2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 39, Number 8

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Today is Animal Protection Day in British Columbia. I invite everyone to come to the south steps to witness this announcement and to also thank the SPCA for all the hard work that they do.

Speaking of which, we have the CEO for the BCSPCA, Craig Daniell, in the gallery with us. He’s very familiar with cats and dogs, and I hope we give him a good show through question period on how cats and dogs can get along really well. Would you please make Craig very welcome.

[1005]

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are Julie Upton-Raymond and her daughter Danielle Raymond of Maple Ridge. I think many members will be aware of Julie and Danielle because of the tragic death of Danielle’s sister Shannon Raymond as a result of a party bus incident. They have both been tireless advocates for greater regulation in this industry and greater protections for young people. In Danielle’s case, she has done this while pursuing her academic studies and has become a very, very capable and strong advocate, along with her mother.

Joining them today are Shannon’s uncle and aunt, Danielle’s uncle and aunt as well, Laurie and Kathy Upton of Victoria. Will the members please join me in making them welcome to this chamber.

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve had many health professionals come and visit with us in the Legislature. Today we are joined by occupational therapists from British Columbia. They work on the front lines of care. They create innovation in areas like seniors care, dementia care, driver rehabilitation, return to work and productivity.

Joining us today are Alison Patterson, Andrea McNeill, Katrina Tilley, Sarabjeet Charchun, Sarah Sinanan, Charlene Gilroy, Sharon Campbell, Jeff Boniface, Nicole Matichuk, Lori Cyr and Giovanna Boniface. They’ll be in the Rattenbury Room this afternoon, and I hope all members will take an opportunity to drop by and learn more about the great work of occupational therapists. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, visiting us from the Tri-Cities are three members of the Nepalese-Canadian community. They are Suresh Bhatta, Ramjee Parajulee and Chandrika Parajulee. They’re visiting the chamber for the first time. Would the House please make them most welcome.

D. Ashton: I ask the House to make welcome a wonderful group of kids from Holy Cross School in Penticton and some of the teachers and some of the adult chaperones. Please, again, would the House make them welcome.

C. James: I have a number of constituents who are visiting in the gallery today, including individuals who provide exceptional public service for all of us working at the Ministry of Social Development. The individuals in the gallery are Danielle Kavadas, Katarina Bogojevic, Tiffany Hamilton, Samantha Lawrence, Evon Soong, Bijan Forghani Soong and Kai Merriman. Would the House please make them very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by my mother-in-law, Gwen Stead, who joined us yesterday; my lovely wife, Georgina; and my granddaughter Miss Kylie Plock. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Workplace safety is one of our government’s top priorities. Employees deserve to work in a safe environment, and employers want to provide a safe workplace. It’s just good business. In many cases, their employees are also their neighbours and their friends.

I’m happy to introduce some friends of one of B.C.’s top occupational health and safety organizations, FIOSA-MIOSA. FIOSA-MIOSA helps more than 3,000 B.C. companies deal with their challenges and opportunities specific to manufacturing in the food and beverage industries and sets standards for health and safety. They’ll soon be changing their name to the manufacturing safety alliance.

I’m pleased to introduce some visitors to the House today. Lisa McGuire is CEO of FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance of B.C. Daneen Skilling is board chair, and national environmental health and safety manager at Andrew Peller. Maureen Shaw is president of Act Three Consulting, and Rick Gibbs is director and president of Neutron Factory Works. They’re in the gallery today, and I’d like to ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d also like to welcome some members of the Nepalese community who are visiting the House for the first time. I’d like to introduce Anil Pradhan, who is actually the president of the B.C. Nepalese society; Arpana Pradhan; and Meenu Dahal. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Sullivan: Two very special guests here. One is Christine Elliott. She is a very engaged citizen, a lawyer and an avid long-distance cyclist. We also have Justin Semkuley, who is studying now at the U of T in commerce.

[1010]

I must also introduce my other very special guest, my love, my inspiration, my motivation, the one who makes it possible for me to be here at all. Lynn, thank you.

Please welcome them all.

M. Elmore: I’m very happy to welcome my parents here today. Joining us are Ken and Maria Elmore. They’re on the Island visiting our Great Aunt Isabelle, who is 98 years old and still very feisty and going strong, and family friends joining us here.

Madame Speaker, you may not know, but I hold my parents responsible for getting me into politics. They might be surprised, since they are not interested in politics. They were not enthused when I said that I was running. But I blame them, because my grandfather, my mother’s father, was the vice-mayor of his hometown for many terms. So I think it’s in the blood. It’s just terrific. They’re a great source of inspiration and guidance to me, and very supportive now, here. I thank them for their support and ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.

L. Throness: I have friends visiting from Chilliwack today. Casey and Jane Langbroek are here. They’re lifetime residents of Chilliwack. Casey is an accountant. He was a city councillor for many years and works in all sorts of volunteer positions.

Jane also has a political past. She used to work with our former MP Ross Belsher. She works now in insurance. They brought with them two of their grandkids, Dylan Langbroek and Brett Bateman. They’re both only ten years old, and they’re already interested in politics. I’m hoping that’s a good thing.

Would the House please welcome the Langbroek family.

S. Fraser: Joining us in the gallery today are Dr. Carol Ramsey and Paul Griffiths. I’ve had the pleasure of crawling around deep underground in caves and caverns in this province. We have some amazing ones. They’re here to witness the introduction of the Cave Protection Act today. Would this House please make Paul and Carol feel very, very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yesterday was my chief of staff’s, Kit Sauder, birthday, so his mother came over from White Rock to take him out for dinner. Today she is joining us for her very first question period, despite the fact that her son has been in this building for several years. Diana Carlisle is an investment adviser with TD wealth management. I’d like the House to please make them both feel very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with my colleagues in welcoming the Nepalese delegation to the House today, and in particular Sheila Sinju from New Westminster. Welcome. I hope the House will join me in welcoming you as well.

D. Barnett: Today in the House, I have a constituent. I don’t have the privilege to have that many very often. She was born and raised in 100 Mile House. She now lives in Williams Lake, and she works for the Terry Fox Foundation. Would the House please welcome Karen McCormick today.

B. Ralston: I’d ask the House to welcome another member of the delegation of Canadians who trace their origin to Nepal. Would the House welcome Roshan KC, who is from my riding of Surrey-Whalley.

R. Chouhan: I would also like to introduce another member of the Nepalese delegation who happens to be my constituent, Drona Rasali. Please join me to welcome him and all other members of the delegation to this big House, their own House. Welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M231 — GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION TARGETS (PENALTIES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

V. Huntington presented a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Penalties) Amendment Act, 2016.

V. Huntington: I move that the bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Penalties Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

V. Huntington: This bill amends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to create a financial penalty for members of the executive council who fail to meet British Columbia’s greenhouse gas emissions targets.

[1015]

It has been nine years since government announced that B.C.’s reduction target for GHG emissions would be 33 percent below the 2007 levels by 2020. The climate leadership team predicts the target will almost certainly be missed. More importantly, should the LNG industry in British Columbia develop as government hopes, the reduction target becomes meaningless. B.C. would then join the many jurisdictions around the world that have set emissions reduction targets which are inevitably abandoned because of a failed commitment to show leadership in the fight against human-induced climate change.

This pattern of failure has to stop, and we must introduce consequences that show failure to reach emissions targets is no longer an option.

This bill would add accountability to our climate action policy and give teeth to B.C.’s emissions target. It would
[ Page 13045 ]
ensure that government representatives would face financial penalty for missing the required emissions reduction.

This bill relies on a salary holdback provision that is similar to that found in both the balanced budget and the carbon tax legislation. If emissions targets are not met, executive council will have their salary top-up held back in proportion equal to the emissions target they missed.

