2017 Legislative Session: Sixth 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)

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 43, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Wat: On behalf of the government, I would like to welcome to the House over 100 honoured guests, both on the floor and in the gallery, from a cross-section of various communities, including the Chinese, the Japanese, the Punjabi and the black — community leaders and representatives.

I would also like to acknowledge five guests from the Chinese-Canadian Military Museum and the Chinese-Canadian veteran group from Vancouver. They woke up at the crack of dawn on the Mainland to catch a ferry in time for this historic event. I would also like to welcome two veterans from Victoria. It is such an honour to have the veterans here today.

We have guests from all over the province, including Kamloops and Kelowna, leaders and advocates of multiculturalism in each of their respective communities.

Also in the chamber are members of our Multicultural Advisory Council and our Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council, both of whom have been instrumental in advising me over the years on the initiatives we undertake in my role as the Minister for Multiculturalism.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Japanese deputy consul general, Akira Uchida; former B.C. cabinet minister Ida Chong; and the first-ever Chinese-Canadian mayor of Victoria, Alan Lowe. They are all on the floor.

They are here today to witness the introduction and first reading of an important bill I will present shortly in the House. Please join me in giving these honoured guests a very warm welcome.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to join with the Minister of Trade to welcome all of those guests that are here today to participate in what will be yet another historic event by this Legislature by recognizing the diversity and the multiculturalism that makes up our great province.

It is a real honour and privilege to be a member of this Legislature at this time in history when we’re recognizing the errors and the failings of those who came before us. I think that speaks to the power of all of us coming together in unity. To have so many people joining us today is a great honour and privilege.

Thank you, on behalf of the official opposition, for being here today. I look forward to the introduction of the bill.

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to introduce a constituent and friend from the village of Cache Creek, Mr. Wyatt McMurray. Wyatt is a successful businessman, has served on Cache Creek council for over 25 years and is a husband and a father. But I know he would agree with me that as important as all those things are, he is also a grandparent, which is the most fun of all. Please join me in welcoming Wyatt to the House today.

[1010]

G. Holman: I’d like to introduce Rev. Jason Goertzen and Rev. Tim Schindel from the Leading Influence organization. I attended my first MLA prayer breakfast this morning, for the first time. Madame Speaker, I was honoured to be seated next to you. I’m not sure if that was reciprocated. I remarked to you that it was the loudest I’ve heard the national anthem sung in a room of that size, and I don’t think it was just to cover-up the Minister of Agriculture’s guitar playing — which wasn’t too bad, actually.

I also want to introduce the guest speaker at the prayer breakfast, a constituent of mine, Kelly Paul, a member of the Tsartlip First Nation on the Saanich Peninsula. She’s the founder of the Heliset Hale marathon, first held in 2013 to raise awareness and hope about suicide prevention, particularly among First Nations, who have suicide rates six times the national average. Kelly shared the story of her family and challenged all of us to find a problem in the world we are each uniquely placed to resolve. I want Kelly and her family to know that my colleagues and I take that challenge to heart.

Would the House please welcome Kelly Paul, Reverend Goertzen and Reverend Schindel.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Today, for those of you who are not aware, is B.C. Colleges Day. For those of you who are aware of our colleges, they are central to the higher education function of our province because they provide high-quality, shorter-course education throughout the province of British Columbia, including university transfer, trades training and health professions. They are really an essential part of our system, with 125,000 students gathering about 12,000 credentials each year.

Today here we have representatives from B.C. Colleges the president of B.C. Colleges, Lane Trotter, who also serves as president of Langara College; we have John Bowman, the vice-chair from North Island College; Colin Ewart, who is the president of B.C. Colleges; Angus Graeme, past chair, and also from Selkirk College in the West Kootenays. In addition, we have the other college presidents here. I’ll just list them off: Sherri Bell, Henry Reiser, David Walls, Bryn Kulmatycki, Ken Burt, Jim Hamilton and Peter Nunoda. They do a fine job for British Columbia and make everyone have the opportunity to join the prosperous middle class.

J. Wickens: In the Legislature today are Joanie and Jerry Marsoe and Megan Mitchell. They are guests of
[ Page 14122 ]
mine. I worked with Megan probably about 15 years ago. Megan lives with cerebral palsy, and she has been my greatest teacher in life. They brought me into their family.

I don’t really have words to express how important they are to me. When they sent me a message yesterday, with Megan in front of the Legislature steps, I was just so touched that they were here. They get to see me now in a much different life than I had back then. I hope the House will help me welcome my guests today in the Legislature.

S. Robinson: I’m very proud to have my favourite constituent with me here today in the House. Since my kids moved out, my husband, Dan Robinson, has become my favourite constituent.

Just like everybody else here…. None of us could do this work representing our communities if it weren’t for having a partner that was there to do all the other stuff that you don’t get a chance to do. We’re going on 30 years. I hope that the House makes my husband, Dan Robinson, feel very welcome.

S. Simpson: Often members on both sides have spoken in this House in introductions about the critical role that our staff play for us in our constituency offices and everything they do to support our success. I’m really pleased today to have my newest constituency assistant, Anne Vavrik, over to experience a day in the Legislature and see what we do as part of her orientation into her new role of keeping me on the straight and narrow, so to speak, when it comes to Vancouver-Hastings. I would hope that the Legislature would make Anne very welcome.

Tributes

FRASER DOKE

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to inform the House that a constituent of mine — someone who wrote every single one of us numerous times — Fraser Doke, has passed away. Fraser was a fighter for the most marginalized, a fighter for people living with disabilities, a fighter for people on the streets. He was somebody who called on us time and time again to raise the rates. He faced intense personal challenges but always looked at the world with a smile on his face, a laugh in his throat and a sense that things can be better and will be better if we make them better.

[1015]

I just want to send my condolences to Fraser’s family and his wide, wide net of friends who worked with him every day to make the world a better place.

OWEN DICKIE

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d also like to make a sad announcement. Coun. Owen Dickie, from Oyama in my riding, has passed away. Owen left his wife Marj and children and the community in shock. He was suffering from cancer. We thought, actually, that he had a good prognosis, but it turned out that he was keeping a lot of it to himself and to his family.

I just want to pay condolences to him and to his family, and I look forward to seeing them on Sunday for a big hug as we celebrate his life.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: At the risk of missing anyone for an introduction, we have many distinguished people here from Victoria’s Chinese community and representing Chinatown business and service clubs. I would like, however, to introduce, because I see him on the floor of Legislature, Mr. Thomas Chan, from the Victoria Canada-China Friendship Association and also from the Consolidated Benevolent Association. It’s great to see him here.

Also, the former mayor of Victoria, Mr. Alan Lowe. I see him over in the corner there. It’s wonderful to have him in the precinct and on the floor of the Legislature. He also took on additional duties recently from city hall — he can’t get enough of it — to plan events to celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday this summer.

Welcome to Alan Lowe and to Thomas Chan and all of our other guests here today.

Tributes

SINKING OF
Miss Cory FISHING VESSEL

J. Rice: I’d like to take a moment today to acknowledge the crew and their families from the fishing vessel Miss Cory, which sank during the herring fishery opening in Georgia Strait yesterday. Details are still emerging, but news agencies report that four people were recovered and one is still missing. The Miss Cory was based in Prince Rupert, and the community, the fishing industry and families are all saddened by this tragedy.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: I know of many of us in this House who are meeting with the firefighters yesterday and today. I wanted to introduce Cody Hunsberger and Mitchell Sherrin from the Saltspring Island Fire Fighters Association, in the precinct today. I’ll be meeting with them today to discuss their concerns about presumptive clauses in the workers compensation legislation and how this issue affected their colleague Travis, who sadly passed away several years ago.

J. Rice: In line with that introduction, I’d like the House to please make James Daniele and Real Jones from the Prince Rupert firefighters feel welcome.
[ Page 14123 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Lest this erupt, let us welcome all of the firefighters that are here, from all sides of the House. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS
(HISTORICAL WRONGS) REPEAL ACT

Hon. T. Wat presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act.

Hon. T. Wat: I move that Bill 3, the Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Wat: I’m pleased to introduce the Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act. This legislation fulfils government’s commitment to review discriminatory legislation as part of its pledge to address historical wrongs committed by past provincial governments.

The result of the review of nearly 2,000 pieces of legislation dated between 1871 and 1982 are contained in the Chinese Legacy B.C. Legislation Review Report, released today. The report confirms how the vast majority of B.C. laws are free from discrimination and outlines how new B.C. laws must conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The report also identifies 19 obscure historical private acts that contained discriminatory provisions.

[1020]

As such, this bill will repeal discriminatory sections found in a total of 19 historical private acts, which were enacted as recently as 1930. The sections of these historical acts discriminated against a number of ethnic groups, including people of Chinese and Japanese descent.

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 3, Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M235 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

J. Wickens presented a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2017.

J. Wickens: It gives me great pleasure to move that a bill intituled Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Wickens: Economic stress can make it difficult for women to flee violent relationships. It can be impossible for women to reach out to their employer to ask for time off without jeopardizing their livelihood and the livelihood of their children. We know that a lack of job security causes some women to stay in dangerous situations because they can’t leave their abuser without significant risk.

This bill gives victims of domestic violence job security. It removes a barrier to them seeking safety by guaranteeing that they are able to take time off work and still have a job to return to. Leave from work can be crucial to allow access to support services and to find a safe place to live. Other provinces have similar legislation.

I ask that all members please support this bill to support victims of domestic violence fleeing abuse. No woman should have to be in a position where she has to face further violence because she cannot get time off work and get her and her family to safety.

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 M235, Employment Standards (Domestic Violence Leave) Amendment 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)

COLLEGES

R. Fleming: As the Minister of Advanced Education noted in his introduction, today we celebrate the enormous contributions that British Columbia’s colleges have made to the development of our province over 50 years.

It is impossible to imagine what life in B.C. today would be like without the expanded horizons of opportunity that college education has afforded millions of British Columbians. The skills and knowledge provided by our colleges has been one of our province’s greatest levers for economic diversification, labour market development and the growth of a successful, competitive and multicultural province.

From Courtenay to Castlegar, from Terrace to Trail, from Penticton to Powell River to Victoria and Fort St. John, to name but a few of the 60 campuses in British Columbia’s colleges today serving over 125,000 students
[ Page 14124 ]
enrolled in over 250 programs, this is a system that gains diverse skills, knowledge and higher earnings, with corresponding taxes that multiply the return on this public investment.

Our modern college system did not happen by accident or overnight, nor did it originate with legislation in this chamber, but it was the culmination of regional community pressure. Prior to the end of World War II, very few working-class British Columbians could even dream of entering higher education. Guarantees to returning veterans in 1945 changed everything.

By the early 1950s, enrolment at UBC, then the only post-secondary institution in B.C., quadrupled. However, this primarily served an urban population. While many official reports, commissions and white papers come and go in this place, in 1962, a report by UBC president John B. Macdonald shook up the province. The Macdonald report outlined a made-in-B.C. decentralized college system aspiring to excellence in vocational, professional and university transfer education.

It was bold and relevant to the revolutions in science and industry. Miscategorized as B.C.’s answer to Sputnik, it was really about the aspirations of people in rural centres and the suburbs to build a middle-class life. The report was initially dismissed, but 200,000 signatures on a petition to the Legislature helped make that dream become a reality to today, where we have a modern college system that serves our province so well.

L. Reimer: As the hon. minister and the member opposite indicated, today is B.C. Colleges Day in British Columbia.

[1025]

B.C. is home to 11 public colleges that serve approximately 125,000 students each year. With more than 60 campuses and learning centres, students throughout B.C. have access to educational opportunities that are close to home. Colleges strengthen our public post-secondary system and provide education and training to create a highly skilled, job-ready workforce. Our campuses welcome a wide range of students, 38 percent of whom are 18 to 24 years old, and 55 percent are women.

Surveys of former students show that graduates from diploma and certificate programs were likely to transition directly to the labour force, which supports B.C.’s diverse, growing economy. In fact, 88 percent of students who were surveyed in 2016 were already in the labour force. Apprentices surveyed fared even better, with 98 percent in the labour force and employed full-time.

B.C. colleges support the B.C. tech strategy as well as the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint by providing programs that meet the needs of employers and industry throughout the province. B.C. colleges also support the B.C. rural economic development strategy. Colleges help ensure that British Columbians in all regions of the province have the opportunity to train for good-paying jobs that maintain their quality of life and support vibrant rural communities.

Our colleges are creating opportunities for British Columbians both in labour market success and in supporting their transition to further education and skills development. I’m so pleased that we are able to recognize their contributions here in the House today.

FISHING INDUSTRY POLICIES AND
BENEFITS TO COASTAL COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: The fishing sector should be a cornerstone in the economic and social fabric of B.C.’s coast. Our fishery resources are managed sustainably, fishing markets are good, and fishing is deeply rooted in our history and culture.

The fishing industry is represented on the ceilings of the B.C. Legislature as a pillar of the B.C. economy. But fishing communities are struggling, and fishermen nowadays are treated like second-class citizens. Independent fish harvesters need protections to rebuild the backbone of the rural middle-class along our coast.

Tens of millions of dollars of licences and quota granting access to Canada’s public fishery resources have been snapped up by corporate interests. Speculators are buying up fishing access to lease to fish processors and rent back to fish harvesters for profit, taking income directly out of their pockets and out of coastal communities.

Canada is spending billions on ocean protection and monitoring, while corporations reap the benefits and B.C. fishing incomes and B.C. jobs evaporate. Policies need to be put in place to ensure fishing licences and the benefits they provide are for local fishermen and local fishing communities, not for speculative investors, international shareholders or seafood processors to stifle competition for our resources.

In Atlantic Canada, the economic capacity and the strength of its rural middle class would not exist without the owner-operator and fleet separation policies enforced in all five Atlantic provinces. These policies are not only pillars of the fishing economy; they also support the social and cultural fabric of rural coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.

Similar policies are in place in Alaska, where multiple processors compete for fish by providing good prices, multiple fleet services and processing jobs in rural coastal communities. In fact, Alaskan fisheries are managed to ensure that their fish harvesters and fishing communities are the primary benefactors of their adjacent resource.

We need similar policies of adjacency in British Columbia. In B.C., a single processor controls multiple fisheries from production through to export. Independent fishermen become price-takers, and the social and cultural fabric of our coastal communities is eroded. The economic viability of the next generation of fishermen and our coastal communities depends on improving these policies.
[ Page 14125 ]

FIONA MARSHALL-WHITE

J. Thornthwaite: On January 22, a dear friend of mine, Fiona Marshall-White, was taken too early by ALS. ALS is a debilitating disease which takes strong, successful, loving and giving people in the prime of their lives. It takes them when they are not finished contributing to their community or to friends or to family.

Fiona was an inspiration to me and many other women who felt they could do and have it all — have a promising career; raise beautiful, successful children; and be a tireless volunteer for charities, sports associations, youth groups, schools and more.

Fiona will be terribly be missed by her daughters, Stephanie and Lindsay; her loving husband, John; and the thousands of people she touched during her 58 years.

Fiona asked that in lieu of flowers, people donate to the ALS Society of B.C. so that they may one day find a cure and to let these generous people continue to help others make the world a better place.

[1030]

To quote the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson:

What is success?

To laugh often and much

to win the respect of intelligent people

and the affection of children

to earn the appreciation of honest critics

and endure the betrayal of false friends

to appreciate beauty

to find the best in others

to leave the world a bit better, whether by

a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition

to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.

This is to have succeeded.

And this was Fiona.

SMALL BUSINESSES IN
COQUITLAM–BURKE MOUNTAIN

J. Wickens: Small businesses are the backbone of a local economy. When you support a small business, you are helping a local family send their kids to college or make a mortgage payment.

Both my father and my husband are small business owners, so I have seen firsthand the blood, sweat and tears that goes into making a small business successful. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has so many amazing small businesses, and it has been an absolute pleasure over the past year to meet many of them. I’ve also had the opportunity to get to know my local chamber of commerce, which is an essential organization for small businesses in the community. I was surprised to learn that most of our small businesses have a membership of ten or less employees.

I’ve gotten to meet Anna from A.T.A. Plumbing. Their business is not only committed to giving back to younger generations by providing apprenticeships, but they also work to raise awareness for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, as their oldest son lives with type 1 diabetes.

I’ve gotten to know Trish from Tumblebus, my kids’ favourite business, which is a gym on wheels that provides fun equipment like monkey bars, a balance beam, trampoline, and so much more. Trish is a volunteer extraordinaire, and you see her everywhere in our community. She has recently expanded her business to create the Sensy Bus, which is a physical literacy bus in a sensory-controlled environment.

One of my favourite businesses, right underneath my office, is Ayoub’s Dried Fruits and Nuts. I go in to get a snack every day, and part-owner Ray always has a big smile, time for conversation and is beaming with pride about his own family.

There are so many small businesses I could talk about, and so many great people that give back to our community and local economy. I want to thank them for all that they do. I know that I work to support small businesses in my community, and I encourage my friends and family to do so whenever they can as well.

BLURRED THOUGHTS

G. Hogg: I don’t think it would come as much of a surprise to any member of this Legislature to learn that we spend nearly half of our waking hours daydreaming, not thinking about what we’re pretending to be thinking about.

A recent Harvard study has found that our minds wander, even from the most demanding of tasks, at least 30 percent of the time. You may even be experiencing some of that mind-wandering right now. Fortuitously, we are not unique. Daydreaming applies to everyone, not just to members of this Legislature.

In our world that often seems so obsessed with linear processes, rational thought and a cult of efficiency, daydreaming is often viewed as meaningless, a meaningless waste of time. However, many studies find that when we are slightly bored, when reality isn’t just quite enough for us, we often have internal dialogues. We begin exploring our connections, contemplating counter-factuals and fictive scenarios that only exist in our heads.

This information gives me great solace. It means that those rare moments when we’re not totally fixated on every word of our colleagues might be those moments when we are actually designing solutions for a better world. The assumption that we get more done, that we learn more when we are politely, conscientiously paying attention to a colleague, is apparently often wrong.

Mind-wandering may be a connection to the creative solutions that are generated out of not paying attention. So if you’re not paying attention now and if you’re bored, then I may be unwittingly motivating you to explore
[ Page 14126 ]
thoughtful solutions to your more pressing issues. I know many of you, with your speeches, have motivated me with the similar opportunity to contemplate pressing issues, and I am forever grateful. Thank you so much.

Oral Questions

ELECTIONS B.C. REVIEW OF
POLITICAL FUNDRAISING PRACTICES

J. Horgan: I’ll try and keep the member for Surrey–White Rock’s attention as we go into question period.

[1035]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, about the shady fundraising practices of the B.C. Liberal Party that are now under investigations by Elections B.C., an organization that she is responsible for.

Madame Speaker: Member, you heard the Chair provide a caution yesterday — that it does not fall into ministerial responsibility.

J. Horgan: She is responsible for Elections B.C., Madame Speaker. I don’t understand the disconnection. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Madame Speaker: You’ve been so cautioned.

Please proceed.

J. Horgan: As I said, yesterday I asked the Attorney General about an entity she’s responsible for, Elections B.C., and the work that they are doing to uncover the shady financing practices of the B.C. Liberal Party. Her response was that the B.C. Liberals are transparent on these matters.

Now, I appreciate that there’s an ethical blind spot when it comes to this issue, but now it appears that there’s a legal blind spot as well. My question to the minister responsible for Elections B.C. is: what steps is she taking to ensure that they have the resources they need to get to the bottom of this shady practice before the election, not after the election?

Madame Speaker: Members, Elections B.C. is an independent office of this Legislature. The minister may be responsible for the act, but the office is independent.

J. Horgan: In previous sittings of this House, we had the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health directing a body of the Legislature, the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, to take action with an independent officer — in that case, it was the Ombudsperson’s office — to make sure that we would get to the bottom of the Health firing fiasco, which is now in its fifth year, here in this Legislature.

I’m curious, hon. Speaker, through you to anyone who wants to be accountable for fundraising on that side of the House. If we can have the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health directing a committee of this Legislature to work with an independent officer, why is it that we can’t have the Minister of Justice trying to find some justice when it comes to fundraising and ensure that Elections B.C. has the resources they need to get to the bottom of this before the election, not after?

Madame Speaker: Ministers are not compelled to answer. That is the minister’s choice.

Hon. S. Anton: I will correct the member opposite, Madame Speaker. The quote from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Archer, is that “we are not really taking a party approach to this at all…. There is not, in any sense, a limitation to one party or another.”

Just as a technical matter, in terms of the budget, there is an all-party committee which approves the budget of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. Horgan: Forgive me for being blinded by that transparency from the minister responsible. However, we have media revelations over the past weekend that the B.C. Liberals are taking money from lobbyists in an illegal manner. The Elections office is looking at it. We are at the busiest time in the four-year cycle for Elections B.C. We’re running a new election with 87 new boundaries. They will not possibly have the resources to do a thorough investigation into the shady practices that were outlined in the Globe and Mail over the weekend.

My question, again, to perhaps the Minister of Finance, who has directed in the past — or maybe the Minister of Health, who has directed in the past — is that the Finance Committee be directed to find resources so that this independent officer of the Legislature can get to the bottom of this so that the people of British Columbia have a full accounting of the practices of the B.C. Liberals when it comes to fundraising in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve been waiting for a question on the budget. Alas, there has not been one, because the opposition doesn’t want to talk about the budget.

I can assure the member that….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1040]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the member that the government takes seriously the recommendations that
[ Page 14127 ]
flowed from the all-party committee that makes recommendations with respect to the budget for Elections B.C., and I think he will find that the government has responded in accordance. I suspect, or I anticipate, that the wide-ranging review that is taking place will examine many aspects of fundraising.

I’ve waited though, patiently, for a moment to perhaps ask the Leader of the Opposition, who approaches this….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: I detect a great deal of sanctimony on the part of the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition.

So when I got the letter with his name emblazoned across the top — a solicitation, as it were; I expect one that was widely distributed…. In it, the president of the NDP says to the recipient: “We know that you contributed significantly to the B.C. Liberals since the last election. We know that you did.” Here’s the quote. “It’s my hope that you will adopt a balanced approach in this crucial period leading up to the election in May and to consider making a contribution in the range of $10,000 to the NDP” — $10,000 — “because we know you gave to the other guys, and we want you to give to us.”

DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND
ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

S. Robinson: Yesterday the Attorney General said that she expected people to follow the rules. In fact, she said: “We have rules in the Election Act. I expect, as the minister responsible for the Election Act, and we expect as government that people follow these rules. That is the expectation.”

What the Attorney General doesn’t seem to understand is that the rules are not working. Can the Attorney General explain why she is determined to stick with a big-money system that is clearly being abused?

Hon. S. Anton: There are all kinds of rules in the Election Act, and I can say with certainty that they are followed by this side of the House. One of the parties — it’s the B.C. Liberal Party, as a matter of fact — is putting up donations so that the public can see who is making those donations. Now, the members opposite do not feel inclined to do the same thing with their political organization, which is most unfortunate.

In terms of the lobbyists who were referred to a few moments ago, there are rules for lobbyists, and we expect those rules to be followed by the lobbyists. In addition to the quote that was given a moment ago by Mr. Archer, I will add…. I’ll give the whole quote here. He said: “We’re not really taking a party approach to this at all. One of the individuals who is named within the newspaper story has contributed to a number of political parties here in B.C.”

Given that there’s a rather small number of political parties, we’ll just make a wild guess as to who one of the other political parties might be.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, the Attorney General actually wears two hats on this file. She’s responsible for the Election Act, and she’s responsible for the Lobbyists Registration Act. She makes the rules governing the lobbyists who funnel tens of thousand of dollars to the B.C. Liberal Party. It’s the same lobbyists that the Attorney General was pictured canvassing with in the weekend paper.

[1045]

So is the real reason that the Attorney General won’t ban big money because her government just can’t survive without it?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Is there another question?

B. Ralston: The Attorney General has two distinct roles as a minister. Her dual role is well recognized constitutionally and is unique in cabinet. On the one hand, she is a political member of cabinet and, in this particular case, is responsible for the Elections Act and the Lobbyists Registration Act. On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, she is the province’s chief law enforcement officer and must act in a manner that is independent and beyond reproach.

Can the Attorney General explain why she thinks it’s appropriate to take donations from an industry she is responsible for?

Hon. S. Anton: I think that if these are party questions, of course they do need to be put to the political party. In this case, I believe the questions might be directed to the B.C. Liberals, and I invite the member opposite to do that.

In terms of the lobbyists and lobbyists registry, it does fall within my purview, but again, it is an independent office. We expect — I expect — lobbyists to follow the rules that they are to abide by. There are rules, as well, for political donations in terms of in whose name those donations are made. Those rules need to be followed as well. There’s certainly a commitment from my side of the House — from the party involved, the B.C. Liberals — that if there are donations which are given improperly, they will be returned.
[ Page 14128 ]

The general proposition is that if you are a lobbyist and you are making donations and you’re making them on someone else’s behalf, you must say…. You can make donations on behalf of another person, but you must identify that other person. That is a very clear rule, and that’s in the Elections Act. I expect, and this House should expect that anyone involved, anyone making donations must abide by that rule.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General doesn’t seem to appreciate the legal predicament she has created for herself. She’s connected to a lobbyist who, by his own admission, has been funneling donations to the B.C. Liberal Party in a manner that appears to contravene the Elections Act. She’s responsible for the Lobbyists Registration Act, yet here in the House, she claims that she expects the rules are being followed.

We’ve tabled a bill to take big money out of politics six times. Why doesn’t the Attorney General do the obvious thing and the right thing: act now to get big money out of politics?

Hon. S. Anton: I guess this is a “Do as I say but not as I do.” I think the Minister of Finance just read out the letter. It seems to be signed by John Horgan, and there seems to be a B.C. NDP label at the top of it.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: Oh, I’m sorry, by the Leader of the Opposition. I’m sorry.

I apologize, Madame Speaker.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: “It is my hope that you will adopt a balanced approach in this crucial period….”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Continue.

Hon. S. Anton: “It’s my hope that you will adopt a balanced approach in this crucial period leading up to the election in May” — I think the members opposite did not hear this line, so I will repeat it — “and to consider making a contribution in the range of $10,000 to the B.C. NDP.” But we don’t want big money in politics.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I’ll caution both sides. Questions should only be posed that, actually, ministers have direct ministerial responsibility.

[1050]

WAIT TIMES FOR MRI SERVICES

J. Darcy: Imagine having to go to Calgary for brain surgery to treat your epilepsy because the waits are too long in B.C. Imagine going back to your doctor because you’re suffering from terrible headaches, and the doctor, a neurosurgeon, orders an MRI. Then you get a notice in the mail telling you that your MRI is scheduled for 2019, 2½ years away. That’s what Linda McClure from Surrey is dealing with, and the notice says: “Please note the year of appointment: August 14, 2019.”

Does the Health Minister think it’s acceptable that Linda McClure has to wait 2½ years for an MRI?

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t think it’s acceptable, which is why we have developed an MRI strategy. The Premier and I announced, in November of 2015, additional targeted funds to increase the number of MRIs being done around the province. About three weeks ago we announced funding for four more MRI units around the province of British Columbia, and we expect to be conducting more MRIs than ever in the coming year.

It is not acceptable for people to be waiting that long, and that’s why we are making the investments. Thanks to our economy and thanks to our prudent fiscal management, we are able to buy new MRI machines and fund more MRIs around the province of British Columbia.

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

J. Darcy: I brought an identical form to this one to the Legislature in November 2015, and the minister made exactly the same speech. Obviously, people like Linda McClure don’t matter to this government.

Over the past few weeks, we have raised several stories about British Columbians waiting too long for quality public health care — frail seniors waiting for appropriate staffing levels, families needing primary care, patients waiting day after day in hospital hallways — and the minister has made excuse after excuse. Linda has tried in vain to get this government to pay attention to her story.

What’s the excuse this time? It can’t be the weather. Why does Linda McClure have to wait 2½ years for an MRI?

Hon. T. Lake: She shouldn’t have to wait that long. That is why we are putting more MRIs across the province of British Columbia. We’re funding more MRIs. Since I answered this question the last time, our Health Ministry has received a budget increase of close to $900 million.
[ Page 14129 ]

The members opposite like to paint a picture that is completely devoid of reality. Talk about MRIs. There were no MRIs, no hospitals….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: If the members opposite form government, we’d still be talking about X-ray machines, let alone MRIs. We have invested in four new MRIs across the province of British Columbia. We are funding more MRIs than ever before. We have the largest funding lift in the Ministry of Health on record. We will continue to make the investments in health care for British Columbians.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

R. Fleming: In April 2013, the Premier made a promise to kids, parents and teachers. The Premier said that by 2016, 45 schools considered as high risk for collapse in the event of an earthquake would be made safe. When the Premier made this promise, she said: “Absolutely nothing is more important than keeping our kids safe.”

My question is for the Minister of Education. Now 2016 has come and gone. Can he tell this House and, more importantly, can he tell parents, students, teachers and staff that these 45 high-risk schools announced on April 8, 2013, in a pre-election photo-op, now safe for our kids?

[1055]

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll start with reminding the House that when the NDP were in government, they cancelled a seismic upgrade for a school with 2,000 students in it to seismically upgrade a liquor warehouse instead. In fact, it was this government that actually put a seismic mitigation plan together, one the NDP was unable to do. Why? The Education Minister at the time, under the NDP, actually cancelled any seismic upgrades because they said — what? — they couldn’t afford it, because the economy wasn’t strong enough.

This government actually is able to make those investments. In fact, in this budget that was just announced — our fifth consecutive balanced budget — we have almost $2 billion in capital to do seismic upgrades and new schools around the province. That’s money this government can afford.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: You know, the talking points for the minister must be getting hard to sustain. He’s been saying in the media that losing in the Supreme Court was a great thing and how excited he is to go back to class-size and composition limits from the 1990s.

The answer to the question is no, over two-thirds of those schools announced by the Premier in that April 2013 photo op are not safe. Over 90,000 kids in B.C. schools are still waiting for a seismic upgrade in their communities.

My question is for the Minister of Education. How can he ask kids, parents and teachers in schools that aren’t seismically safe to believe a single word that his government says on this issue and all issues related to education?

Hon. M. Bernier: Since we’ve been in government, we’ve actually seismically upgraded 224 schools, either completed or done now. I’ll remind the members opposite that we have an award-winning seismic mitigation plan here in British Columbia, one that is actually recognized globally.

We work closely with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists here in British Columbia, who ensure that they look at the schools around the province. They recognize where there’s a high risk, and then we put a plan in place with the local school district.

We have $2 billion in the budget over the next three years. We’re going to continue working with the school districts. We’ve made amazing investments, historic investments, in education under this government, especially when it comes to capital and seismic around the province of British Columbia. We have over a dozen school districts in the province that are 100 percent completed — all of their seismic programs. We’re going to continue working with the rest of the school districts to do the same.

J. Wickens: This is a government that also closed over 250 schools in the province of British Columbia.

Montgomery Middle School in Coquitlam is another school that the Premier promised would be made safe by last year. Last year there were 326 children at Montgomery Middle School — 326 kids going to school in a building that would collapse in an earthquake.

My question for the Minister of Education is: why didn’t the Premier keep her promise to the 326 kids and their parents to make their school safe?

Hon. M. Bernier: As the member well knows, in her area of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, the amount of investments we’ve been making…. When you actually look at that specific school district, $114 million has been spent already in the last few years in her district.

[1100]

You know, I recognize the member opposite because she shows up at all the photo ops every time there’s…. She wants to be involved in them. Every time we announce a new school, every time we announce a seismic upgrade, the members are there.
[ Page 14130 ]

We continue to make investments, specifically in that district. In that district, we actually just did $61 million for Centennial Secondary’s seismic upgrade. As the members also know, in that school district in the Coquitlam area, we just finished announcing Minnekhada, which is seismically being upgraded and replaced, $33 million. I recognize the member showing up at that announcement as well.

We will continue to make these investments. We know there’s more to do, and we have the money in our budget to do it.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: I did go to that announcement because I wasn’t around before the last election when they made the exact same announcement. Before the last election, the Premier also promised…. They also promised that Irvine Elementary….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members on both sides. Members.

Please continue.

J. Wickens: Before the last election, this Premier promised kids at Irvine Elementary School that their school would get seismic upgrades starting at the beginning of last year. Last year there were 448 children at Irvine Elementary.

My question is quite simple. To the minister, again: why did the Premier break her promise to those children and to those parents and not provide a safe school for those kids to go?

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s really difficult when I listen to the questions from the member opposite, who has never had the time to come and actually write me, to meet with me or to ask for anything in her riding. In fact, it’s hard to believe anything that the member opposite actually says.

Last week when she was in the House, the member opposite started telling this House about this family that couldn’t get into a school. It was over…. Did the member opposite actually phone the school board to ask? Has she ever actually asked the school district what has to happen?

In fact, as soon as I walked out, the first thing I did was phone the school board. The school board said…. They were surprised. The school that the member opposite said the family couldn’t get into is only 50 percent full. Once again, it’s hard to believe anything the member opposite says.

G. Heyman: When the Premier first made this promise, it was at Lord Tennyson Elementary School in my Vancouver constituency. She went to a classroom filled with kids and said: “This investment means parents sending their kids to 45 more high-risk schools know they will be able to withstand a major earthquake.” Seismic upgrades at Lord Tennyson Elementary School should have started in 2015. They still haven’t started.

To the Minister of Education, 447 kids at Lord Tennyson School are still attending a building that’s not safe if an earthquake hits. Why did the Premier break her promise to Lord Tennyson students and their families?

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the things that we were able to commit to is working with the school districts, specifically in Vancouver. We have the Vancouver project office, which is working very closely within my ministry. In fact at the moment, we have almost $200 million in Vancouver school district alone, in nine seismic upgrades that are underway at this time.

In this year’s budget alone, we have $560 million. We’re going to continue working with school districts. We have plans in place for seismic upgrades around the province. Again, in Vancouver specifically, when you look at the amount of investment we’re making, with 10,000 empty seats….

[1105]

We put that aside, and we do what we have to do, and that’s make the right investments in the right place for the students, something that our government is able to do. We have the funds to do it. We have historic investments in education. Our government is going to continue to make those investments in seismic upgrades for the students around British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the B.C. Utilities Commission report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016.

Petitions

D. Eby: I rise to present a petition that was delivered to my office by Amber Ridington. She presented it to me. It says: “We, the undersigned, call on the British Columbia government to implement the $10-a-day child care plan. The $10-a-day plan is a made-in-B.C. solution to the current child care crisis.”

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: First thing, committee stage debate on Bill 11, the interim supply bill.
[ Page 14131 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: I’m pinch-hitting for the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on this bill.

I have a question about section 1. The minister and the critic both alluded to this in debate yesterday, at second reading. Section 1 does say: “…being substantially 6/12 of the total amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018….” This bill, if passed — and I expect it to pass, of course — would authorize spending fully 50 percent of the budget on a fairly brief debate.

[1110]

I’m wondering if the minister could explain. I think I’m aware of that, but just for the benefit of those who may be following this or wishing an explanation of why that number is chosen — I know, obviously, it’s connected to the fact that this is an election year — can the minister explain the tradition and the reasoning behind that selection of 6/12?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. Probably I should begin by acknowledging the accuracy of what the member has said about what is contained within the bill, and particularly section 1. It is not insignificant insofar as the amount that is contained within the section. Anyone that had the bill or had an opportunity to look at it will see that it’s in excess of $20 billion. It’s enumerated within the provisions of the bill.

The concept of interim supply, of course, is not unusual, and it takes place on a regular basis in this chamber. That relates to the fact that we have made great strides and, in many ways, have led the country in this chamber for having brought an element of predictability to the budgeting process. We actually have a date set out, legislatively, upon which the budget is tabled.

That’s different than, I think, most jurisdictions within Canada, where you will still hear — it’s certainly true federally and in many other provinces — speculation about when the budget is going to be tabled. That’s not the case in B.C. It hasn’t been for some 15 years, where we know that on that third Tuesday in February, the budget is tabled — so no speculation around that.

Of course, the budgeting process involves the presentation of the budget and the tabling of the estimates. A debate takes place within this chamber, and it lasts through six sitting days, and then there is a vote on that. Members have had an opportunity to provide general commentary around the budget, and then there is a vote. But that’s not the end of the budgeting process.

The budgeting process then includes a far more detailed examination by ministry. Around here, we say “by vote,” because that is the means by which spending authority is granted, by these voted appropriations. That takes place over the course of many weeks and provides members with an opportunity to pose detailed questions to ministers who have departmental responsibilities and generally concludes near the end of May, at the conclusion of the session, when the final appropriations bill is presented to the House. In our practice here, that’s generally one of the last and final orders of business before the House adjourns for the summer.

What that means, of course, is that because we operate on a fiscal year that ends on March 31, spending authority has not been granted by the end of March. So the House resolves to provide the Crown with an interim amount so that the business of government can continue the programs and so wages can be paid to public servants. I think in a normal year, the interim supply that’s granted would be for a couple of months, two or three months, to get to the end of the estimates process.

The difference, of course, is that we also have a set election date. This year, we are in that four-year cycle. British Columbians will go to the polls on May 9, meaning that this place will adjourn and the estimates process, the second part of the budgeting process, won’t be completed. We all aspire to a certain result in the election. None of us knows with certainty what that result will be.

[1115]

The objective behind the larger interim amount, calculated on the basis of six months as opposed to two months, is to allow for that electoral process to be undertaken, to complete, and for the new government to be sworn into office, for ministerial assignments to be granted. The reintroduction, and it will be a reintroduction in any circumstance, in any eventuality…. A reintroduction of the budget, the budget documents and the estimates — an incoming government would have the choice between whether to do that in the summer or in the fall, and there are examples of both circumstances.

The selection of the six-month period is to essentially ensure that the spending authority exists for the Crown through that period. Post-election, the government, whoever it is, will have the option of recalling the Legislature either in the summer or in the fall. But make no mistake. The Legislature will have to be recalled to complete the budgeting process.

I hope, with that prompting from the member, that helps explain, to anyone that might be observing, why, in this instance, the interim amount is calculated on the basis of six months as opposed to two or three months.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that very detailed explanation. I think that’s helpful for anyone who might be curious about how that figure is arrived at.
[ Page 14132 ]

Clearly, as the minister has said, this results from the confluence of two facts: the fiscal year ending March 31 and the obligation to continue supply after April 1, 2017, and a fixed election date.

Therefore, the budgetary process in the Legislature is truncated, if I can put it that way, in the sense that there is not the scrutiny that comes with the estimates process, which involves, as members will know, the minister appearing before a committee and answering questions, typically from opposition members, about the detail of the budget for that particular department. That scrutiny doesn’t take place because of the truncation of the process.

I’m not sure that this is something that the minister may want to answer at this point. But certainly, some members, in the past, have noted that difficulty and proposed that the budget, in an election year, be moved in a different way in the calendar so that the budgetary process could be complete, or, alternately, moving the election date from the fixed election date as it is now, in May, to a fixed election date in the fall to avoid that.

The budgetary process would then be complete at the point that the incumbent government went to the polls. This would appear to be necessitated by the coincidence of those two dates.

Can the minister explain how the precise sum of the figure that’s mentioned — $20 billion, and there are a number of other subsidiary numbers — is calculated? It does not appear to be precisely half of the operating budget that was set out in the budget documents.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I’ll deal with, briefly, the first part of the member’s question, because he again accurately points out some of the commentary we hear from time to time about the convergence between the budgeting process and the electoral process.

I have to say, and I’m not sure if the member agrees with me or not on this point, to the extent that I hear suggestions or criticisms or alternative approaches, it generally comes from those suggesting a shift in the election date as opposed to a shift in the budgeting process.

[1120]

I think that might be a reflection of how deeply rooted the notion of the fiscal year is, the fiscal year that runs from April 1 to March 31. I tend to hear about that more from the perspective of concerns around political expediency than I do from many people worrying about the impact on the budgeting process or, quite frankly, the workload that befalls senior officials within the Finance Ministry or the treasury branch in years where it becomes necessary to table and then retable a budget.

There is, to be sure, an additional workload involved in that, reprinting the documents. They are reprinted, although the last time this occurred, I’m happy to say, they were reprinted virtually identically. I’m proud of that fact. From February 2013 to June 2013, we were able to return with, essentially, the identical document.

I think that the first big step was to set the date for both the election and the budget. I think that was a major step forward, and it’s one I’m very proud of. Wherever in the calendar year those dates are, particularly the election date, I suspect that there would be a suggestion by some that government or the budgeting process is somehow manipulated to conform or that people would be suspicious. If the election were at a certain point, people would be suspicious.

Well, I can think of, for example, in 2008, when catastrophic events were happening around the world. People would have said: “Well, isn’t that convenient. Just as Lehman Brothers is going under and the markets are crashing and all of this bad stuff is happening, isn’t it convenient that the government doesn’t have to record, in budgetary documents, the impact of that?”

Wherever in the calendar those dates are set, I think, and depending on the circumstances that exist, it will be possible for people to suggest an attempt at manipulation. I think it’s more important that we have the dates, that they are set, that we adhere to those dates. They’re not very set if we keep changing them periodically.

I guess that’s a very long-winded way of saying that I wouldn’t anticipate…. Well, this parliament is coming to an end so it’s no secret there. But it wouldn’t be my intention to recommend changes to either date — for the tabling of the budget or the spring election — though recognizing, as we have already discussed, that it does involve the tabling in February and then retabling of a budget thereafter.

The more specific question that the member asked related to the calculation of the amount. I will just say this, maybe as a final point. I do take a measure of pride in the fact that some of these international agencies that assess the performance of governments and assess their books — analyze them….

One of them, Standard and Poor’s, very pointedly — and, I think, somewhat unusually — in one of their most recent reports, said that in British Columbia’s case, we have the highest level of disclosure, the most transparent set of finance and budgetary documents anywhere in Canada. I suppose these things are partially subjective, but I think the fact that that agency chose to include that in their commentary in a prominent way is noteworthy. It’s something we can be proud of.

[1125]

Back to the question about the calculation of the amount, $20,243,286,000. On page 13 of the Estimates document, under the column labelled “Total voted appropriations,” the member will see the amount $40,486,572,000. This represents 6/12 — or if my math is correct, one-half — of that amount. That’s where the number technically comes from.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister. I think 6/12 is also one-half, at least as I recall from my time doing arithmetic back in school.
[ Page 14133 ]

I do want to just make a comment on the issue of moving the election date. The minister has referenced 2008. Obviously, financial markets collapsed in September of 2008, yet the then Premier, Premier Campbell, insisted that the deficit would be $495 million and loaded his Finance Minister with the obligation to take that particular statement out and around, in the way that Premiers sometimes load Finance ministers with certain obligations whether they, I would suspect, agree or not.

The concern that particularly arose there is…. While the minister has mentioned the example of 2013, certainly the disparity between the presented budget and the $495 million deficit that was campaigned upon, and repeated fairly endlessly, turned out to be completely inaccurate when the budget was tabled after the election. That, I think, is one of the wellsprings of the cynicism that some of the public might have about the coincidence of the debate, and without a full scrutiny, prior to an election.

I appreciate the minister’s comments. He’s pretty clear in his position that he doesn’t advocate, in his own work, a change on that point.

With that, those are my questions on section 1.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize. I had to send a message. I ducked out for a moment, so I’m sure I missed the most gripping part of the submission to the committee.

One thing I can alert the member to — and I am aware, in general terms, of the work that was undertaken by the Auditor General, because she told us about it — is a fairly detailed examination of the budgeting process. How, within government, forecasts are arrived at and the process by which some of these numbers — one of which we are dealing with today on an interim basis — are arrived at.

I am hopeful that we will see the result of that work relatively soon. It will, I hope, provide further validation to the kind of report card that we have seen from agencies like Standard and Poor’s, who have commented very favourably on the results of our budgeting work and how that work is presented to the public.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This section speaks of voted financing transaction appropriations, and in subsection 2(a) refers to capital expenditures in schedule C of the main estimates. I’m looking at schedule C, and there is capital spending listed for a number of ministries and agencies — the Legislative Assembly, for example — but there is a wide disparity.

[1130]

Can the minister explain what the $1 million is that the Office of the Premier is going to spend — capital spending that is budgeted for?

The members don’t seem to be overly preoccupied with this debate. That’s regrettable, I think. Let me just repeat the question. The Office of the Premier, on page 197, schedule C, is anticipated to spend $1 million. Can the minister explain what that’s for?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded by able staff it’s…. I can’t tell the member specifically, but I can tell him that if you look at page 197, up top, it’s actually $1,000 and not $1 million.

B. Ralston: Well, that’s uncharacteristic capital modesty there, perhaps.

I’m looking at the Ministry of Finance. Is that then…? The minister is proposing, in his ministry, to spend $320 in capital?

Hon. M. de Jong: To confirm what I think the member said, it’s $320,000.

I’m trying to ascertain — and have not been able to thus far — the breakdown on what that amount involves. It could include technology upgrades. The other thing it could do is relate…. And this is my suspicion. There is, for example, an agency like FICOM, which is receiving some additional personnel and some additional equipment to go with that personnel.

I haven’t yet located the document that would allow me to definitively break that out for the member, but I’m happy to try and do that and provide it to him as soon as I can.

B. Ralston: Just to confirm, then, the object of spending is not simply the minister’s office or the ministry but also may be subsidiary agencies that the minister is responsible for. I’m just trying to get a sense of how wide the net is cast here.

[1135]

Hon. M. de Jong: It appears that I partly misspoke. This is not an allocation for the minister’s office per se. It is for the ministry — that part of government contained within the CRF. It was a mistake, however, for me to suggest that it could also include an agency like FICOM.

I am told that a grant to an agency such as that would appear elsewhere in these materials and not within the provisions of schedule C, the top part of schedule C, above the label “General fund total.” So the amount we are discussing relates to expenditures within the Ministry of Finance.

B. Ralston: Can the minister tell the committee how much will be spent on his ministerial office?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two parts to this. There is, of course, in the estimates, under Vote 23 on page 91, a reference to the minister’s office on the operating side. The member
[ Page 14134 ]
will see that that amount has remained, in terms of the minister’s office, unchanged between fiscal years.

The question he asked about the $320,000…. I’m not aware of, nor have I requested, any capital upgrades within the office. I suppose it is possible that of the staff…. The photocopier seems new to me. If anyone thinks they’re going to wrestle away my Commodore 64 computer…. I’m not anticipating any major capital upgrades.

To be fair, and all humour aside, I suspect there is a regular refresh of technology within the offices, including ministers’ offices, but I’m not aware of anything unusual taking place.

The member’s question is: could a portion of that be for the minister’s office? It could be, but it would be a very, very, very small amount.

B. Ralston: I’m sure the minister will…. When he provides his answer or staff provides it for him — an answer in writing — I’ll get that detail.

Turning now to another ministry, the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, the number there is quite a bit different. If I’m correct, it’s $289.723 million.

[1140]

I just wanted a confirmation of that number, and, given that, the size of that capital expenditure. Can the minister explain what that’s about?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is, obviously, a larger amount than is reflected in other ministries. That’s because, on behalf of all of those other departments of government, the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services has responsibility for managing all of the government’s buildings and facilities, in addition to that responsibility for overseeing technology upgrades.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This would relate to responsibility for technology assets and the technology upgrades that would follow on a regular basis. So technology refreshes, leasehold improvements, furnishings for government facilities — all of that would be contained within the $289.7 million.

What I am reminded of is that it is possible, although not on the fly here, to break out by asset type those allocations — so between, for example, technology, facilities upgrades or leasehold improvements, furnishings — and to do that with respect to each ministry. What I don’t have is a chart within the estimates booklet that I can point to today for the member to do that here.

B. Ralston: Given the pace of technological change, particularly in software…. Is software treated as a capital expenditure, or is it treated as an operating expense? It might change frequently from year to year.

[1145]

Hon. M. de Jong: On the final page of the estimates, there is, under an explanatory note…. It’s on page 208, under capital expenditures. I can refer to the third bullet from the bottom of the page, referring to information systems, including the purchase or capital lease cost of mainframe and other systems, hardware, software and related equipment. The definition for budgeting and reporting purposes would suggest that software is included within the definition of capital.

It’s an interesting question, and in the aftermath of this debate, if there is any example of a situation in which software is not captured by that definition, I’ll alert the member to that.

B. Ralston: Again, in schedule C, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, there’s a certain number for capital spending, $2.323 million, and then lower, there is what’s described as transportation, $1,505,457,000.

Can the minister explain how that division of capital expenditure…? I would assume, maybe wrongly, that the transportation expenses are for direct expenditure on transportation infrastructure. But can the minister explain how the distinction is drawn between those two numbers?

Hon. M. de Jong: It goes back to the one of the earlier questions the member raised — the difference between the top and the bottom. The top relates to capital expenditures with respect to assets owned by the ministry, owned by the Crown, whereas the amount on the bottom refers to amounts transferred out to agencies like the Transportation Financing Authority. So that’s the distinction between the two columns.

B. Ralston: Looking at the Ministry of Agriculture, there is $540,000 in capital expenditure, then, within the minister’s office and the ministry. If the example of the Ministry of Finance is followed, can the minister explain what that expenditure is for?

Looking at the $540,000 in the Ministry of Agriculture, the minister has explained in his example of the Ministry of Finance that that would likely be for expenditure within the minister’s office and also within the ministry. So can the minister explain how much of that is to be spent in the minister’s office and how much is to be spent in the ministry?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve taken advantage of the opportunity to consult with officials within the Minister of Agriculture’s office and been advised that there are no plans for any significant capital purchases within the minister’s office, save and except for any kind of a technology upgrade for any of the computers that are time-expired. But beyond that, no extraordinary or exceptional capital acquisitions are planned for the Agriculture Minister’s office.

[1150]

B. Ralston: Same question. The Ministry of Justice, $5.061 million. What is being spent in the minister’s office or, more broadly, within the ministry?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two parts to the answer. The first I can offer up relatively definitively. I’m advised there are no plans for capital purchases of consequence for the minister’s office, save and except for the desktop computer that may have to be renewed or replaced for one or two of the staff that work within the minister’s office. Beyond that, no capital purchases of consequence are being contemplated.

With respect to, therefore, the bulk of the amount, I’m endeavouring to secure a more detailed breakdown. The categories would be the same. If one thinks about where there have been capital improvements, I expect the expanded Surrey courthouse is receiving some new equipment. That would, I expect, show up if that’s occurring within the year for additional technology there. Any upgrades within the court services branch would be captured by that amount. Again, I’ll endeavour to secure a more detailed breakdown for the member.

B. Ralston: Continuing again with schedule C, health facilities. There’s a number for capital spending, $917 million; then something that’s described as P3 liabilities, a debt of $79.576 million; then a third number of receipts, $231.133 million; then a further number of disbursements; and then a net cash requirement that comes out at $606.535 million.

Can the minister explain how that calculation is made and what is meant by P3 liabilities? I understand that in some of the P3 contracts, there’s a blended payment of capital and operating money. I think the Auditor General recommended some years ago that it be separated, but I’m not sure whether that is what this is referring to, or perhaps some other accounting procedures. So could the minister explain what that means?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to confirm that we are still referencing schedule C, at page 197.

[1155]

Two things. I apologize to the member. In the Supplement to the Estimates on page 7, the member will see there actually is a more detailed breakdown on capital expenditures by asset class, and it would have been helpful for me to refer him and the committee to that earlier in the exercise. That provides some additional information.

With respect to the line and the columns that the member is referring to, if we think about it this way, the left-hand column, under capital spending, refers to the actual expenditure, and then tracking across represents the sources of funding to satisfy that amount.

When we get to the far-right column, as identified at the top, that’s the amount of cash that we actually have to be in a position to disburse, to transfer, to the agencies to meet that expenditure amount located on the left.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, thank you and to the member for his assistance and participation and to staff, who I should have introduced. The deputy, David Galbraith, and Chris Skillings from the ministry as well — thank you for their able assistance.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2017

Bill 11, Supply Act (No. 1), 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong 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 11:59 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 © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada