I’m

not asking whether she’s going to actually tell the public. I’m asking

her: if I tell the public, is that correct?

Hon. M. Mungall: What the member opposite chooses to tweet is entirely his

business. This ministry has no opinion on that whatsoever. It’s not a

budget item in this ministry. It’s not a program in this ministry. It

has just nothing to do with this ministry. How he wants to exercise his

freedom of speech, he’s fully entitled to do so.

T. Redies: I’m sure the minister is aware that B.C. Hydro’s fiscal year ends

March 31. Why this is important is if the government, the minister,

makes the decision to terminate Site C, the $2.1 billion that is sitting

on the balance sheet at Hydro becomes an impaired asset and has to be

written off, or it has to go to a regulatory account, which has to be

approved by the BCUC.

The reason I bring this up is because if, let’s say, they do what

BCUC suggested, which is to put the money into a regulatory account, it

has to be amortized and expensed through the company’s income statement.

Realistically speaking, even at the beginning, if they make the decision

to terminate Site C, that will result in a $200 million to $250 million

amortization expense that the company will have to start incurring. On

top of that would be the $150 million revenue shortfall from a rate

freeze.

Could the minister explain how BCUC could possibly approve a zero

percent rate increase in light of the fact that it would cause a

shortfall to B.C. Hydro of close to $400 million?

Hon. M. Mungall: My apologies to the member. Can she repeat the last bit of her

question?

T. Redies: I know this is complicated, but I just want to try and be really

clear here. If the government chooses to terminate Site C, it becomes an

impaired asset. That impaired asset has to be dealt with either by a

straight write-off to the company’s bottom line or, like the BCUC report

suggested, it can be put into a regulatory account and then amortized

over several years. If it is amortized over several years — B.C. Hydro

was suggesting yesterday over ten years — B.C. Hydro is going to be

facing an amortization expense for the write-off of somewhere between

$250 million to upwards of $400 million when the full costs come

out.

If you add that amortization expense to the revenue shortfall that

the government is proposing with a revenue freeze, it’s a $400 million

shortfall. So my question to the minister is: how could BCUC possibly

approve a zero percent increase in rates, because it would put the

fiscal situation of B.C. Hydro into jeopardy?

Hon. M. Mungall: With respect to the member, there are quite a number of

hypotheticals in there. There’s a lot of speculation about two different

items and then speculation about a decision that may occur by the B.C.

Utilities Commission and speculation that may occur by the government.

I’m not going to join in that speculation. I just don’t think it’s

appropriate to prejudge any outcome of processes that have been set in

place and have not had decisions on them yet.

M. de Jong: I’ve had a brief conversation with the Government House Leader,

and I wonder if the committee might recess for just five

minutes.

A. Weaver: With respect to the member opposite, the Opposition House Leader,

he has not consulted with the House Leader of the Third Party. I would

request that he do such consultation before any decisions are brought

back to the Legislature.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 16, Tenancy Statutes Amendment

Act.

[4:05 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:07 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to take a moment to introduce some staff that I have

here with me today as we go through committee stage. I have Tyann

Blewett joining me from our policy division, along with Audrey Panter.

And I have Greg Steves, ADM for housing, who’s joining us in this

process.

S. Sullivan: I would like to just make a couple of comments before we get into

the whole bill. The bill is structured in a way that sort of mirrored,

first, the manufactured homes and then the residential

tenancies.

We do have a number of questions, although I must say that Her

Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is very supportive of what you’re trying to

do here. But there are a number of questions we have, and I know that

the Third Party also has some issues they would like to discuss. I

thought we would push most of the residential tenancy questions into the

manufactured home section, because we think it would be easier to manage

the process.

Some of the issues that we have are around some conversations

we’ve had with people in the industry. Some of them are about the use of

the fixed lease as a way to initiate a relationship between tenant and

landlord. Some landlords use a very short fixed lease at the very

beginning to suss out if there’s a good mix and if the tenant relates

well to their fellow tenants.

Then there are issues around agricultural issues, especially when

you have employment related to fixed lease. And then there are some

other issues about recreational property, in that some feel there will

be some serious issues created and that we may actually end up losing

some rental properties if we don’t address these now.

[4:10 p.m.]

I know the Third Party also has some questions about

definitions

and such. I believe we can go through that. There are some issues around

section 1 right away, so I will let you carry on, Mr. Chair.

J. Thornthwaite: I was wondering if I could get a definition of “sublease.” I have

one question about a situation, so if you could perhaps give me a

definition of sublease.

Hon. S. Robinson: A sublease situation is when a tenant has to leave for a short

period of time, and with the landlord’s permission, they offer a

sublease to another tenant, who then is going to move out at the end of

that sublease.

J. Thornthwaite: The concern that my constituent had…. I’ll just read it. The

concern is the requirement that a landlord cannot “withhold consent to a

sublease or assignment if there are six months or more remaining in the

term.” His point was that tenant mix is important not only to the

landlords, who must arbitrate conflict between tenants, but to all

tenants in a building. His point was that landlords should be able to

determine that mix. Is that issue covered in this section?

Hon. S. Robinson: The six-month component is a subsequent amendment. That’s already

in there. It has always been in there.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the chance to ask a couple of questions here, and I

appreciate the agreement of the member for Vancouver–False Creek to

allow an intervention here. I’m going to ask a couple of questions that

may have some follow-up questions from the member for West Vancouver–Sea

to Sky because it relates to the same issues.

It relates to the agriculture industry. I’m not sure whether this

is the exact place where I should raise this issue. But since this

section did deal with…. In the

section notes, it talks about this being

where you deal with the requirement around…. It generally eliminates the

option of including a requirement to vacate the fixed-term agreement. It

also makes reference to a regulatory framework that can provide

circumstances where the requirement to vacate is authorized.

You may know that in the agricultural industry, a very seasonal

industry, the industry has significant seasonal employment requirements.

We have a program here in British Columbia called the seasonal

agricultural workers program, an agreement between the province, the

federal government and Mexico that brings in about 6,000 workers a year

under a contractual arrangement or program and agreement. There are a

couple of requirements in that program.

One is a maximum of eight months of employment, so those employees

are here for various ranges — four months to six months to eight months.

It can be spread over 11 months in some cases, depending on the nature

of the employment.

There is a requirement to provide housing for the workers. We have

a number of different circumstances that cover that off. Sometimes it’s

on-farm accommodation. In some cases, farmers will purchase a rental

unit, where they use that for the accommodation for the seasonal workers

and then, in the gap, look to fill that rental accommodation during the

time when the seasonal workers are back in their home country, back to

Mexico.

[4:15 p.m.]

You could have other arrangements where a farmer will go out and

secure a longer-term rental place, with the agreement that it will be

part-time — part of the year with the seasonal workers that are under

the program and part-time with filling that gap. One of the requirements

in filling that gap is that if somebody comes in to fill that gap, you

have to have the ability in the agreement that that person will vacate

when the seasonal workers come back into the program. In many cases,

it’s done on a fixed term. You’ll come in for four months or five

months, with an understanding agreement.

What I’m probing, I guess, and wanting to make sure of is that we

don’t have an unintended consequence in this, where those kinds of

arrangements would suddenly be caught up in this, and the agriculture

industry would lose the ability to manage that type of accommodation,

particularly for a program that is meeting a very critical need for the

industry.

I wonder whether the minister could comment. Have you contemplated

that in the crafting of the legislation? Have you accounted for it? Is

it covered in regulations? Do you see a significant set of regulations

that are going to have to be put into place to address this? Just how

might this be handled? Was it contemplated, and was it looked at in the

development of the regulatory changes that are being proposed

here?

Hon. S. Robinson: I do appreciate the question, recognizing that there are some

unique challenges in different parts of the province and different ways

of actually implementing the legislation.

We are aware that there will be situations where landlords use a

vacate clause in fixed-term agreements for very specific circumstances.

There is a range of exceptions that we’re looking at in terms of

regulation. This is one of those sorts of examples, where there needs to

be some understanding of these unique uses.

I do want to point out that in the act right now, an employer may

end the tenancy of an employee, in respect of a rental unit rented or

provided by the employer to the employee to occupy during the term of

employment, by giving notice to end the tenancy if the employment is

ended. That currently exists in the act.

S. Thomson: The nuance in this is that in some of these cases, the employment,

because it’s part of a program, has not necessarily ended. You know,

there’s an agreement that those employees are coming back under the

program, so there’s sort of a continuing relationship and things in the

program. I would be concerned that that provision that is specifically

there now, may not, from a legal perspective, cover those circumstances.

So just to make that comment and flag that for the minister in terms of

developing the regulations.

I would also ask: has the minister reached out and had any

consultation or engagement with the agriculture sector on this? The B.C.

Agriculture Council — their western agricultural labour initiative looks

after the seasonal agricultural workers program. Have you had some

discussions on this issue with them?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that we are exploring potential

exceptions in the regulation. I appreciate him bringing this forward,

and we’ll certainly be sure to reach out to those particular sectors

where this may be nuanced, as the member explained.

I want to really be clear that putting them in regulation sort of

allows for some of that flexibility where we have some of these unique

housing challenges. But we also need to make sure that we don’t create

new loopholes for landlords to take advantage of renters, and I believe

I do have the assurance of all members of this House that everyone is in

agreement with that. Certainly, going forward with the regulation, I’ll

make sure that we consult with the appropriate bodies.

[4:20 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Just to carry on with my colleague’s comments here and to provide

a little more clarity. The issue…. I think we all understand that

accommodation in conjunction with employment can be terminated once the

employment ends, but there are also situations where there is an

opportunity for fixed-term accommodation in the off-season.

In the agricultural sector…. It may well be through the SAWP

program, but also, there are many seasonal workers that come from across

Canada and other places and come to pick fruit or come to work on farms

for a number of months, and then that accommodation is no longer

required over, let’s say, October, November, December, January,

February.

What will happen is the employer, on accommodation either on their

farm or accommodation that they acquire through rental or purchase off

the farm, will put in place a fixed-term agreement for that off-season.

Then they’ll put in other people. They’ll give them a chance to stay

there five months, with the understanding that at the end of that five

months, that accommodation is required for those seasonal workers. It’s

not just associated with employment. It’s associated with just an

opportunity to expand the rental accommodation.

One of those unintended consequences will be — and I can speak

with confidence — that that accommodation, which would otherwise be out

there for fixed term, will not be out there at all. Especially in the

agricultural sector, the employer just cannot risk not having that

accommodation available when they need it in the spring. I just wondered

if this is something the minister would consider in terms of the

regulation.

Hon. S. Robinson: Absolutely.

J. Sturdy: Thank you. I appreciate that consideration. I’d like to bring one

other circumstance that may not have been contemplated to the minister’s

attention, specifically around resort accommodations. The circumstances

that I’m most familiar with are in Whistler, but I’m sure it’s common to

a variety of different resort municipalities and others.

In the case of Whistler, there is zoned property that allows for

two different uses. It allows for nightly rentals or longer-term

rentals. A common practice on these nightly rental properties in

Whistler, in particular — generally in the village core, but potentially

in other places — is that over the course of the winter season, that

accommodation would be provided as a nightly rental. Then, for the

summer season, it would be a fixed-term rental.

Again, this type of issue could be problematic there. I’ve

received numerous pieces of correspondence that suggest that the nightly

rentals are too valuable. The default will be: “Well, we just won’t make

any fixed-term rental accommodation available,” with the net result of

reducing accommodation opportunities.

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s another example of what we would consider for

regulation.

J. Thornthwaite: I wasn’t too sure whether this was a

section 3 or a

section 5

question, so I didn’t want to miss out on the

section 3 part. A

constituent has written me on this, the “generally eliminates the option

of including a requirement to vacate the rental unit in a fixed term

tenancy” section. He’s got a scenario here. I’d just like to read it out

into the record.

“I understand this is proposed to prevent landlords from forcing

tenants to enter a new tenancy agreement with higher uncontrolled rent

at the end of a fixed term. However, there are circumstances that

warrant fixed-term leases, especially in the case of short-term tenancy

agreements where the landlord is renting out parts or all of their

principal residence.

“For example, if a landlord is travelling for a fixed term, i.e.

snowbirds, and wishes to rent out their property for a period that

matches the fixed travel term; or if the landlord has a suite in their

principal residence occupied currently by a family member, and family

members may well be away for a fixed term, perhaps to school, etc.; or

the owner of the property passes away, and their estate wants to rent it

out for a fixed term while the estate is settled, the amendment

acknowledges that there are circumstances which a landlord may include

in a fixed-term tenancy agreement. But would those examples be included

in that exemption?”

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is actually right at the top of our list, in this kind of

situation, to include in the regulations. So if a landlord or close

family member is leaving for work, school, vacation, that will be there

in the regulation.

J. Sturdy: I apologize to the minister. I missed the earliest part of this

debate. But I just wanted to confirm that my earlier comments were

germane, not just to the manufactured home legislation, but to the

Residential Tenancy Act piece as well.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes. Thank you. That was set up by the member from False Creek —

that it applies equally.

S. Sullivan: I would like to ask a question. I think it relates to several

other sections, but it does relate partly to

section 3. So maybe this is

the time to bring it up.

One of the issues that has been discussed is that some landlords

use the fixed-tenancy lease, for example, three months or six months, as

a way to explore if the tenant-landlord relationship and the

tenant-tenant relationship will be successful. The goal is not to

subvert the intent of the rent control issues. It is just to find a way

that if a tenant clearly does not have a good relationship with the

other tenants around — maybe they’re disruptive or such — there is a way

for them to end the tenancy very quickly at the beginning so that there

won’t be a big administrative burden with the residential tenancy branch

and these kinds of things.

I just thought I would probe the minister to see if she has

considered that, or does she consider that a valid tool that some

landlords have been using?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are aware that some landlords have been using the vacate clause

as a way to test out tenants before they enter into a longer-term

tenancy. But that was never the intention of the vacate clause. That was

never the intention.

There are remedies under the act if a tenant is not appropriate.

If either their behavior or their choices do not work for the tenancy,

then there are certainly other opportunities for them — other parts of

the act for them — to use to help alleviate that situation.

S. Sullivan: Okay. Yes. There are other mechanisms. From my discussions with

some landlords, there is a lot of administrative burden that actually

does create a burden for the residential tenancy branch as well as the

landlord. Some of the landlords who are not as sophisticated as others

find it a bit of a challenge to go through that. This may be a way to

reduce the burden on the residential tenancy branch, to have an

immediate way to end the tenancy at the beginning when it’s very clear

that there is not a good relationship.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to say for the record that the very first thing we did

before we even looked at this legislation was to increase the funding

for the residential tenancy branch, because that’s what it’s set up to

do — to address some of those challenges.

It’s important, I believe, that we make sure that the vacate

clause is used for what it was always intended to be used. With this

legislation, we’re closing the loophole that several landlords were

using inappropriately. We’re just tightening up the act, as it was

intended.

[4:30 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I thank the member opposite for raising this issue at this

particular section. I was going to raise a similar issue at a subsequent

section, as it does come in at numerous places.

I want to start by commending government for actually addressing

an issue that clearly is an important issue and for providing additional

resources to the rental tenancy process, because it is a very burdensome

process. I do want to bring forward the concerns that were just

expressed. It is an issue that I raised at second reading too. The

problem is that, I suspect, there are a lot of unforeseen consequences

that might arise if this is not thought through in its

entirety.

I give an example, and the member opposite, the member for

Vancouver–False Creek, highlighted a number. One is, let’s suppose,

hypothetically, that you have a rental agreement with a number of

renters, and these renters are living in the same quarters. The problem

is that when you sign an agreement, you’re actually protecting other

renters as well as the landlord. By signing a short-term agreement, you

might have multiple people with tenancy agreements sharing rooms in a

basement suite, and in fact, what’s critical is that you ensure that

there’s a relationship not only between the landlord and the tenant but

between the tenants themselves.

Now, we understand that there is a process to go through this by

appealing, etc. But it is so burdensome, it is so impossible…. I mean,

those who have had to try to remove a tenant, even with damage or not

paying rent, can issue all the eviction notices they want, but the

reality is that it’s very, very difficult to evict a bad tenant as it

stands.

The beauty of a short term…. When I’m talking a short term — I

think the member for Vancouver–False Creek and I have discussed this —

we’re talking three months, four months. What we’re thinking here is

that you’re giving a short-term contract — this would be all done in a

regulatory fashion, obviously — which would allow for renewal but no

increase in rent attached to the unit.

What this does is…. The advocacy groups were trying to attach

rental increases to a unit. That, obviously, is not going to work, for a

variety of reasons. However, you could take what they’re suggesting for

a short-term lease of three months, say, and say that the rent cannot

increase if the tenancy is a fixed-term lease for three months. Then, in

fact, the rent increase is attached to the unit.

I’m wondering if the minister might consider this, as she

discusses with civil servants, as a means and ways of protecting not

only landlords from bad renters but other tenants as well. By having —

pick a number; say, three months…. You will allow three-month fixed-term

leases, but there can be no rent increase if a lease is terminated after

three months. The rent must remain fixed at the previous value. This

would allow landlords and other tenants to be protected in the case of

an inappropriate relationship or a tenant who’s created some

issues.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Part of what I’m hearing, actually, makes things more unstable for

renters in terms of this idea that unless they’re on their best

behaviour and no one complains about them, then they don’t know for

three months whether or not they actually will have a place to live

after 90 days. That creates more instability and, I think, more terror

for the 1½ million renters in British Columbia.

There are provisions in the act that allow a landlord, should

there be a problem tenant…. Even if it is with other tenants in the

building or in the basement suite or whatever the arrangement is, there

is an opportunity to have that tenant removed. That currently does exist

in the act.

A. Weaver: With respect, again, I reiterate that every landlord in the

province of British Columbia understands that there’s a process, but

heaven forbid you actually have to enter into this process, because the

process is very prejudicial, in my view and in many people’s view,

against the landlord.

You could have tenants who are not paying rent for months. Try to

get a tenant out if they haven’t paid rent for three months. You can get

the sheriffs involved. It’s very, very difficult, even with the existing

rules, because of the lack of teeth to those rules in a manner that

actually allows the landlord to evict those bad tenants.

[4:35 p.m.]

So I appreciate, again, the potential for uncertainty. But the

reality is, I would argue, there wouldn’t be uncertainty because right

now landlords are using such clauses for short-term reasons, and they’re

using them for precisely the reasons articulated by the member for

Vancouver–False Creek. It’s just to test rental situations. The single

most important thing for a landlord is to ensure they get a tenant who

will be there for a long term. Every landlord wants to get the tenant

who will never move out, because when they get such a tenant, they’re

not painting the walls again, they’re not replacing this. They’ve got a

stable tenant.

We’re talking about a few landlords and a few tenants in all

regards here, but we’re focused entirely on the tenants who’ve been

abused, frankly, by those few landlords who’ve created the need for this

regulation. But I worry that if we’re not thinking about those few bad

tenants as well and about protecting landlords, we could create troubles

down the road.

I’m not going to belabour this, because we’re going back and

forth. But I urge the minister, with her staff, to seriously reflect

upon the comments made by the member for Vancouver–False Creek as well

as these comments, as you move forward, to ensure that good landlords

are protected — not just by having to go through this abyss of a process

to evict bad tenants — and supported as well.

There is a danger here. In having a long conversation with the

various associations and one particular association involved with

landlords, there’s a lot of concern in the province of British Columbia

about this from landlords, good landlords — forget the bad landlords;

from good landlords — and that’s why I urge caution.

Hon. S. Robinson: I take the member’s concerns quite seriously, and our government

does. That’s why we have increased funding to the residential tenancy

branch significantly, with an additional $7 million over the next few

years. And we are developing a compliance unit that will deal with

challenging tenants and challenging landlords to make sure that is

addressed, because we have heard that landlords need some teeth for the

act. So we’re also making sure that we’re strengthening the

administrative penalties.

We’ve heard that feedback, and we’re strengthening the act. We’re

strengthening the ability of the residency tenancy branch to do its job

as it’s supposed to. We’re also simplifying the process for accessing

the residential tenancy branch and getting the help that it needs, and

we’re going to be monitoring it closely. I have asked for feedback to

make sure that it is doing what it’s supposed to do.

At the end of the day, this is about managing relationships. We

know that a landlord-tenant agreement is a relationship, and we want it

to work. I think they do work most of the time. When things do go

sideways, it’s important to have an outside body that can either help

manage that relationship or help dissolve the relationship.

The act has in it times in which you can dissolve that

relationship. Making sure that we have a robust residential tenancy

branch that has the capacity to do its job is very, very important, and

we’re going to be monitoring it closely.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to thank the minister for her thoughtful response to

the questions.

S. Sullivan: I thank my honourable friend for his concerns that he expressed. I

have a bit of a different approach on this. It is clear that there are

cases where a fixed term at the very beginning could protect other

tenants. My concern is that if landlords do not have access to an easy

way out of potentially difficult relationships, the landlords would now

tend to want to be very careful about who they let into their space,

especially in these times of very low vacancy.

[4:40 p.m.]

If a potential tenant shows up that maybe doesn’t present well,

maybe has a dog or a child or whatever other issues, would the landlords

be more likely, then, to be very conservative about who they would allow

to take the tenancy? Would that possibly harm renters who are simply

looking for a place and the landlord would be not as willing to take a

chance and may opt for a sure thing — somebody that they think is not

going to have a challenge with the relationship? I just wonder if the

minister has considered that. It might be worthy of taking that into

consideration.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I do believe that landlords are always careful. This

is a significant investment that they make, and sometimes it’s into

their own home. I invite landlords to always be very careful about who

they consider for tenancy. But I think the issue that the member is

presenting is more about a zero vacancy rate. That’s actually the bigger

challenge. I don’t think that it’s about the tenancy agreement and

eliminating the vacate clause, the way we’re proposing to do

that.

I think that he’s presented a very significant argument for why we

need to make sure that we have more rental supply — that when you have a

zero vacancy rate, landlords, who should be choosy, often leave out

those who can’t access housing.

I also want to draw the member’s attention to the fact that

tenants are protected from discrimination through the B.C. human rights

code. So you can’t discriminate because there are children. That’s

unacceptable, and we have a remedy for that as well. But at the end of

the day, we need to make sure that landlords, you know…. There is no

guarantee that if landlords use a fixed-term lease in the way that’s

being proposed, they’re not doing so for prejudicial reasons. So we do

need to make sure that there’s fairness in the system.

That’s what we’re proposing to do. That’s why our government has

really committed some significant resource into the residential tenancy

branch, because we think that will help to ease some of those

challenges.

S. Sullivan: I just want to say that I don’t believe that it’s all about the

low vacancy. It is about some tenants who, for whatever reason, don’t

present themselves well, and the landlords would be concerned. As you

note, it is a very big investment to take someone in, sometimes into

their own home, and they would want to make sure that they’re not

getting into trouble for themselves.

I think about the people who would be seeking a rental opportunity

who may, for whatever reason, not present as well as other tenants and

would, therefore, find it very difficult to get a good site, a good

home. We may actually be making it harder for them.

Whereas, if a

landlord knew that there was a way out…. “If this just doesn’t work,

okay, I can take a chance on this person.” They may be wonderful as a

tenant, and the relationship would be good, but we wouldn’t have an

opportunity to actually explore that because the landlord would say: “I

don’t have this option. I’m going to go very conservative on this, and

I’m not going to accept that tenant.”

Hon. S. Robinson: I do again want to remind everybody that this is really about

providing some assurance and some security for renters. While I do

appreciate that the example the member is providing sort of suggests

that there are going to be certain people who will be left out in the

cold and as a result, won’t be able to access housing that they need, I

do believe that’s really a function of the vacancy rate.

[4:45 p.m.]

When we have a healthier vacancy rate, no landlord wants their

suite to sit empty. They need to collect rent, so they will take a

chance, because that’s who’s coming to see it. So when you have a better

vacancy rate, I do think it’s better for all renters. Then there’s

enough homes for people. But right now I think that the significant

issue the member is raising is really more about having a near-zero

vacancy rate in many of our cities.

J. Thornthwaite: Just a quick question follow-up, because there’ve been a lot of

references to how these things will be dealt with in regulations. Does

the minister have any idea of a timeline as to when these regulations

would come into effect, since the bill could change agreements

immediately, and landlords need certainty?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to consult with my team to look at some timing. In

terms of the regulations, they will come into force when the bill is

enacted. We definitely have one regulation for that right now. In a few

more weeks, we’ll have some of the others as we go forward with

consultation.

J. Thornthwaite: Would the minister or the ministry be interested in the comments

that my colleagues and myself have been offering? Would you be

interested in hearing from our constituents directly?

Hon. S. Robinson: Absolutely.

Sections 3 to 21 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 22 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

The member for Vancouver–False Creek on section…?

S. Sullivan: I think that you passed the section, but I will just articulate it

to the minister. The issue of the sublease — that a person could take a

sublease, and that person can then have a fixed-term tenancy. Is there

some potential for abuse, in that that might be a loophole that people

could take advantage of?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to confirm that we were certainly trying to identify

if there was that risk, and the only risk that we’ve been abl