This act is a small step forward in ministerial accountability and would help return the public faith that this government intends to tackle climate change. If government wants to consider itself a climate leader, it needs not only meaningful emissions reduction targets but also the policies to match. This bill helps fill that policy gap.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M231, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Penalties) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M232 — CAVE PROTECTION ACT, 2016

S. Fraser presented a bill intituled Cave Protection Act, 2016.

S. Fraser: I moved that a bill intituled Cave Protection Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

S. Fraser: British Columbia is one of the most ecologically diverse regions in Canada. An important contributor to this diversity is its well over 1,000 documented caves. The caves of B.C. have been recognized worldwide for their wealth of natural, ecological and cultural resource values.

Caves are universally recognized as being the most fragile and vulnerable of our ecosystems. They can be subject to human caused disturbances occurring directly above them or sometimes taking place at considerable distance from them.

Numerous caves in British Columbia have already been damaged through ill-planned land use related to a complete absence of appropriate legislation based on science. Because they often lack the natural restorative processes that occur on the surface, cave environments can easily be overwhelmed by human caused disturbances.

Given B.C.’s rich and valuable cave heritage, one might expect that British Columbia would protect caves at all forms of government. The truth is that except for caves in parks, in ecological reserves and in several specifically designated land areas, B.C. has no real means to protect caves on Crown or private property.

B.C. currently offers far less protection than is available in other jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are watching. It is time for British Columbia to follow international example and expert scientific advice. This bill is being reintroduced as a non-partisan means to do just that.

That being said, I first introduced this bill back in 2010. This government never brought it forward, ignored the science of the day, and here we sit, six years later, with no legal impediments to damaging these most fragile of ecosystems. This legislation is informed by science, scientists and the experts. I have the formal written support of the experts in this province, in this country and around the world. Let’s do the right thing this time.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for a second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M232, Cave Protection Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M233 — SAFEGUARDING
YOUNG PEOPLE’S FUTURE ACT, 2016

G. Heyman presented a bill intituled Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, 2016.

G. Heyman: I rise to table a bill intituled the Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, 2016.

I move that it be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Heyman: In 2014, I introduced a version of this bill in the hope it would be supported by both sides of this House in order to protect young people.

The party bus industry has grown in B.C., and too many operators ignore or abet flagrant and dangerous use of alcohol and controlled substances.

[1020]

Even when drinking takes place off the vehicles, unsafe behaviours occur. Alcohol is often the principal reason for a party bus excursion. Fights are routine, young passengers have fallen from unsecured doors, and others have been left in unsafe and isolated locations following assaults. Worse, two 16-year-olds, Shannon Raymond and Ernest Azoadam, lost their lives as a result of party bus excursions.

As a result of tireless advocacy by Julie and Danielle Raymond, demands of local elected officials and increasing publicity, the minister in 2015 introduced one condition outlined in my bill. He required a special authorization licence, which allows for greater scrutiny. But the death of 23-year-old Chelsea Lynn Mist James last January highlights the need for greater monitoring of safety conditions.
[ Page 13046 ]

The driver’s job is to concentrate on the road and traffic. A second safety monitor could monitor dangerous conditions and advise the driver. Miss James, a teaching assistant, fell out of the party bus as it made a turn. The bus, with the driver unaware of the circumstance, fatally struck her as it passed.

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reported in 2014 that more than a dozen people in the U.S. and Canada had been killed and many more injured while aboard party buses in the previous four years. Washington then adopted legislation to protect young people from risks associated with this industry.

This bill seeks to enact protections for young people — indeed, all party bus passengers — through safety requirements, training and monitoring. It’s time for stronger action enshrined in law.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M233, Safeguarding Young People’s Future Act, 2016, 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)

POLITICAL SYSTEM IN NEPAL

S. Hammell: In the aftermath of a devastating earthquake last April that killed almost 9,000 people and left millions displaced, Nepal has been working hard to rebuild and reunite the country. After 2½ centuries as a monarchy, last September Nepal adopted a federal constitution for the first time in its history through an elected Constituent Assembly.

This group has become the members of the federal legislature. The federal legislature is made up of 601 members representing over 30 political parties. Complicated, wouldn’t you think, but understandable when you realize how ethnically diverse Nepal is.

Nepal is made up of more than 125 ethnic groups and 90 different languages — sounds a little bit like the Surrey school district. Now, as they create seven distinct provinces, the people of Nepal should have more of say in how they are governed.

But to add another layer of complication, Nepal is a geographically diverse country, with northern Nepal having eight of the ten tallest mountains in the world, while the south is fertile and humid. To the west, vast areas of subalpine, coniferous forest are home to hundreds of unique species of flora and fauna.

Such a diverse country needs to have a diverse leadership model, and they are taking major steps to do that. The transition from a centralized country to a federal model poses many challenges, and Nepal is being helped by groups such as the Ottawa-based Forum of Federations.

Having been there and having met so many wonderful Nepalese people, I am confident that the country of Nepal has a very bright future.

BRITANNIA SHIPYARD HISTORIC SITE
AND HERITAGE SOCIETY

J. Yap: I rise to talk about one of Canada’s national historic sites, Britannia Heritage Shipyard in Steveston, which was first built in 1890 as the site of a salmon cannery and was later used for the construction and repair of fishing boats.

This shipyard was not just boats and buildings but a historic and multicultural village consisting of canneries, boatyards, stores, residences and bunkhouses. Its diverse heritage tells us stories of the Chinese, European, First Nations and Japanese workers who turned this waterfront into a thriving community.

[1025]

Through visiting the boatyards and bunkhouses and interacting with artifacts, we can imagine in vivid detail the daily lives and living conditions of these people and learn how different ethnic communities worked together to create innovative maritime vessels, such as the legendary MV Fleetwood, a powerful rum-runner boat built in the 1930s, which, it is said, could reach speeds of 40 knots and easily outrun any law enforcement vessel.

This century-old village was built on pilings and connected by boardwalks and needs to be preserved and protected. And it is, thanks to the city of Richmond and the volunteers of Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society. They arrange tours and host activities, such as learning Morse code and how to tie different boating knots, and cultural activities that include drinking Japanese tea in the Murakami House and trying a dish of fish and rice in the Chinese bunkhouse. These interesting programs let visitors experience a bygone era when fishing and boatbuilding were flourishing industries on the Fraser River.

I know you will join me in thanking the board members who have made Britannia the amazing cultural and community asset that it is. Kudos to the chair, Loren Slye, and to directors Dan Baxter, Kerry Hassan, Eric Fisher, Carl Hibbert, Andy Hobbs, David Chin, Simon Fawkes, Ann Phelps, Jesse Nakatsura, Niels Andersen, Rob Hayman, Terry McPhail, Kirby Graeme and Jack Scoular.

PARENT ADVOCACY NETWORK
FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

D. Eby: In June of last year, a group of parents with children in Vancouver public schools came together to make a commitment to improve Vancouver’s public edu-
[ Page 13047 ]
cation system through engagement, advocacy and public outreach. They’ve called their group the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education.

It’s a grassroots, non-partisan coalition of parents that now has representation in over 70 Vancouver schools and parent advisory councils. The children of PAN’s membership attend schools from across the city. Despite geographical separation, these parents are united by their deep commitment to their children and the rights of all children to a high-quality public education as a way to reduce income inequality and improve opportunity for all of B.C.’s kids.

The group meets at least once a month and is highly engaged in issues related to public education. Parents Andrea Sinclair, Maggie Milne, Jennifer Stewart, Amanda Hillis, Erica Jaffi, Corine Wilems, Gili Avrahami, Melanie Antweiler, Rayana Guerin, Heather Legal, Makeesha Fisher and Alan Patola Moosmann spend their time organizing on a shoestring budget to ensure local families are informed on the latest issues.

By sharing the latest research and information about public education with parents directly, PAN is highly effective in ensuring parent discussion and feedback about provincial and school board policies that affect Vancouver schools and students is informed and relevant.

Their latest project is a toolkit for parents that will include fact sheets, a glossary of terms for letter writing, on-line tools and resource lists, event planning information, helpful hints for social media, help on how to make great petitions and how to write letters to the editor.

PAN members have met with every Vancouver school board trustee; attended rallies with other concerned parents, teachers and students; and written considered and thoughtful letters to their local MLAs as well as the Minister of Education.

In a time when we’re all concerned about less engagement in our political system, fewer people voting, fewer people engaging in community debate, the Parent Advocacy Network is a welcome movement away from that trend. Thank you to the many members of the Parent Advocacy Network for your commitment to ensure B.C.’s public school system provides a high-quality public education to every B.C. student.

CLAYBURN VILLAGE HERITAGE SITE

S. Gibson: I want to take this opportunity to speak about a historical treasure in my constituency of Abbotsford-Mission, just east of Highway 11.

For well over 100 years, Clayburn Village has served as an important reminder of Abbotsford’s history. Located at the foot of Sumas Mountain, Clayburn was the first company town in the province. It was built by the Clayburn Co. to provide its workers with housing and other services.

It was the discovery of high-grade clay in the area and the demand for bricks to build a growing British Columbia that gave the Clayburn Co. its boost and brought the village into being.

The company was founded in 1905 by Charles Maclure, one of B.C.’s pioneers. Later on there was a road, Maclure Road, named after him, a major artery in our community. The quality of his product became known around the world, being marketed as far away as Mexico and Hawaii, before the factory was dismantled in 1931 due to falling demand.

Clayburn Village is a reminder of Abbotsford’s exciting entrepreneurial and shared heritage. Many of the buildings are still standing in the village and have been designated as national historic sites, a testament to the craftsmanship of our province’s early pioneers and the importance we place on preserving history.

[1030]

Clayburn Store is a delightful place in the village where you can get a delicious treat and British tea and a scone.

I would encourage all members of our house to come out to Clayburn Village — it’s only about an hour from Vancouver — and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the community. I’m very proud to represent the Clayburn community here in our Legislature.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

M. Elmore: They care for the things we value the most: our families and our friends. They care for your children, provide essential support for seniors, and they allow people with disabilities to live with dignity at home. Domestic workers perform the home care work that makes all other work possible. Yet for many years, they’ve laboured in the shadows, and their work is not valued.

There’s an international campaign underway to change that. International Domestic Workers Day, on June 16, celebrates the 2011 passage of the International Labour Organization’s convention 189 for decent work for domestic workers. The convention represents a historic step towards domestic work being recognized like any other profession, and it works to establish fundamental labour protections.

This international treaty acknowledges domestic workers as equal to any other wage earners. Convention 189 brings domestic workers international recognition and dignity, where previously they were unrecognized and undervalued, though they number millions in the world and are mostly women.

The majority are racialized and are mothers, themselves, who left their own families. Although they contribute much to our economy, they do not enjoy the same rights and benefits as other workers. Domestic workers perform the lowest-paid work in any labour market, and they experience poor and even abusive working conditions.

The protection of domestic workers’ rights should not rely on the compassion of employers. It must be guaranteed by governments. They should have a path to perma-
[ Page 13048 ]
nent residency and open work permits in order to live, work, study, access social benefits and be fully protected. They deserve dignity, respect and basic labour protections.

Twenty-two countries around the world have already signed onto convention 189. It is time that Canada also ratifies it and for B.C. to enact legislation to protect these vulnerable and valuable workers.

JOHN VOLKEN ACADEMY
ADDICTION RECOVERY CENTRE

M. Hunt: I rise today to recognize an exceptional institution doing great work in my community to help people affected by addiction overcome their illness and change their lives. The John Volken Academy first opened its doors almost 15 years ago as WelcomeHome. Last April it unveiled a fantastic new facility in Surrey that accommodates 150 students undergoing treatment for drug and alcohol addictions.

The academy’s treatment program centres around establishing a therapeutic community where all students are considered equal in their individual fights to overcome addiction. Whereas other institutions often depend upon treatment through pharmaceuticals such as methadone, treatment at the academy operates through a human support system. Students assist and encourage each other to conquer their illness, growing and changing as a group as well as individuals along the way.

The academy is also committed to giving its students the skills and knowledge they need to lead rewarding and meaningful lives post-treatment. Students progress through six levels of advancement towards graduation and are given increased opportunities, responsibilities and leadership positions to build their confidence and abilities during treatment. Additionally, students who show interest in furthering their education have the opportunity to enrol in on-line courses in their area of interest through universities in Arizona, Washington state and British Columbia, including a certificate in agritech and horticulture recognized by the University of the Fraser Valley.

I would like to thank the Volken Academy for all the work it has done and the lives it has changed by offering a message of hope. This treatment regime has allowed students to conquer their addiction, improve themselves and, in so doing, realize their full potential to lead meaningful lives.

[1035]

Oral Questions

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
IN LOWER MAINLAND

D. Eby: When the amount of the Premier’s $50,000-a-year stipend finally became public, the Premier had a strong defender, and I’m not talking about the leader of the B.C. Green Party. Peter Brown, longtime B.C. Liberal Party fundraiser, couldn’t see any problems with the Premier taking home $300,000 over five years from donations made to the B.C. Liberal Party. Now that same Mr. Brown just sold his mansion in Vancouver for $31.1 million, $5.6 million over the assessed value. He sold it to a student.

Now, when hard-working families see that the very person defending the Premier’s stipend making tens of thousands of dollars in donations to the Premier’s B.C. Liberal Party, selling his home for $31.1 million to a student, all while the Finance Minister says, “Nothing to see here in the Metro Vancouver housing market,” they ask the question: is this government wilfully blind to what’s happening in the Metro Vancouver housing market because their donors like it that way?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me offer up for the member, and members, something that I am eminently familiar with, out in the part of the province that I call home, the eastern Fraser Valley. I can name at least six families who have made this decision, whose children, or child, may want to attend the Vancouver Film School or UBC. They make the decision to purchase a home for that child, and it represents an investment. Well….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: They make that decision as a family, and it represents an investment and a home for that child to live in.

Now, the members…. The member appears offended by that notion. Beyond that, I would suggest that it’s time for the member to get beyond the generalities. We’ve increased the property transfer tax. I’m not going to comment on any specific transaction, but I can tell members this: on a $31 million purchase and sale, the property transfer tax is now, as a result of the increase that was included in the budget, nearly $1 million.

Now, the member, as he is entitled, presumably doesn’t think that’s enough. If he wants to be taken seriously, why doesn’t he stand up — because he’s got another crack at it — and tell us what he thinks is enough? Tell us how much the vacancy tax that he would propose to impose is going to be. Tell British Columbians how much the speculation tax that he keeps talking about is going to be. Stop lurching from idea to idea in abstract, and give British Columbians some specifics.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: I was hoping, for the first time since I’ve been here, that the Premier would stand up and talk about her commitment to providing student housing.
[ Page 13049 ]

Now, this Finance Minister says: “No problem. No problem in Metro Vancouver’s housing market.” But a new study, released yesterday, says that couples between the ages of 25 and 35 years old in Vancouver have the lowest discretionary income of anywhere in Canada, so low that it’s actually negative. Couples in the same age group in Victoria have the third-lowest discretionary income of anywhere in Canada. Choosing to live in almost any other city in Canada means an extra $10,000 or more in discretionary income.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

D. Eby: I don’t know. Is this a joke for the government?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

D. Eby: As long as the donors are happy, hon. Speaker.

[1040]

To the Premier, who needs $240,000 a year to live in Metro Vancouver, how can she defend two of the three lowest-discretionary-income cities in Canada being in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is regrettable that the member appears to want, merely, to deal in the abstract and not provide actual facts, actual….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: You know, it’s not the first time I have heard the opposition propose tax increases for British Columbians and not want to tell them how much. That, of course, is what they are proposing.

But look, back to good news. StatsCan….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

Proceed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Madame Speaker.

StatsCan has posted their numbers for the country in terms of economic growth and, for 2015, has confirmed that British Columbia has not only led the nation again; we are almost three times the national rate, at 3 percent economic growth. I know that the Minister of Jobs was talking about that yesterday when she spoke at the Canada’s Building Trades…. I’m sure members of the opposition who were there would’ve heard…. Oh, of course, they weren’t there, because they weren’t invited.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This minister has a lot of questions. He’ll have a lot of time to ask questions when he and his government are sitting on this side of the House after the next election. We hid our secret agenda in a private member’s bill that the government can call any day if they’d like to pass it.

According to this Finance Minister, everything’s under control. Everything’s normal. So a normal real estate market for this government is one where a student can scrape together $5.6 million over the assessed value and pay $31.1 million for a house in Vancouver. Now, that’s a market where the average 25- to 35-year-old in Metro Vancouver has negative income. If this is all-systems-normal for this government, I don’t know what information it’s going to take to convince them otherwise.

The Finance Minister says he’s going to study the market himself, personally, and let us know if he sees a problem. Well, what information in his study will convince him that there’s a problem with affordability in Metro Vancouver’s housing market?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t want to leave an incorrect impression. I quite enjoy the exchange with the dauphin of the NDP.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, now I am troubled, Madame Speaker. [Laughter.]

Look, there is, clearly, a market dynamic at play that I think is of concern to people in, particularly, one part of British Columbia. There seem to be emerging two theories around approach, and I have acknowledged this openly.

[1045]

I and the government believe that, primarily, where the focus should be is on improving supply and reducing some of the pressure that accrues from having way more people looking for a finite product.

The opposition, from what I can gather, takes a very different view. Yesterday the member’s colleague from Mount Pleasant, in very clear terms, described it as a demand problem. It seems that the opposition, given the chance, would address that in the way the NDP traditionally addresses that. They would raise taxes and create an
[ Page 13050 ]
economy that discourages people from coming to British Columbia. We think that’s the wrong approach.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

C. James: I’d like to let the Finance Minister know that this side of the House will always stand up for affordability for families in British Columbia. That is what we are going to stand up for.

Most students I know are trying to figure out how to pay off student loans. They aren’t trying to figure out how to take out a $9.9 million mortgage on a $31 million house.

This housing crisis is not simply in the Lower Mainland, as the minister has said. It’s actually right here in Victoria as well. According to the Vancity report, Victoria is the third-worst city in the country when it comes to affordability. Very few families can afford to buy a house. If they do, they have little left over for their basic monthly expenses.

My question is to the minister. How can the government believe that this is acceptable?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member, I presume, purposely chooses to ignore the steps that the government has taken.

I regret, by the way, that the member and her colleagues seem to dismiss the importance of collecting sound data. I realize the opposition, historically, doesn’t want to be burdened by the facts. Maybe that is why they decided to stop collecting the information in the 1990s. We think, on a matter of this importance, it is valid and legitimate to want to collect information.

I was unsuccessful with the member’s colleagues, but I invite this member…. She is, apparently, advocating an approach to this that is rooted in tax increases. So stand in this place, this public forum, and tell British Columbians. If the 3 percent additional property transfer tax that the government added in the last budget is not enough, what would the property transfer tax be under the NDP? If they want to create a speculation tax, tell British Columbians in what circumstances and at what rate that speculation tax would apply. If they want to tax people who buy condos and whose strata councils preclude rentals, tell British Columbians what the rate on the vacancy tax would be.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: If the minister wants to do a bit of research, go back and read the bill that was tabled by our leader in the Legislature, with solutions coming forward.

It’s not just market housing that is unaffordable for young couples, for families, for seniors. As this report tells us, Vancouver has the highest rent in this country, paired with a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent. The rental vacancy rate in Victoria is 0.06 percent. For families who choose to rent rather than buy, even if they can find a place to rent, they’re struggling to make it month to month.

My question, again, is to the Finance Minister. Whether it’s trying to buy a home or finding a place to rent, housing is a basic need that is out of reach for so many people in our province. When will this government act to address what is a crisis?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure I could have made a better argument than the member just did for the fact that what we have is a supply issue in British Columbia.

Surely everything she has just said points to the fact that what governments at all levels need to do is find a way to expedite the construction of the thousands of units of housing that are…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …languishing in applications and zoning departments.

Interjections.

[1050]

Madame Speaker: Just wait, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m actually gratified to know that at least one member opposite, from Vancouver, acknowledges that as part of our robust economy, homes are being built in record numbers. That’s good news for the construction sector and good news for families. But there is more that can be done, and I think the hon. member has made an excellent case for how governments must work together to ensure that the supply of housing grows and that those options exist for British Columbians that want to fulfil the dream of home ownership.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND LNG DEVELOPMENT

A. Weaver: I had so many questions I wanted to ask today, but unfortunately, the Premier’s estimates ended early. I guess the Leader of the Official Opposition was afraid, as I was scheduled to be up on the Premier’s estimates today. So let me pick just one of these questions.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.
[ Page 13051 ]

A. Weaver: Last week the Premier commented on the wildfire situation in Fort McMurray. Remarkably, she used the disaster as an opportunity to point out the importance of investment in the oil and gas sector. A couple of weeks prior, the Premier told a group in Fort St. John: “If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control.”

While the scientific community has understood the link between global warming and the increasing occurrence of large wildfires for quite some time, the Premier’s statement is utterly bizarre. It’s about time that this government level with British Columbians and point out that developing an LNG industry in B.C. is simply not compatible with climate leadership.

My question to the Premier is this. How can the Premier continue to talk about showing climate leadership while at the same time completely undermining the climate policies put in place by the previous administration and using every opportunity to promote fossil fuel development in this province?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member’s questions, given that I didn’t get that opportunity yesterday. And thanks to the member for the question. He and I, there is no doubt….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: There is no doubt that the member and I have a fundamental disagreement about this. He’s stated his case, and now I’ll state mine, and that is to say that around the world today, there are 1,000 coal plants on the books, ready to be built, 150 of them in and around Beijing, in China. The only way that those coal plants will be prevented from being built is if they have an alternative source of energy. And that energy needs to be a transitional fuel that is already in production around the world, which we can get there.

But here’s the problem. We all want to move to renewable energies, and we would all, ultimately…. I know Canada has committed to the international commitment of trying to get off fossil fuels altogether. We are not there yet. And the challenge for humanity today is: how do we make sure that we prevent those coal plants from being built? How do we minimize the GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced in the processing and production of that energy?

British Columbia can play a vital part in that by producing the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, by producing it in the cleanest method that anyone does around the globe, by shipping it to places like China, displacing much dirtier fuels with this very clean and important transitional fuel and, at the same time, creating over 100,000 jobs over 30 years for British Columbians — which I know the members of the opposition, every single day, will stand up and oppose.

[1055]

Madame Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: This government has got its own Climate Action Team, and they noted: “New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012.” In fact, we’ve weakened or repealed a number of these existing policies.

The government really can no longer claim leadership and, frankly, have lost credibility on the climate leadership file. The province has a legislated goal to reduce carbon emissions from the current 62 megatonnes to 43 megatonnes by 2020, and 13 megatonnes by 2050. One single LNG plant would add 15 megatonnes, and every British Columbian would have to provide negative emissions by 2050.

My question to the Premier is this. Will she commit today to abandon this government’s reckless and desperate attempts to land a hypothetical LNG project via a generational sellout and, instead, commit to aggressively increase the price on carbon and begin the transformation of our economy towards a low-carbon future, or instead, will she continue to do her part to commit the youth of today to a desperate future of species extinction and geopolitical instability?

Hon. C. Clark: I have to say that was such a long question that it might have been more suited to the estimates process than question period. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to do that today.

I will say this. The investment in British Columbia for LNG so far is not hypothetical. The $20 billion invested in boots on the ground in our province is not hypothetical. We remain the only jurisdiction in Canada and in North America that has the highest and broadest carbon tax. We are well out in front of any province in this country, any state in the United States, by a long shot.

We continue to maintain the only carbon-neutral government in Canada. We are working to build Site C, which will be a source of clean, low-cost energy for generations to come, despite the opposition of the members across the way. We are poised to make the biggest contribution to fighting climate change that Canada has ever made, with the export of liquefied natural gas.

I know that the forces of no across the way, in the NDP, oppose every step of the way the creation of an LNG industry and the jobs that would come from it for all of those working people around the world. But at least they can admit that while we’re putting…. If they don’t want to put people to work, they should at least join us in wanting to fight climate change by exporting this cleanest fossil
[ Page 13052 ]
fuel on the planet and displacing those dirtier sources of fuel that will otherwise inevitably be built.

PAID-DONOR PLASMA CLINICS

J. Darcy: Tens of thousands of Canadians have joined with victims of the tainted blood scandal to urge governments right across this country to ban pay-for-plasma clinics. There is a very real fear that these paid clinics will hurt the safety and the security of Canadian blood and put it at risk, yet this Health Minister, for reasons unknown, has taken an aggressive position in favour of pay-for-plasma clinics.

Now, Canadian Plasma Resources, a division of a giant pharmaceutical company, has a clinic operating in Saskatchewan, and they’ve announced that they expect to double their production in Canada very soon.

To the Minister of Health, is he aware of specific plans for a private corporation to open a pay-for-plasma clinic in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is absolutely wrong. I am ideologically neutral on the issue. The member is….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: The members are just wrong. We have said we recognize that currently 70 percent of the plasma protein products that save lives in Canada come from paid donors — not in Canada, but in the United States and in Europe.

[1100]

The idea of becoming more self-sufficient in plasma proteins for Canadians actually seems like a pretty good one. Canadian Blood Services is unable to meet the need through the voluntary system we have. If we do not acknowledge that paid plasma is necessary to save lives, then I want the hon. members to stand up and say today, to patients who need that valuable product, what they would do when that source is no long there.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: The minister is just dead wrong on this, because the CEO of Canadian Blood Services has been crystal-clear that just because there’s a Canadian blood operator doesn’t mean CBS would be buying it from Canada. He’s just wrong about that.

Let’s be clear about how Canadian Plasma Resources got started in Ontario. First, they spent money to set up clinics. They didn’t bother to seek federal approval before they started operating. Then they went ahead with collecting blood without the okay from the province.

Safe-blood advocates and the Ontario government worked for two years to shut them down. Now it seems this company may be trying the same tactic in B.C. We know that both the minister’s office and the Premier’s office have met with lobbyists acting for Canadian Plasma Resources.

To the Minister of Health, has this company given him any indication if they plan to press ahead with a pay-for-plasma clinic in B.C., and what was the minister’s response?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I want to make it clear that the Canadian Hemophilia Society, a very important patient advocacy group, says that paid plasma donation is not a health risk. That argument has been laid to rest by all levels of scientists and government organizations.

The member still refuses to tell this House what she would say to patients that don’t have the life-saving medication that they need. And she hasn’t said that she doesn’t think it’s hypocritical that we get paid plasma to save lives today from the United States, from Europe, rather than Canadian sources. Health Canada regulates this area. In British Columbia, we want to make sure that critical medicines are available for British Columbians.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

R. Fleming: Saanich school district — and every school district — has told this government that provincial cuts and downloading of costs are forcing our school system into deficit. Saanich has stable enrolment. They’ve already made a decade of cuts. There is no low-hanging fruit. It’s clear that the Liberal’s so-called administrative savings are, in fact, cuts to the classroom, and the minister knows it. It means firing teachers and learning assistants, eliminating counsellors, cutting mental health programs and hitting parents with more fees to make up for B.C. Liberal underfunding of education.

What is striking about this situation is how utterly unnecessary it is. If the minister were to cancel his cuts and do one other thing — fund the Telus Internet contract — Saanich school district and every other district in British Columbia could balance their budgets. Osoyoos could save its high school. Communities like Kersley could keep their local schools instead of putting five- and six-year-old kids on buses for hours a day starting next year.

My question to the minister is this: will the minister finally stand up in this House and stand up for investment in our kids’ education? Or does he still think that his government’s $230 million tax cut for millionaires is more important than an investment in education?

Hon. M. Bernier: Just to set the record straight, I met with the Saanich school district. I really want to thank them for the work that they are doing. In fact, they had a meeting just last night, and they announced at that meeting that they’re going to be able to put forward a balanced budget.

[1105]

When you look at what’s going on around the province, when you look at the fact that we have record funding — $5.1 billion going into the education system, a $100 million increase this year…. We continue to work with the school districts right around the entire province to make sure — why, hon. Speaker? — that money, record funding money, is going into the classroom. It is going into programs. It’s going to help the students in the province of British Columbia achieve what we all know in this House, that the members opposite don’t like to admit to, which is the great outcomes that we have that are known globally as some of the best in the world — what we’re getting in our education system in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports.

Auditor General report, An Audit of Mid-Size Capital Procurement in Post-Secondary Institutions; Auditor General report, Improving Budgeting and Expenditure Management in the Public Education System.

Officer of the Registrar of Lobbyists Investigation Report 16-03, lobbyist: Gordon Quaiattini; Investigation Report 16-04, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos; Investigation Report 16-05, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos.

Petitions

H. Bains: These are the petitions by manufactured home owners asking for better protection when the park owner decides to develop the land and gives them eviction notices.

Hon. J. Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Rustad: With us in the gallery today are grades 11 and 12 students and the chaperone from the Houston Christian School in my riding. Joining them is their principal, Clint Endacott. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s Committee of Supply and the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services; and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act.

[1110]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(GENERAL) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On section 1.

L. Popham: The proposed legislation is around changes to the Agricultural Land Commission and the powers that it has. The changes, to me, are quite interesting. I wonder if the minister could explain to me: why is he putting forward this amendment now?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to thank the hon. member for the question and also introduce the staff that are with me. Linda Bates, our legislative specialist, and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Derek Sturko, are here to assist with answering the questions.

Probably a couple of years ago, maybe even three years ago, the commission was discussing doing a boundary review in parts of the province. We, as a government, supported that by providing them with extra resources. Actually, between three years ago and today, since I’ve had the privilege of this role, their budget has gone from $1.9 million to $4.5 million. Part of that increase was to work with local communities to do boundary reviews in some areas.

The timeline of the boundary reviews talked about doing a pilot project in the East Kootenays to begin with and, as the pilot project came to fruition, taking the learnings from that pilot project and applying them to other areas as it expanded out of the Kootenays and further north.

During the pilot project, we heard from local residents who were going to be excluded from the agricultural land reserve that they wanted to stay within the reserve. We also received submissions, verbal and written, from members of the House on both sides suggesting that, indeed, those citizens should be respected in the sense that if they don’t provide consent to getting their land removed from the reserve, they shouldn’t have to be forced out.

[1115]

Government considered all the input that we’ve received over the last couple of years and then made a decision to do exactly that. That’s how we got to today — to ensure that if someone is going to be getting their land removed from the agricultural land reserve, they need to provide their consent before that can happen.

L. Popham: Given all the input that the minister received, what were the variety of reasons that people wanted to stay in the agricultural land reserve?
[ Page 13054 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: The number one concern that people had was the impact on their property taxes.

L. Popham: Given that that was the majority of the reasons, the minister decided at that point that people should have the choice to stay within an agricultural land reserve that is governed by a commission whose mandate is to protect agricultural land and to encourage farming — that they should be allowed, by choice, to override a commission decision to stay in the reserve for tax purposes.

Hon. N. Letnick: Actually, the way it works is if they don’t give consent, the commission doesn’t have the opportunity to review their file and make a decision to remove them from the reserve. So they’re not overriding the commission. They have to provide consent first.

The other piece, besides property taxes, is the school tax issue as well.

L. Popham: From my understanding, if you have land within the agricultural land reserve, your school tax payment is 50 percent of the going rate?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes. That’s correct.

L. Popham: Okay. If the Agricultural Land Commission assessed property and showed that it had absolutely no agricultural value, with this legislation they would still stay in the agricultural land reserve regardless of a boundary review and, by doing so, would pay only 50 percent of school taxes and a reduced amount of property tax?

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to repeat the process as per the proposed legislation.

The Agricultural Land Commission, as they’re doing their boundary reviews, would come into a community and identify potential lands that they believe might be removed from the agricultural land reserve. They would then seek the consent of those property owners — if they would consent to be considered for those decisions.

If the property owners provide their consent, then the Agricultural Land Commission would go about doing its work to determine the agricultural values of those parcels. If the commission does not get the consent, the property owner would not be subject to that review through the boundary review.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what the value of these lands would be to an agricultural land reserve, given the reasons why we know the reserve was established?

What would add value to the reserve in allowing these properties to stay in it?

[1120]

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I want to reiterate that the purpose of the amendment to the legislation is to provide property owners the ability to have their choice as to whether or not to be considered for removal from the agricultural land reserve.

The commission still has their independence, to make sure that they continue to protect agricultural land throughout British Columbia, but when they’re doing these specific boundary reviews, we are listening to those property owners from that area. Quite frankly, as I said to the media yesterday — which I’m sure the hon. member has had a chance to see — we have two local MLAs, from both sides of the House, expressing their opinion that these citizens should have the opportunity to provide their consent, in a trial run in a place in the Kootenays, a pilot project.

Thereby, I would suspect, as the boundary review continues throughout many parts of the province, we would have a continuous story from local property owners, some of whom would not want to have their lands included in this review, where the local MLAs — again, on both sides of the House — would be coming to the minister of the day saying: “Why are you doing this?”

I thought, and I still do believe, that it’s in the best interest of agriculture that the Agricultural Land Commission focus on those properties and that the property owners provide consent to have their lands considered for removal.

L. Popham: Well, that’s an interesting answer. Maybe the minister could remind me of the purpose of a boundary review.

Hon. N. Letnick: The purpose of the review is for the land commission to refine the boundaries of the reserve. As the member knows, when the original boundaries were created back in the early ’70s, they were done with a wide brush. This provides a little more articulation as to where the boundaries should be.

L. Popham: In establishing new boundaries through a boundary review, what is the purpose of doing that? Is it to increase the value of the agricultural land reserve? Is it to make the agricultural land reserve more defensible?

I’m wondering how the option to stay in the reserve without any agricultural value fits into the idea of spending money on a boundary review by government.

[1125]

Hon. N. Letnick: We believe that the boundary review will help the ALC in continuing its mandate. As the member knows, there are applications on an annual basis for exclusions and inclusions into the land reserve. By doing the boundary review and tightening up the boundaries of the reserve, that should help reduce those applications.
[ Page 13055 ]

L. Popham: My interpretation of a boundary review is this. Once a boundary review is completed, that boundary review is a decision. Those are the decisions that have been made. It’s one decision on the boundaries that are being reviewed.

The value of doing that is that we don’t continually have one-off applications that add weight onto the workload of the commission. The money that’s invested in a boundary review is really to take the place of having continual application processes. The properties that have no agricultural value should be coming out of the agricultural land reserve, and properties that do have agricultural value go back into the agricultural land reserve.

On the Elk Valley boundary review, the proposal was to exclude 1,437 hectares of land and to include 739 hectares of land. This means that there was 1,437 hectares of land that were within the boundary review that had no agricultural value.

When an application comes into the Agricultural Land Commission, the problem that we’ve seen over the years is that there is an increasing number of applications, because the highest and best use for agricultural land is development, in some people’s minds. There are a lot of other uses for agricultural land.

The Agricultural Land Commission, with its mandate to protect the agricultural land, is stuck, because it’s a constant pressure to remove land from the ALR for other purposes. If we do not shore up the boundaries and fine-tune the boundaries, then we are asking for this continual application process to continue.

There’s something that I’d like to point out, and it’s something that I’ve heard in the media — that there has been a tie to farm tax status for properties in the agricultural land reserve. You do not have to be in the agricultural land reserve to get farm tax status. You can be outside of it. You have to meet a certain amount of productivity to be able to get farm tax status, which gives you a reduction in property tax.

If you stay in the agricultural land reserve, you’ve never farmed, your farm has zero agricultural value, you’re still receiving tax benefits for being in a reserve that is specifically put in place as a land use tool to preserve agricultural land.

I’m going to ask the minister again. What is the value to the agricultural land reserve of keeping land in that has no agricultural value? This decision of his — does it have anything to do with agriculture?

[1130]

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d just like to remind the member that the review is a process. The decision on the boundaries isn’t done in a single decision of the commission. It’s done on a case-by-case basis, based on a particular parcel or parcels of property.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

What we are saying with the proposed amendment is that if you’re not going to give consent to have your property removed from the reserve, then the commission should not be reviewing and removing your land from the reserve. We’ve also said that we are doing this primarily because of the objections by the property owners in the pilot area because of the impact from school taxes.

It is important to remember that the commission can and will probably continue to hear applications on farm use, on exclusions, on inclusions, even in areas where they’ve already done boundary reviews. Property owners may want to include their land in at some point. Others might want to exclude. Others might want to do non-farm use, like a mechanic shop or a tax office or something else that the commission, in its independent wisdom, determines is appropriate for the land.

I made it very clear what this is about. It’s been, I assume, supported by some members of the opposition. At least, I know one. It’s also supported by the government to make sure that if the commission has an intent to review the boundaries of the reserve, if they are going to do that, they get permission — consent is probably the better word — or consent from the individual property owner to have their land considered for exclusion.

L. Popham: I’d just like to have it on record. Does the minister believe that keeping land in the agricultural land reserve, with absolutely no agricultural value, threatens the defensibility of the reserve?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, the process is that the property owner has to give consent before the commission determines whether or not the land has agricultural value. The member is presuming a conclusion which has not occurred. We are talking about consent prior to the commission making any determination.

L. Popham: While looking on the website, I saw that there are two reviews that are almost complete. What happens to that work that’s been done?

Hon. N. Letnick: That’s under section 3, the transitional provisions.

L. Popham: Well, then, let’s put it in the context of section 1. If work has been done and properties have been assessed…. I think we both know they have been. I think we know there has been ongoing work being done. So if there has been….

What the minister is saying to me today is that the commission absolutely has no mandate over the agricultural land reserve in an area that’s having a boundary review. They have no mandate over that. Landowners, individually, do. So the commission cannot weigh in on agricultural value. How they do that is they look at it in a scientific way, and they use soil classification to do that.
[ Page 13056 ]

The Agricultural Land Commission, who we’ve given the power to protect our agricultural land in this province, is not allowed to weigh in on the scientific agricultural capability of a piece of land unless a property owner says they can do it, even though they’re inside the agricultural land reserve.

[1135]

Hon. N. Letnick: There are two parts to the process. I’ll just go through them. In the case of what’s happening currently, the review of an area would be done. Parcels would be identified, and then public hearings would be held. That’s all we have so far in the areas that were in the pilot, so no decision has been announced yet.

In the future, if this amendment passes, the review would be done, parcels would be identified, hearings would be held, and then the landowner would be asked for consent if they wanted to be considered for a decision. Again, no decision would be done prior to their consent. I’m only speculating, but I would imagine that the ALC, if this is passed, would actually go to the parcel owners when they’re identified and ask for consent at that point, but that would be up to them.

Just to repeat, for the ones that have already been done, the review has been done, parcels identified, hearings held, but no decision has been made on those yet.

L. Popham: The minister said that one of the main reasons that somebody who had a piece of land that had no agricultural value would want to stay in the reserve was to avoid paying school taxes. Could the minister tell me how much that would be?

Hon. N. Letnick: Land in the ALR, farmed or not, receives an exemption from school tax of 50 percent of the assessed value of the parcel of the land. If the land in the ALR is farmed, it receives additional 50 percent tax credit for school taxes payable. Land not in the ALR but farmed receives a 50 percent tax credit for school taxes payable only. All dwellings, buildings on the land, regardless of whether it in the ALR or not, pay the full school tax amount.

L. Popham: The minister must have done some analysis on how many properties this would pertain to. Can the minister tell me what he’s learned?

[1140]

Hon. N. Letnick: We have two areas in the Kootenays, area B and area E. In area B, 440 acres have been identified for exclusion, out of the total area of approximately 4,200 acres. So 440 acres out of 4,200 acres. And in area E, 395 acres have been identified for exclusion, out of a total area of 5,000 acres.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: if those properties identified for exclusion were excluded, how much school tax would that add up to?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, it’s “possible exclusion,” not “exclusion,” and we don’t have that information.

L. Popham: I’m surprised the minister doesn’t have that information, because this legislation is…. It’s not an agricultural amendment. It’s a tax amendment. So I would expect that a thorough analysis of the tax implications would have been done.

So I think it’s a reasonable question to ask: how much school tax would be collected if these properties were excluded after they were found to have no agricultural value?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll just try to answer the question directly without trying to editorialize and go back and forth on the comments as the member tries to keep sliding in. Otherwise, we’ll be here all day.

Just to answer the question directly, this is not a reduction in taxes. This is maintaining the status quo of taxes. This is mostly about the principle — the principle of being able to provide consent if your land is going to be removed from the agricultural land reserve or, for that matter, if you are applying to have your land included or excluded. If you are applying, you provide consent, because you are making an application.

What we’re saying here is that the land commission…. If they’re going to be making a decision to remove your land — which they haven’t yet — they should seek the consent of the property owner.

L. Popham: If the commission does its review and it identifies properties…. It has to analyze the properties, because if it doesn’t analyze the properties and look at the soil capability, then there would be no reason to approach a landowner one way or the other.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

They have to have had some analysis before they approach a landowner. You wouldn’t approach them just to say: “Can we analyze your land?” There are soil classifications. I don’t believe it’s done lot by lot, but it might be. I think that there is quite a thorough review of the… Let’s use the Elk Valley boundary review. There’s some knowledge that we have. The agricultural land….

I think maybe this is a good time to review the history of boundary reviews. Okay? So the minister can get comfortable, because it’s quite an extensive history. I think, by the end of this, the minister will have a hard time defending his choice of legislation today, because I think what he’s doing is that he’s creating a tax shelter, in a way, within an agricultural land reserve. But we’ll have that discussion.

[1145]

For those that are following this discussion, it goes all the way back to 1972. The minister knows this, I know. The agricultural land reserve wasn’t established then, but there was a land freeze that took place, and a year later the Agricultural Land Commission Act was adopted. At this point, there was a huge analysis of our province. We didn’t have the technology to make it that accurate, but we did a fairly thorough analysis of our soils in British Columbia, and we came up with — compared with the rest of the province — a very small percentage of land that you would classify as having agricultural potential.

Now, the confirmation of the ALR happened between 1974 and ’75. What the result of that was, was 4.7 million hectares of land in our province that was identified. Compared to the rest of our province, that’s not that much. We have a very small amount of agricultural land that has agricultural capabilities.

Within that land, within that zone — the agricultural land reserve — there was obviously property that should have been included and should be excluded. So a tool was brought in to try and identify those properties and make the agricultural land reserve fully about agricultural production and agricultural potential so that the commission that was overseeing this could fulfil its mandate of protecting agricultural land. They started to do a fine-tuning program. This was the beginning of boundary reviews.

This fine-tuning program would allow the commission to go in and use their agrologists and look at it scientifically and kind of rejig the boundaries to make sure that we were dealing with agricultural land. We have a huge province. Some of these areas you needed to do walk-throughs on, and they started to do that. Unfortunately, that process is very expensive. There has always been a matter of underfunding this fine-tuning process, otherwise known as a boundary review.

In 2008…. We’ll fast forward. The boundary reviews were done up to about the ’90s, and then the money ran out, but there was some good work done there. You have to remember that at that point, we were still dealing a lot with the original maps that were drawn back in the ’70s — around the establishment of the agricultural land reserve.

These were paper maps that were kept in the building in Burnaby, paper maps where things were drawn and redrawn. To look at these maps today…. Although we’ve moved most of our information — probably all of it, at this point — into computer systems, the value of these maps and the work that was done couldn’t be more obvious than by going to the commission and looking directly at these paper maps. The first time I took a look at them was probably eight years ago. They were starting to be tattered and obviously overworked and overworn. They’re a document that I believe should go into the archives as something that we can be proud of in our history.

You can see the work that was done. You can see where properties were assessed and evaluated for having agricultural capability. This was really important work and, you know, that sort of got put on hold, because there wasn’t any more funding.

Then in 2008, the Agricultural Land Commission started working with the regional district of East Kootenay, and a boundary review was started again. This was initiated to review ALR boundaries in the Fernie area.

The ALC had to withdraw from active participation in the review due to budget constraints. We tried to start the process up again in 2008, but unfortunately, there wasn’t enough funding to do it. At that point, because it was established and there had already been a conversation started about a boundary review, really it started a process of landowners thinking about their own agricultural capacity on their land.

The applications that started to flow into the Agricultural Land Commission made it obvious that initiating reviews on your own property rested with the landowner and the application process. The application process within the Agricultural Land Commission has become more and more burdensome for the commission. It’s like it got turned into an application machine, instead of a commission that protects agricultural land.

[1150]

I think it’s pretty clear that the application process, without having active boundary reviews in place, is not an efficient method of reviewing whether or not our land has high agricultural capability. The application process is not the way to do it. A strict boundary review, based on scientific data of soil classification, is almost like taking away all the need for those applications and establishing one decision made by the commission.

We have a commission in place. We’ve got commissioners all through the province. We’ve got a CEO. We’ve got a chair. This is supposed to act as an independent commission. The minister, I believe, is making decisions around the Agricultural Land Commission that take away its independence. The minister is interfering with the commission with this sort of proposed legislation.

We only need to go back to our very recent history. In 2009, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association provided recommendations to the Premier regarding boundary reviews. I know the minister has a very good relationship with them, as do I. They, in 2009, from their Ranching Task Force, recommended to make sure that a boundary review was done, and that was a way to make the agricultural land reserve stronger.

In September of 2010, the Auditor General came out with a report that was all about the Agricultural Land Commission. In this report, they had recommendations on how to improve the strength of the Agricultural Land Commission, make it stronger and make it work with the mandate in mind.

They did say that there was underfunding, and it was unable to fulfil its mandate because of chronic underfunding. But the first recommendation that they put out
[ Page 13058 ]
was this: “We recommend that the commission ensure the ALR boundaries are accurate and include land that is both capable of and suitable for agricultural use.”

This is a recommendation from the Auditor General, and I think that’s a pretty fair analysis of what should happen. If we have an agricultural land reserve with the mandate to protect agricultural land and encourage farming, you would think that all the land in that reserve should have agricultural capability.

That was back in 2010. Now, not very long after that, we had a review of the Agricultural Land Commission that was done by the commission and headed by then chair Mr. Richard Bullock. Within that review, which I can tell you is about 120 pages long…. This was an extensive review, an internal review of the Agricultural Land Commission and how it can work more effectively.

Within that review, there’s a whole section on boundary reviews. This is, I think, really where we get to the meat of the issue. There was a recommendation that more funding go into boundary reviews. Why is that? It’s because you need an agricultural land reserve that has defensible boundaries. And that’s where it is.

If we are taking a position that we are not able to re-establish the lines and make sure that everything in the reserve has agricultural capability…. If we’re not doing that, we’re leaving all of these holes, little doughnuts, throughout the reserve that are not defensible. So when somebody puts an application to do something else, it takes money from the commission. They’ve already identified it as not having agricultural capability. Their tax structure is based on land that should be farmed, but the capability is not there to do it.

When you look at that, that happened in 2010. Now, unfortunately, the government held this report for quite some time because they didn’t like the news that came out of that report. It showed that they were neglecting a commission, and they should have been funding it properly. The Auditor General and the chair of the ALC both weighed in on the same thing.

Reports after that came out in 2012, 2013, 2014. They all alluded to the fact that a boundary review was important, very important, so that the integrity of the agricultural land reserve was there.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Member.

L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I reserve my right to continue debate.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION
AND CITIZENS’ SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $491,997,000.

Hon. A. Virk: Good morning to all. I’m pleased to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services.

First of all, I’d like to introduce my senior ministry support team members that are here today. We’re joined by deputy minister John Jacobson, to my left, and associate deputy minister Sarf Ahmed. We have assistant deputy minister Dave Morel. We have assistant deputy minister Colin McEwan. We have assistant deputy minister Ian Bailey. We have assistant deputy minister Beverly Dicks.

In the gallery, as well, executive lead Susan Stanford and a number of other senior members of the team that are here in a support role. I thank them, first of all, for all the work that they do, not only today but every single day in this ministry all across the province.

[1115]

The things they do on the technology side of the portfolio, the work they do on the innovation side and then the work they do on the citizens’ services portion of the portfolio — I think it’s excellent work and it’s yeoman’s service.

My ministry’s operating budget has increased by 3 percent, compared to the 2015-16 restated budget. This represents an increase from $479 million to $491.9 mil-
[ Page 13059 ]
lion. It includes funding in 2016 and 2017 to support the economic stability mandate and the operating costs of two new government-owned facilities. The ministry’s capital budget for 2016-2017 is $204.6 million.

My ministry’s role in government is to support businesses, citizens, government ministries and the broader public sector organizations. My ministry’s mandate is to grow B.C.’s technology sector, champion innovation and enable the delivery of cost-effective, accessible and responsible services. Our technology and innovation budget has been increased by $840,000.

The impact of technology today cannot be overstated. We depend on technology in our daily lives to communicate, to establish relationships and to learn to conduct business. It drives all sectors of our economy. In some ways, one can say that every company is a tech company.

From life sciences to clean tech to the resource sector, technology advances that are being created in B.C. are changing lives around the world. I don’t think that point can be overstated. The discoveries and the commercialization of technologies from our small province, our 4.7 million people, have the potential to change lives on the other side of the planet. They are, and they will continue to do so.

This past January we released our B.C. technology strategy, which represented our vision for British Columbia’s tech sector in every region of the province. We also hosted an inaugural B.C. Tech Summit, which welcomed over 3,500 people to the Vancouver Convention Centre from all over North America and parts of the world. It was an unprecedented gathering of entrepreneurs, academics, business community, students and government officials.

I’m pleased to let you know that the plans are now underway to host our second B.C. Tech Summit next year. Get your tickets early because they’re going to fill up very quickly.

B.C.’s technology sector continues to grow faster than the overall provincial economy, and I’m excited to see us continue to build on that momentum.

I am now ready for any questions that you may foster.

D. Routley: I appreciate the introduction from the minister and thank the staff equally.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview will deal with the tech side of the file when he returns, but I’m going to encourage him to really look into technology creating relationships. I think it’s a big expansion of scope for the provincial government to enter that business.

When the minister talks generally, he’s referring to his mandate letter — at least loosely. Could the minister outline the steps he’s taken to fulfil elements of his mandate letter?

[1120]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite will certainly see that there are 13 items in my mandate letter. Each item, when a mandate letter is received, is analyzed. A plan is developed to put those items into action. I can report that on all 13 items, they have been either completed or are well into the progress phase.

D. Routley: Have there been fee increases in the ministry in this past year? What would those be, and how much revenue is being generated by those?

[1125]

Hon. A. Virk: If I understand the question correctly, in terms of fee increases — have there been fee increases in the past? — the answer is no. If the question is: in terms of estimates of budget, will there be fee adjustments in the year to come…? The answer is that in November of 2016, the societies will be able to file records such as incorporation applications, constitution and bylaws on line, which is a significant improvement in the efficiencies on how they can file.

There is a change in fee structure for societies from $25 to $40 that will come into effect in November of 2016. But it’s hard to take that in concrete terms, that increase, because also, there are other fees that will be eliminated or reduced as a result of that. There has been considerable public consultation on that.

The ability of societies in this day and age to actually file changes on line is a positive benefit. You would have society directors that would change addresses or otherwise, and they’d have to file this continuously. But if you can do that on line, there are increased efficiencies projected as a result of that.

The second part of the question, if I understand it correctly, is if there is revenue. There have been, as I said, no fee increases in the past. There are some projected to increase the technology efficiencies in November of 2016.

D. Routley: This fee increase for the on-line registration that societies will be able to take advantage of represents just about a doubling of the fee. What is the projected total amount that will be collected in the next year?

[1130-1135]

Hon. A. Virk: The projected incremental revenue collected is estimated — and I stress estimated — at $356,565. That’s to offset the increased cost of moving to a technology-based platform.

The current operating procedures by which a society…. These are run by very dedicated volunteers across the province. To prepare a paper copy, type that out or hand-write it, put a stamp on it, deliver it and put it in the mailbox certainly doesn’t meet the expectations of society. To move to a platform where volunteers can do this from the luxury of their own home on an electronic device…. The idea here is to go to current standards. It’s going to result in increased efficiencies and increased use for societies.

As I said before, there were consultations with the so-
[ Page 13060 ]
cieties so they could understand the movement to this platform. At the same time, also, there are other fees that the societies paid in the past that will be removed.

[1140]

D. Routley: I assume that number, $356,565, refers to the margin between what was previously collected and what’s anticipated to be collected. Then, if the fees are going to bring in that much this year, is that amount expected to grow over coming years? Is that amount expected to be a consistent amount? How does that reflect the increased costs? Can the minister outline what increased costs there are in switching to this system?

Hon. A. Virk: For the information of the member, there are some 27,000 societies in British Columbia. I’m only speculative, I guess, that the number may slightly go up or slightly go down. British Columbians continue to form societies. Sometimes societies cease to exist, and the societies exist to provide services.

In terms of: do I expect the revenue to grow or change? I would suspect the law of averages — that it would stay fairly neutral because the number of societies is at that level. Some may come, and some may go. I expect the revenue will be fairly close to that number that’s estimated, as we move forward.

D. Routley: Well, if the amount is going to stay the same, roughly, then we’re looking at $20 per registration increased, and we’re looking at $350,000 per year. So over a ten-year period, it’s $3½ million plus inflation, I imagine, and the potential for increased fees.

[1145]

I’d just like to know how that reflects any cost the government is trying to recover, because the presumption is that going to an on-line system would, in fact, over time save money for government — not having to handle as much paperwork, for one thing. So it seems counterintuitive that there would be a fee increase. It seems more reasonable, in fact, that there would be a fee decrease, or at least that fees could be maintained at a stable level.

If the service that’s being offered saves government money, maybe not over the short term…. But just how can the government justify continuing in the long term to support such a huge rise in a fee?

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, for the information of the member, there has been no fee change for 15 years. The $40 fee for societies is consistent with similar standards, on average, across the country. It allows for faster registration and allows for greening of how we report.

It’s important to remember that it is about $1 million to develop this system. These fees are deemed to be reasonable to recover costs of delivering the system. In fact, the cost of delivering the system and the anticipated revenue is actually considerably less than the system.

Also, for the member’s information, currently over 30 percent of societies are actually paying, already, $40 or more per year, because there were $15 filing fees for change of address or change of directors. So it’s important to note that over 30 percent of societies were already paying over that $40 for registering and/or keeping up with the paperwork on the society.

Noting the hour, I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada