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 14, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 43, Number 8

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2017

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: We’re delighted this morning to be able to welcome someone who is very special to you, Madame Speaker. We are really pleased to have Will Reid-Friesen in the House today. Will turned 13 years old on Friday. He’s joining us here because his mom is the Speaker of the Legislature. Because he’s 13, having been here for many years, there are some amazing memories that some of us have of the Speaker with a very tiny baby in many places in this Legislature. We remember those days well.

The House wants to, first of all, wish Will a happy birthday; wish the Speaker good luck, now that he’s a teenager; and congratulate him and welcome him warmly to this House today.

Madame Speaker, I also want to recognize a former member of the Legislature who lives in our part of the province. We’re delighted to have on the floor of the Legislature today Howard Lloyd. He was a Social Credit MLA from 1976 to 1979. I just remember he was elected with a very high percentage of the vote. He has been a long-time, very well-known figure in northern British Columbia, so I know other members would want to make him most welcome here today.

N. Macdonald: I have two introductions. First, I’d like to introduce my wife, Karen, who’s visiting us here today. Three more days, so there she is.

I also have Robyn Duncan, and she’s from Kimberley. She’s representing Wildsight and Jumbo Wild. She’s representing, here, all of the people that have worked for over 30 years to keep Jumbo Wild. She’s brought along a petition that I think is probably one of the biggest petitions that this House has seen, and I’d like you to join me in making her welcome.

Tributes

RICHARD WAGAMESE

Hon. T. Lake: I rise in the House today to inform the House of the passing of someone that had a great impact on me personally and on many, many Canadians. Internationally recognized author Richard Wagamese passed away over the weekend.

Richard was from the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations in northwestern Ontario. He’s best known for his 2012 novel Indian Horse, which won the Burt Award for First Nations, Inuit and Métis Literature and also was a finalist in the CBC Canada Reads competition. It really helped me understand the impact of colonialism on our First Nations and also helped me understand hockey — two things that the book really details very, very well.

Richard left his adopted home as a teenager, seeking to reconnect with his indigenous culture. By 1979, he was working as the native affairs columnist for the Calgary Herald, prior to writing fiction. He won a national newspaper award for column writing in 1991 — the first indigenous writer to win that award — and his debut novel, Keeper’n Me, was published in 1994.

He lived in my riding, in Pinantan Lake, just outside of Kamloops, British Columbia. He was granted an honorary doctorate from Thompson Rivers University in 2010 and presented with the Mayor’s Gala award in 2014.

First Nations Assembly Chief Perry Bellegarde said: “Richard profoundly told the stories of our peoples.”

[1010]

I know that he will be greatly missed, so if the House could join me in sending our condolences to Richard Wagamese’s family.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

V. Huntington: I do have a couple of introductions to make, but I would like to preface my introductions with the comment that this is unexpectedly my last day in the House. I did want to take the opportunity to thank all my colleagues for the incredible respect and assistance that you’ve all shown me. I appreciate the help. I appreciate the honour of being able to serve my constituency in a rather unique opportunity over the last eight years. I just wanted to thank you and the House for your kindness. [Applause.] Thank you again for your generosity.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a number of people from the riding today: firstly, Bernadette Kudzin and Yvonne Parenteau, who are my trusty constituency assistants; Phil Horan, who is my riding association president; Nicholas Wong and Lindsey Gorman — Nicholas is stepping into the ring and running as an independent in Delta South; and lastly, Ken Davie, one of Delta’s remarkable dairy farmers and the subject of one of my member’s statements. He is a highly regarded former volunteer fire chief and well respected throughout the municipality.

I would like the House to make them all welcome.
[ Page 14310 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: I have some extraordinary constituents of mine in the House today. It truly is a privilege. We had the B.C. good citizenship award earlier today. In the House, we have Paul and Terry Nichols. Some of you may recall that Paul and Terry, last November — actually, the first week of November in 2015 — started an extraordinary journey, riding across Canada on horseback to raise awareness around veterans in our community. They’ve travelled over 11,000 kilometres on horseback, and they’ve touched over 300 lives of veterans who rode along with them on their journey.

They left here in November on the front steps of the Leg and began an extraordinary journey that has changed my life, it’s changed our communities’ lives, and it’s changed the lives of so many individuals across Canada. They’ve now set up an equine therapy facility in Kersley to help to support veterans across Canada. I think it’s an extraordinary mission. We thank them. We were very pleased today with the citizenship.

As well, joining them, we have dear friends of Paul and Terry. We have Joe and Wendy Hart and Karen Powell. Would the House please help to make them welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I, too, would like to recognize the Medal of Good Citizenship ceremony this morning. We awarded Peter Lawless, my past coach, for his selfless dedication to bettering the lives of others through sport, especially with his involvement with the Soldier On program and the Invictus Games, also touching the lives of many soldiers who’ve given of themselves for our country.

Joining him today is also Barb Carmichael; her daughters Devin and Alison Carmichael; good, longtime friends Eva and Jim Ross from Vancouver. As well, we have the executive director from B.C. Wheelchair Sports, Gail Hamamoto, who is also the cousin of the Minister for Emergency Preparedness. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome today.

Tributes

SERVICE AS INDEPENDENT MLA
BY VICKI HUNTINGTON

L. Krog: I must confess a certain distress this morning, given the words of the member for Delta South, who had mentioned to a couple of us that, unfortunately, this was likely to be her last day. Of course, I immediately went to the rules that say you’re not allowed to talk about the presence or absence of a member. I wondered whether it would extend to potential absences.

I don’t think she should have to give her own swan song, so I am asking the House’s indulgence for just about 30 seconds or a minute or so.

[1015]

There’s a pantheon of great MLAs in the history of this province who sat as independents. The most obvious one is the late, great Tom Uphill, who represented Fernie for many, many years.

The member for Delta South, I think, has demonstrated an incredible example to everyone in this House of civility and integrity. She, in all of her remarks and all of her speeches, emphasized the importance of our relationship to the land and the sea and the creatures who dwell upon it and the soil that we rely on to produce our food.

She was an incredible defender of the values, I think, that are shared by most British Columbians. So I just don’t want her to leave here today, having to announce her own parting, without the opportunity at least for someone to stand up and say in this chamber that if this was the quality of MLA that was elected to every Legislature in this great country, we would indeed be able to say, with absolute confidence, that this is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. In her absence, we will struggle on as best we can, us lesser mortals.

I couldn’t finish my remarks without also reminding the members of this House, particularly those of you who haven’t been here as long as some of us, that not only did she just manage to win twice, running as an independent; she actually took down the then Attorney General of the province of British Columbia. Now that is no mean political feat.

So at the same time that she is a pillar of integrity and honesty and decency, she’s also one hell of a political warrior, and her presence here will be missed.

Thank you, Vicki Huntington.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la Journée de la francophonie. Today is B.C. Francophonie Day. The theme of today’s celebration is “Canada 150: An opportunity to celebrate our B.C. francophone heritage.”

Canada was built on the principles of linguistic duality and diversity. French-speaking citizens arrived in British Columbia in the late 19th century, and today we recognize their contribution to the province’s social, economic and cultural fabric.

Francophones continue to actively contribute and participate in the growth of British Columbia, and today we have the pleasure of honouring Maurice Guibord for his dedication and hard work in the field of francophone culture and heritage in B.C. for almost 30 years. Would the House please make Maurice very welcome.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House Scott Hodge, of Unifor 2182, representing Coast Guard marine communications officers. I thank him for the work he does and the work his members do to keep our seas safe. Will the House please join me in welcoming Scott.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re joined in the House today by representatives of the British Columbia Career
[ Page 14311 ]
Colleges Association, which is the private educational component of our high-quality post-secondary system here in British Columbia. This sector actually takes in more than half of our international students in British Columbia and provides employment for thousands of British Columbians, exporting education goods all over the world, which is a very successful program here in B.C. I’d ask the House to welcome them.

Tributes

EVIE MAITLAND

D. Donaldson: I rise today to mark the very sad passing of Evie Maitland, from Hazelton Gitanmaax, early Monday morning, to cancer at 51. She’s like family to our family. Her Gitksan name is Wii Sa. She’s with the house group Wii K’aax. She’s a Lax Gibou member of wolf clan.

The families are in deep mourning. Jim and Dorothy Lattie. And she’s the beloved wife of Billy Maitland, daughter-in-law to Alice Maitland and family to my family.

ADAM HADWIN

Hon. M. de Jong: The game of golf is popular the world over, and in the world of golf, it is generally acknowledged that some of the best is played on the PGA tour in the United States. It is, therefore, I think, noteworthy that a British Columbian, Adam Hadwin, on the weekend distinguished himself by winning the Valspar Open and has climbed to the summit of the golf world as British Columbia’s and Abbotsford’s latest PGA champion. I hope, I know, that the House will want to join me in congratulating him.

[1020]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ALMA MATER SOCIETY OF UBC
STUDENT ELECTIONS

D. Eby: The 2017 Alma Mater Society elections for UBC’s Point Grey campus, the student union for more than 50,000 UBC students, are complete for another year. I would like to thank departing AMS executives for their service to the UBC student community: Ava Nasiri, who was president; Samantha So, VP, academic; Chris Scott, VP, administration; Kathleen Simpson, who many of us met with, VP, external; and Louis Retief, VP, finance.

Congratulations and good luck in the new job to successful candidates Alan Ehrenholz, Daniel Lam, Alim Lakhiyalov, Sally Lin and Pooja Bhatti.

I think there are many of us in this House that spent some time in student politics at the post-secondary level, so many of us know the fact that running in a student election, let alone winning, is hard work. Student candidates for election have to manage work, school schedules and a full election campaign, leaving many who would otherwise think about running on the sidelines.

Despite these challenges, the candidates who stepped forward to run this year are students willing to advocate to make life better in their community. Issues like transit, housing, tuition and how best to advocate for the student body with the provincial and federal governments were widely canvassed in debates and discussions.

The AMS mission is to improve the quality of educational, social and personal lives of the students at UBC. As the parting executives will surely pass on to the incoming exec, the students who were recently elected to serve are taking on a heavy and important burden. From running vital counselling and tutoring services for students, managing a budget of millions of dollars and several large businesses, ensuring effective and fun first-year orientation and building school spirit for everything from art shows to theatrical productions and sports events, it’s fair to say the students who run the AMS take a heavy burden on their shoulders.

Candidates, thank you for running. Departing executives, thank you for your contributions to our community. Newly electeds, we hope you lead wisely in fulfilling your important mandate. I’m sure I speak on behalf of everyone in this House that we all look forward to working with you in your new roles.

JOURNEE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

M. Dalton: I’m pleased to announce the proclamation on March 20, 2017, as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. The event will be celebrated at noon here today in the rotunda. The theme of this year’s celebration is “Canada 150 — an opportunity to celebrate our B.C. francophone heritage.”

Having arrived in B.C. in the late 19th century as explorers and voyageurs, francophones were among the groups who built this province. The government recognizes their contribution to the province’s social, economic and cultural fabric. Today, as part of the celebrations, the province will be recognizing Maurice Guibord, a francophone from our B.C. francophone community, for his invaluable contribution to the research and dissemination of our British Columbian francophone history and heritage.

The government is also committed to constructive partnerships and collaboration with other governments. Today the government of British Columbia and the government of Quebec will renew their agreement for cooperation and exchange with respect to the Francophonie.

La Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique est une occasion de célébrer les deux langues officielles du Canada. C’est ce qui contribue à l’unité
[ Page 14312 ]
canadienne et permet d’assurer la force de notre pays et de notre province.

[B.C. Francophonie Day is an opportunity to celebrate Canada’s two official languages. It contributes to national unity and ensures the strength of our country and of our province.]

There are about 300,000 French-speaking people in British Columbia and over 40 francophone associations.

À tous les francophones et francophiles en Colombie-Britannique, aujourd’hui c’est votre journée à célébrer. Bonne Journée de la francophonie.

[French text and translation provided by M. Dalton.]

NEW WESTMINSTER INNOVATION WEEK

J. Darcy: Recently New Westminster held an Innovation Week, and our city did it up with a bang. The week started with young hackers taking over city hall. That’s right. Hackers took over city hall — not surreptitiously, not illegally, but with the full support of our mayor and council. It was called Hack Our City, and nine teams worked all weekend using the city’s open data to develop apps that were useful to the city or could be marketed commercially.

The winning app was a game that lets people take photos of what’s happening around town and then send the data and images back to the city to be shared. “A unique idea,” says Mayor Jonathan Coté. “We’ll wait and see if people will actually play this game, but I wouldn’t have expected people to be wandering around cities chasing Pokémon either.”

Tuesday was an innovation forum, a day for young entrepreneurs to learn about programs available for start-ups to grow their businesses and also to learn tips about how to sell their ideas.

[1025]

The next day, they had a chance to practise their pitches with the Van Tech pitch circuit at the Anvil Centre and get feedback from the mayor and from successful business people. Then on that Thursday was an extraordinary leadership dinner featuring mayors from across the greater Vancouver area talking about innovation and collaboration — quite a fascinating event.

On the final weekend, the city and our New West Chamber of Commerce hosted a conference and trade show for the film community called Digital Days: The Future is Now. The second annual Women in Entertainment celebration rounded out the week.

Innovation Week in New Westminster is all about building on our growing knowledge-based economy and creative industries and building an economic health care cluster around the new Royal Columbian Hospital, through technological, social and economic innovation. All in all, a very exciting week as the Royal City, proudly steeped in tradition, blazes new trails and moves forward boldly into the future.

CREATIVE SECTOR
AND B.C. ARTS COUNCIL

R. Sultan: Words, images and sound expressed through books, film, digital entertainment and paintings in virtually every community imprint British Columbia’s artistic competence upon the world. We have the highest number of artists per capita, 80 independent record labels, 60 film studios, 30 book publishers. Almost overnight, Audain’s gallery in Whistler has become a tourism destination.

The arts engage us, entertain us and employ us. B.C.’s creative sector has created almost 100,000 jobs and $4 billion in GDP. But let’s not take this success for granted. Our government certainly doesn’t. One vehicle of encouragement is the B.C. Arts Council. Directed by my constituent Merla Beckerman, the council has, since 2001, invested almost one-third billion dollars in arts and cultural organizations. Its criterion is simple: artistic excellence measured by juries.

They funded Emily Molnar’s Ballet B.C. tour to the U.K., New York and Ottawa. They helped indigenous artist Susan Point, whose spectacular work is showcased at YVR. They strengthened West Vancouver Museum, motivating Gordon Smith to contribute his entire art collection. Thanks to the council, Okanagan Symphony is a stronger contributor to cultural life. Two Rivers Gallery, in Prince George, is vital in that region. And 59 school districts benefit from council funding.

I encourage everyone in this House to support the B.C. Arts Council.

MENTORSHIP AND SERVICE TO
LEGISLATURE BY SUE HAMMELL

J. Shin: Four years ago at this time, a respected politician said to me: “Listen, kiddo. You pull your socks up and get in there, because you can do this. I believe in you 100 percent.” That’s just it, Madame Speaker. When the going gets tough, often it’s the confidence from that somebody that can make a world of difference. These are the heroes in our lives — those who engage, educate and empower us.

This Legislative Assembly has seen many such heroes in its 146 years — those who lift others as they climb, rallying communities for causes bigger than them and, in the process, changing our world. Today I would like to pay tribute to such a one among us, that politician who has been a hero in my life, the hon. member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who is bidding her farewell, also, to this House after 22 years of incredible service to the people of British Columbia.

First elected in 1991, then re-elected in 1996, 2005, 2009 and 2013, she advocated relentlessly for a kind and just society as our Minister for Women’s Equality; for Co-operatives; for Housing, Recreation and Consumer
[ Page 14313 ]
Services; and, of course, most recently as our opposition spokesperson for mental health and addictions.

As the executive director of the Surrey Aboriginal Cultural Society, she assisted our indigenous community, and in founding the Minerva Foundation for B.C. Women, she helped change the face of leadership in B.C. A true trailblazer for women and visible minorities in and out of politics, she has made it her life’s mission to give voice to those underrepresented. So goes the song:

Our daughters’ daughters will adore us,

And they’ll sing in grateful chorus:

“Well done, Sister Suffragettes.”

We adore you, Sue Hammell, and today we sing to you our grateful chorus. Well done, my sister. British Columbia thanks and celebrates you. [Applause.]

[1030]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN
WHISTLER-BLACKCOMB RECREATION AREA

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the recent signing in the Sea to Sky of a memorandum of understanding that highlights the importance of First Nations partnership. The recent renewal of the Whistler-Blackcomb controlled recreation area master development agreement between the province of British Columbia, the Lil’wat Nation, the Squamish Nation and Whistler-Blackcomb has set the stage for mutual benefits to flow through the new 60-year master development agreement.

The MDA contains the conceptual phase development plans identifying how the resort will evolve over time. The involvement and commitment of the Squamish and Lil’wat Nations, on whose traditional territories Whistler-Blackcomb operates, was key in creating an agreement which not only provides business certainty for Whistler-Blackcomb but also ensures mutually beneficial partnerships with these two First Nation communities over the course of the next 60 years.

Whistler-Blackcomb, the province, the Squamish Nation and the Lil’wat Nation worked hard to forge a strong partnership so that the resort’s success will include new opportunities for the Squamish and Lil’wat people. The benefits which flow to the nations include incremental revenue-sharing with the First Nations in order to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of community members.

Whistler-Blackcomb will provide the nations with revenue-sharing and development and employment opportunities, which will include enhanced economic participation benefits within their traditional territory. Through the agreement, the nations will add unique value to the growth of this globally recognized destination.

This agreement underpins the collaborative foundation on which mutually beneficial opportunities for all partners are being built. I’ve been pleased to support the collective effort, focus and commitment of all of the partners with resulting benefits to all British Columbians.

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR QUESTIONS
IN QUESTION PERIOD

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the following words bear repeating. I’d like to comment on permissible areas of questioning during question period. Yesterday’s question period did not uphold the intent of Standing Order 47A, to which I refer all members.

Broadly speaking, oral questions may be asked of ministers of the Crown relating to the responsibilities within their respective ministries or relating to statute under their authority. Matters related to caucus or party activity or the independent operations of a statutory office such as Elections British Columbia are well outside of the administrative responsibilities of any ministers of the Crown.

Further, all remarks will be addressed today through the Chair.

Oral Questions

FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS FOR
HOUSING PROJECTS IN VANCOUVER

D. Eby: I’ll make sure, hon. Speaker, not to ask about the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Liberal Party.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

D. Eby: I won’t ask about it.

Madame Speaker: Did you not hear the direction of the Chair?

D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I did. I withdraw.

We’ve been asking questions about two major B.C. Housing financing initiatives worth about $80 million in public money for buildings connected closely to two major B.C. Liberal donors, including the Premier’s fundraiser-in-chief, Bob Rennie. To all of our questions, the Housing Minister has repeatedly suggested that we’re just making stuff up. He’s even threatened lawsuits. Yet even though we’ve been asking for these documents for five days, he’s produced not a single document to show that we are, in his more polite moments, as he describes it, wrong.

Now, it’s not unusual that the opposition has to wait for a freedom-of-information request or estimate or someone to leak to get the information on a story. But
[ Page 14314 ]
when even the media can’t get the information they need from the minister, you know there’s trouble. Five days have passed since media asked for details on a public loan to a private luxury condo building marketed by the Premier’s fundraiser-in-chief, and neither B.C. Housing nor this minister has given them the information they’re asking for.

To the Housing Minister: if everybody is wrong, where are the documents; where are the numbers; what happened on this deal?

[1035]

Hon. R. Coleman: Madame Speaker, through you to the member, I at no time said that I was interested in suing the member. I said he should go take the comments and the accusations he said in this House and gladly take it outside and say the same thing — which I, by the way, have noted has not happened. There’s a reason for that, because how the member phrased his question the other day was that we gave interest-free loans to a developer to build a building. Not true. He also accused us of actually being involved in the financing of the market project in Vancouver. Again not true.

I’ll give another explanation to the member. There was a project in Vancouver, a pretty innovative project, right? There was a partnership between B.C. Housing, the city of Vancouver and the private sector to secure affordable rental housing in downtown Vancouver. There was an old social housing project on one site, getting old and tired. It was about 87 units and very old. B.C. Housing provided interim financing directly to the people building the building for the construction of the project to conform, acceptable to CMHC, for rental housing in downtown Vancouver.

At the same time, they had a non-profit society, the 127 Society, which got a prepaid lease on the site to operate that building long term. The new building that was built, instead of being 87 units, is 162 units, completely constructed and paid for. There is no outstanding loan to anybody with regards to that for construction. We have no further involvement whatsoever in the market housing that was switched to the property in a relationship with the city — none whatsoever. No decisions relative to its form, design, construction, finance and marketing, and we never gave any recommendation to touch that building relative to that.

So if that’s not clear enough to the member and he wants to accuse somebody of getting a deal, he should say it outside. The reality is that B.C. Housing only financed the 162 units. So we put 162 new units of supportive and social housing in downtown Vancouver and got rid of an older building that had 87 units. We actually almost doubled the units.

It was a very good relationship with the city of Vancouver and the developer who came to the city with the idea. We made the land swap with the city, with the society, and helped to finance it so that we could get 162 units in downtown Vancouver.

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

D. Eby: Beyond the facts that the mortgage was registered on an entirely different property, that it asked for updates on the sale of presale condos, that it was registered the month after the social housing was built, the minister’s numbers simply don’t add up. The city owned the land. It set it aside for social housing. The city put in $30.6 million in community amenity contributions to build the project. Then B.C. Housing loaned $15.1 million to the society to lease the finished building from the city.

The 162 units were built. That puts the cost per unit at a high but reasonable $288,000 each, on average, where the city provided the land. But if we believe this minister, this deal never would have been done unless B.C. Housing gave a $39 million loan to a luxury housing developer to help that developer market presale condos marketed by the Premier’s fundraiser-in-chief, who was on the B.C. Housing board when this deal got approved. The explanation makes no sense.

Again to the minister: if everybody else is wrong, where are the documents; where are the minutes from B.C. Housing; where are the numbers on the project?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so you’re clear, B.C. Housing had no involvement in the financing, construction or marketing of the market housing, relative to the land swap that took place on this. Our involvement was to finance the project to get 162 new units of affordable housing in downtown Vancouver, in a partnership with the city and a developer.

It was the city and the developer that worked out the idea of a land swap. We came in as a partner on this because we thought it was a good idea to add additional low-rental housing, affordable to people in Vancouver, by doing a partnership — that this would work. But on the market side, at no time were we involved.

I know that the member likes to make the other accusation with regards to the person that marketed this project. I can tell the member this. When this project came before the board of B.C. Housing, the individual recused themselves.

[1040]

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

D. Eby: One piece missing in that answer was whether the minister was going to release the documents, release the numbers, release the minutes from B.C. Housing. And just like with Mr. Rennie’s luxury condo project for
[ Page 14315 ]
the 288 Hastings Street project, the minister also said we were wrong. He said there was no construction financing, no loan, nothing like that for the B.C. Liberal donor, but let’s look at what we know.

We know that B.C. Housing bought land at 288 East Hastings from Wall Financial, a major B.C. Liberal donor. When choosing a developer, we know that B.C. Housing didn’t put the contract out for tender. Instead, Wall Financial, a major B.C. Liberal donor who gave $400,000 to this party just last year, was hired directly to build a $33 million project. Now a public city of Vancouver report makes it clear that B.C. Housing plans to sell the finished market rental housing units on that site directly to the same major B.C. Liberal donor. Again, no bids, no public process, just a direct sale.

We also know that not a single unit beyond the bare requirements of the local city of Vancouver zoning was added through this arrangement. Less than 40 percent of the square footage of this building is affordable rental housing.

If it’s not construction financing, can the minister explain why B.C. Housing issued an untendered contract worth tens of millions of dollars, then agreed to sell completed rental units worth more than $10 million to a major B.C. Liberal donor with no public process?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, the other day when the member brought this question to the House, he accused the government of giving a zero-percent-interest loan to a developer to build a building in Vancouver, which was not true. The construction financing on a combined project is not unusual — to be financed with cooperation of your partners. You do that. It has takeout mortgages when they’re taken out, and what happens is you end up with a project.

Now, just so the member knows…. I know he lives in Vancouver, but just so he understands, this area of Vancouver has been designated by the city of Vancouver as requiring 60 percent non-market and 40 percent market housing for rental. It makes projects difficult to deliver affordable rental housing in Vancouver, but we were successful in this particular case.

Just so the member knows, the building is going to provide 104 new units of rental affordable housing in Vancouver, which now takes the total up to almost 180 units by two projects, a product that wouldn’t get built in Vancouver if there wasn’t a partnership between B.C. Housing and the city of Vancouver and whoever is developing the project, along with a non-profit. We do not hold financing. We did not finance the market units. We financed the social housing units, 104 units, which are in the market today, are being built in the market so that people have affordable housing in Vancouver.

I know that the members opposite don’t understand that you can actually make partnerships with non-profits and people in the marketplace where you can leverage land and opportunity to create more affordable housing, more rentals for people that need it, in a city like Vancouver when land is tight and opportunities are tight. I can tell you, hon. Member, that I think this was a very good project on the standpoint of getting 104 units that are affordable, as well as some commercial space that is also owned by B.C. Housing, and this project will help subsidize those units within that building.

S. Robinson: You are allowed in this place to tell somebody that they’re wrong, but at some point, you have to either put up…. Well, everyone in the House knows the rest of that saying.

When will the minister just release all of the contracts, the financial agreements, the B.C. Housing meeting minutes for these two projects that involved B.C. Liberal donors and the Premier’s chief fundraiser?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can recall being the housing critic in this House many years ago and talking to the then Housing Minister, who is now the House Leader on the opposite side, and agreeing with them when they actually did some project in cooperation with some developers in Vancouver that delivered affordable housing in a partnership, in a relationship very similar to what we’re doing today.

We’ve been operating this way on social housing in B.C. for well over two decades. The reason we do that is if we don’t leverage the opportunity to create more affordable housing in this province, we’re making a mistake, because we’re leaving the people that need affordable housing on the sidelines, especially in a city where lands are very, very expensive, and those are opportunities.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1045]

Hon. R. Coleman: Now, I know that the member opposite thinks that somebody got a special deal here. We got the special deal. We, the government of B.C., got the special…. We got affordable housing in a marketplace where it’s very difficult to deliver. The fact of the matter is that the members opposite don’t want to recognize that the government of British Columbia has bought 50 buildings in Vancouver, with close to 1,500 units in them, renovated them, saved them, put new seismic in them and secured the product for the market.

I see the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant wants to heckle on this. It’s all in her riding, and it was the most remarkable project that’s ever been done in that city, plus another 2,000 units. So we will continue, in spite of the criticism from the people opposite, to find opportunities to provide affordable rental housing in the city of Vancouver for the people that need it.
[ Page 14316 ]

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: This minister says that we aren’t telling the truth, and he says that we’re wrong, but the one thing that he won’t do is just release the paperwork that tells us exactly what went on with these two projects. The people of British Columbia deserve the opportunity to take a look at the paperwork on these two projects with over $80 million of public money and two major B.C. Liberal donors, including the Premier’s fundraising chief. It’s up to this minister to show us exactly what has gone on, and he refuses to do so.

If the minister is so right and everyone else is so wrong, why won’t the minister just release all of the B.C. Housing minutes, the contracts and the numbers on these projects?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I told the member she was wrong about was saying, in this House, that we gave somebody a zero-interest loan on a project, which was not true — made the accusation. We always borrow, basically, at market rates. We provide the mortgage and financing to build and construct projects, and we do it in partnership with a lot of people.

I’ll give you an example outside of Vancouver. The organization that owned the Langley Lodge a few years ago wanted to actually expand the lodge. The biggest single cost would have been, outside of the actual financing, the construction loan because of insurance required by CMHC and other costs relative to that loan and the interest rate they would have had to pay to build it. By B.C. Housing coming in and doing the construction loan and blending the rates, we were able to save that project $5 million — $5 million that would have gone out in interest and fees to somebody else. That’s what we do. We do the innovation.

What I said that the members were wrong about I will not stand corrected on. I will tell you straight up, hon. Speaker, there was no no-interest loan. What I challenged the member to do was to go say that outside. Obviously, after question period, she didn’t stick around to tell the media the accusations that she was making against both B.C. Housing, non-profit societies and our partners in developing a project.

C. James: For the Housing Minister, when will he release the documents?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have provided the information to this House. We’ll continue to do that. The member doesn’t want to know what came out of it. At the same time…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …the member also knows that B.C. Housing has actually been very active in her area of Victoria and greater Victoria, with regards to both the purchase and construction of housing.

There are 5,000 units and about $1 billion of investment, quite frankly, with 2,000 under construction and another 2,900 units that are going to be built in British Columbia. We will continue to do that.

I provided the facts to this House on the deal. You didn’t like it.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will ignore the member to my right and just tell you, Madame Speaker, that the deals that B.C. Housing does and has done are separate from the government and separate from influence from the minister. They do the deals based on a process that they do publicly. They tender these projects. They do them together.

These guys don’t like the fact….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: If you have an accusation about an individual, hon. Member, through the Chair, go out and make it, please. Please go and make it, instead of slurring somebody’s name in this House.

[1050]

I’ve never liked that that could be done. I’ve never liked that it could happen in this House, because — you know what? — the individual that he slurs is a person that’s a citizen of British Columbia and has the right to defend themselves. So go out and make an accusation if you want to make it, hon. Member.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: A straightforward question to the minister. Why will he not release the documents?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have no problem with the information being shared publicly, because I’m sharing it with you right now. The reality is….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know. I know you don’t like it when government provides more affordable housing for British Columbians and does it in a way….

The member should tell the 1,200 people living in renovated single-room-occupancy hotel spaces in downtown Vancouver that they don’t support us going into the marketplace, doing a commercial deal and then putting
[ Page 14317 ]
it together with a non-profit to provide affordable housing in their city or across the province.

B.C. Housing is one of the most respected organizations in North America. They’re considered to be the leader in delivering all forms of housing. Their reputation is second to none, and I will not have somebody smear them just because they want to ask some question.

COMMITTEE ON ELECTION
CAMPAIGN FINANCING REFORM

S. Simpson: I want to ask the Attorney General about the Premier’s announcement yesterday that she was establishing a committee on campaign finance. The Premier announced that, and she announced it in response to the calls that have been going on across this province for bans on big money in politics.

Hon. Speaker, as you’ll know, the Premier’s response is this committee can be drawn back to donations that have happened over the last number of years — $8 million in 2013, $5 million in 2014, another $5 million in 2015 to the B.C. Liberal Party.

My question is to the Attorney General. We know that this committee will do nothing to stop the B.C. Liberals from doing that again post-election and continuing to raise big money. Nothing changes with this committee. My question to the Attorney General is: if the Premier’s committee will not end big money, then will she end big money in politics today?

Hon. S. Anton: The Premier has made a commitment that, should this government be re-elected, that panel, whose terms of reference are being built right now…. The preliminary work is being done right now. Should this government be re-elected, there’s a commitment to put a committee in place, which will be unanimously approved by the Legislature, to bring back recommendations as to election financing.

The member is raising issues and, in fact, will have the opportunity to air those issues because there’s a bill before the House where those issues can be thoroughly aired in the next couple of days.

Madame Speaker: Members will know that a bill can only be canvassed in generalities at this stage.

S. Simpson: In response to the minister’s comments about the committee, what we know is that large corporate donations have played a role in triggering the Premier to announce this committee. The top ten donors to the B.C. Liberal Party have given, in total, over $9 million to this party — ten donors alone, corporate donors.

My question to the minister is this: what advice has the minister provided to the Premier about whether the work of this committee should be binding and what the terms of reference of this committee will be? Will it be anything more than a shell game to get this government through May 9?

Madame Speaker: Detailed questions with respect to a bill that is before this House are not permissible at this stage.

Next question.

[1055]

IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
REGULATIONS ON CRAFT BREWERIES

N. Simons: Recently the government changed ALR regulations relating to craft breweries in British Columbia. Because of their inadequate consultation process, they have created regulations that are unfair and that could put two well-loved breweries out of business. Persephone Brewing and Crannóg Ales have been trying, without success, to get this minister’s attention, but for some reason, he won’t give them the time of day.

Why won’t the minister commit to making these regulations fair before he puts these two well-loved breweries out of business?

Hon. N. Letnick: First of all, the member is wrong. I actually instructed my staff yesterday to contact the owner of Persephone and invite him to have a meeting with me to discuss the matter.

But we have two issues here. One is the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: …which makes its decisions independent from the government on the ALR, and the other issue is regulations that cover non-farm use.

In the case of the non-farm-use regulations, we did extensive consultations. We brought in the Agricultural Land Commission. We brought in the ag industry, UBCM and the members of municipal councils. We toured around the province, did extensive consultation. We came out with regulations that took a cautious approach.

It doesn’t stop any landowner from applying to the independent Agricultural Land Commission and looking for doing something like a brewery on their land if they want to.

But the hypocrisy that I’m getting from members on the other side of the aisle here on the land commission…. The only government that I know of in the last 25 years that’s overturned a decision of the independent ALC is when they were in government before. The only member that I know of that says to everybody, “We defend agriculture,” is my critic, who stood up in her own community and said that she’d rather have basements on the ALR
[ Page 14318 ]
land than keep it in the ALR. We have nothing to answer to anybody on that side of the House.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: Well, that’s a copout and a deflection if….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, just wait.

The Chair will hear the question.

N. Simons: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

The minister really should take this seriously and not just try to point fingers, which is his favourite response. Last October the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform announced a new marketing campaign to promote B.C.’s craft brewing industry, called the B.C. Ale Trail. The government was trying to show support for craft breweries, but the only thing they showed was that they really don’t understand craft breweries.

Breweries, meaderies and distilleries have the same sourcing requirements as wineries and cideries…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: …which isn’t reflected in the regulations.

Why does the minister treat them differently? Crannóg and Persephone have been sending this government letters. They’ve been getting petitions signed.

They know this problem. It’s been going on for a long time. They know the problem. They know they can fix it, but they’re inactive. They’ve decided to not do anything. Why don’t they do something — actually do something — so that this Ale Trail doesn’t go past abandoned farms?

Hon. N. Letnick: Two parts to the answer. One is to answer again what I said before. There are two opportunities here. One opportunity is for independent landowners to make application to the land commission. They are still able to do that.

The other one is that as determined after heavy consultation on the regulations, they can, if they meet the criteria, go ahead and not have to go to the land commission. But really, at the end of the day, I have to ask the members opposite: are they really advocating here for more industrial use on land commission…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: …on the ALR? Are they really coming forward…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: …and saying that we should not take a cautious approach when it comes to non-farm use on the ALR? That’s not what we think on this side of the House.

BRIDGE REMOVAL AND ACCESS
TO SENIORS’ PROPERTIES

C. Trevena: Walter Smith and Orene Holt are seniors who live on Moose Road on the north side of the Cheekye River near Squamish. They’ve lived on this property full-time for more than a decade, but last year the only bridge to their property was removed by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Three of their neighbours, including another senior who has lived on his property for 27 years, are similarly affected. They wrote to their MLA and got no action.

[1100]

To the Minister of Forests, why is his government leaving these seniors without any access to their home?

Hon. S. Thomson: There’s significant history on this particular file and this particular bridge, removed under policy for safety reasons. We continue to work with the residents and the area on possible replacement of that bridge, but it needs to be done under policy, and it needs to be done with respect to all safety considerations. That is the ongoing policy.

We continue to engage, but the initial decision was based on public safety and ensuring, because the bridge did not meet current standards for safety, safe use for the public. We will continue to work with the residents in that area to make sure that we look at future opportunities for access for them.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think that the residents would question the minister’s commitment to safety, since the only way they’re accessing their property now is by crossing an active railway line to get to their homes. They have to park on the road opposite their properties, on the opposite side of the road, and walk across an active railway bridge, for about two kilometres.

These aren’t second homes; these are their primary residences. They have no access for themselves. Emergency vehicles can’t come if there is an injury or fire. They’re
[ Page 14319 ]
so desperate that they even applied for provincial emergency funding, and they were turned down. So much for working with the residents.

I just want to know and the residents themselves, who are in the gallery, want to know: why has the government stranded them?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll repeat again that the decision to initially remove the bridge was based on public safety reasons. Standards for the bridge did not meet any level of standards. We needed to remove that under policy.

As I said, we continue to work with them. We understand the concerns of the residents. We are looking for opportunities to provide that access. We understand the current safety concerns, again. But we need to move forward respecting the policy, respecting the approach on access on those types of roads and those types of situations. We will continue to work with the community to do so.

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT
MUNICIPALITY AND FUNDING

M. Mungall: High up in the mountains is a slab of cement lying under hundreds of feet of snow in an avalanche path. As seen on a popular documentary on Netflix, we’ll all know that this is, of course, the pathetic start to the fake town of Jumbo, a town with a mayor and a council and a bank account serving no one. The proponents of the fake town and failed resort donated more than $6,000 to the B.C. Liberals, and they got a town out of it. Now, don’t tell the Condo King, Bob Rennie; he’s sure to get jealous.

Of course, this town isn’t going to serve anyone, ever. The fake town will never become real. The people in Kootenays…. The member for Kootenay East should pay attention to this, because the people in his own riding will make sure that that town never becomes real.

Seriously, let’s just end this charade. Will the minister responsible close the bank account for the fake town and put that money into real projects in the Kootenays?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I find it very interesting that the members opposite, who have no vision for the province of British Columbia, who have absolutely no economic plan for the province of British Columbia….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Vancouver-Hastings. Nelson-Creston.

Continue.

[1105]

Hon. P. Fassbender: People with vision look to the future. The members opposite live in the past and have no vision for the future. This government will always support entrepreneurial spirit that has built this province and will ensure the future for all British Columbians. That’s what this government stands for. This project is a vision for the future and will come to fruition when it is time.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, Health Funding Explained 2.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016.

Petitions

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have a petition from constituents with regard to Sikhs wearing turbans in the workplace.

N. Macdonald: I rise to present a petition with 30,000 of the 61,526, in total, names on a petition demanding government keep Jumbo wild and respect the rights of the Ktunaxa Nation as expressed in the Qat’muk declaration.

M. Mungall: If the House has ever wondered what 61,526 signatures on a petition looks like, well, this is half. I’d like to present it on behalf of people all over the world who signed a petition to keep Jumbo wild.

S. Robinson: I’d like to present a petition from the Catholic Women’s League, petitioning for hospice and palliative care facilities to be separated from those that offer assisted suicide.

D. Eby: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Eby: I’d like to welcome Walter Smith and Orene Holt to the Legislature here. They’re the folks you heard about in QP who lost their bridge. They’re here to talk with us, to meet with us and, hopefully, with the other side as well. Would you please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage on Bill 9.
[ Page 14320 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

On section 1.

[1110]

C. James: This section updates the language around the child fitness tax credit. I just wonder if the minister could explain what this amendment will do. If someone becomes bankrupt, what happens to their child tax credit?

Hon. M. de Jong: Joining us today, at this point in the proceedings, are Mr. David Karp and Jeffrey Krasnick, and Andrew Lee is behind us.

To the member’s question: the intention behind the section, and the need for the section at all, derives from some changes that occurred in the federal Income Tax Act. The intention is to ensure that the provisions and the mechanisms that guide the availability of the credit in the event of a bankruptcy remain precisely as they are today. That required, because of changes in the federal legislation, the amendment that is contained within the bill here.

C. James: Just in addition, it’s my understanding that the tax credit was phased out at the federal level. There are two stages. The federal government is looking at phasing out a number of tax credits and replacing them with their child benefit. I understand this one was cut in 2017, or will be cut in the upcoming year. I just wondered: does that have any impact on this clause or any impact on changes? What will happen provincially with the child tax credit?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, I can confirm that the federal credit ended on January 1, 2017. But to the second part of the member’s question: there is no intention to change or phase out the provincial credit. It is intended to continue.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for the response. Just so I’m clear, then: although the changes were to coordinate with the federal act, the federal legislation now has gotten rid of the child fitness tax credit. Will that language then apply to the provincial tax credit that will be left?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that the changes that gave rise to the need for this amendment related to technical federal adjustments to bankruptcy provisions, as opposed to the credit itself.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

C. James: Section 3 speaks to an amendment to the definition of “B.C. labour expenditure,” and the description just talks about clarifying a reference, clarifying that labour expenditures can start after the final script stage, if I read it correctly. I just wondered. I wanted to be clear that it also provides the fact that labour expenditure can start before the final script. This isn’t saying that you can’t start before the final script? Is this just clarifying that you can start before and after?

[1115]

Hon. M. de Jong: The very specific reason for the amendment was to clarify and ensure that what is presently already taking place continues to take place. There was jurisprudence in, I think, Ontario that cast a bit of doubt on the interpretation of, particularly, the word “from.”

The amendment is intended to ensure that the phrase “from the final script stage to the end of the post-production stage” is meant to apply to expenditures that are incurred after the final script stage. This is about ensuring that we properly define and identify those costs — and “BC labour expenditure” is the defined term here — which qualify for the calculation of the credit. It is to properly define…. The clarification ensures that the practice that was already in place here is entirely reflected in the statute.

C. James: Just so I’m clear. There’s other language around prior to the final script, etc., in the act, or there may be other areas in the labour credits that are there. This is simply clarifying what already happens with the final script in productions.

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. So the point here — and I think I understand the member’s question — is that there’s no question that there are salary, wages and remuneration during the final script stage, which, I take it, is a term used within the world of production. But those costs are excluded and are not eligible for the tax credit. It is to ensure that there is no confusion around that. The eligible expenditures occur after the final script stage.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

C. James: Section 4, again, is just to update a reference to the minister. It changes the tax credit issue to no longer be the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, but now the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Responsible for Labour. I just wanted to ask the minister: is there any reason that there’s a change in the minister?
[ Page 14321 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: It simply needed to align with the name of the ministry. It’s actually the same minister, but the title for the ministry has changed.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

C. James: Section 5, again, just amends the definition of “eligible production” in section 79 to talk about credits. I just wondered if the minister could tell me what the need is for this change and what the inclusion of the reference of the federal act section means in this change.

[1120]

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded that the purpose of and need for this amendment relates to a change that the federal government made. They spoke about it as far back as 2003, but I think made the change a couple of years ago and replaced the term “investor” with the term “tax shelter” so that an eligible production does not include a production that is a tax shelter. But they changed the term to tax shelter, and we want to ensure that our language tracks.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

C. James: Just a quick question on section 8, which provides for the excess amount. If a refund that goes to a taxpayer is applied to a tax payable, the excess amount is deemed to be an amount that became payable on the date the amount was refunded or applied. That seems pretty commonsense. My question is: was there a particular incident that required this change? Was there some reason that this change needs to come forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member will know, this crops up in a couple of statutes. There was, I believe it’s fair to say, ambiguity. There was no specific authority for the proposition that the date for beginning the calculation of interest on an excess refund is from the day payment was made to the agency that received it or the person that received the excess refund. The concern was that in advancing on that proposition vis-à-vis a taxpayer, a citizen, there should be clear, unambiguous authority for that proposition.

C. James: So there was no specific incident. There were no challenges to when the amount became payable that led to this. It’s just a clarification that was found to be needed?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that there was an appeal relative to the logging tax, which appears elsewhere, that brought the absence of specific authority to light.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

C. James: Just a question on section 10. Section 10 talks about prohibiting a person from appealing an assessment made and prohibits appeals in cases where a taxpayer is found to receive an excessive refund. I’m just curious. Most judicial fairness allows appeals, in particular when you’re looking at a refund. I just wondered why there would be a prohibition on appealing in this section. If there was a mistake made, for example, on the refund and the amount that needed to be paid back, is there an opportunity, still, for that appeal?

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s really, procedurally and administratively, to avoid overlapping appeals. I’m reminded that an excess refund occurs as the result of a reassessment of tax payable. That reassessment of tax payable may be appealed. That may be appealed — there’s a limitation period and all of that — but it would be sort of a duplication of appeal mechanisms to then also appeal the excess refund, because the issues being canvassed would relate to the first appeal of the tax payable.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

C. James: Just a quick question on section 11. It clarifies that a court may not vary or disallow an assessment because of an irregularity in procedure.

[1125]

Again, a similar kind of question: what’s the purpose of this amendment? Is there something particular that raised this amendment and the need for it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. The general purpose is to ensure that a spelling mistake in an assessment can’t form the basis for an invalidation. The specific rationale for its inclusion here is that the provision now exists fairly commonly in other tax statutes that are administered by the division. It is included for the sake of consistency, more than anything.

Sections 11 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

C. James: Just a quick question on 27. I think the minister has answered it. This relates, as well, to section 10, around the appeal. Again, a question. This is, again, appealing an assessment under the act. If there was a mistake made, is there still an appeal stage in there somewhere — that people have an opportunity to be able to appeal the assessment?
[ Page 14322 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, she is correct. The opportunity to appeal a reassessment of tax payable continues to exist. Similarly, an overlapping appeal on the excess refund is not necessary. But the fundamental right to appeal tax payable or the reassessment of tax payable remains.

Sections 27 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

C. James: Just a question again around the purpose of this amendment, which provides for the amount of a bond. This is related to the Tobacco Tax Act. Seems fairly straightforward, but I’m just curious why the amendment is necessary.

Hon. M. de Jong: In 2015, there were amendments made — the member and I may have discussed them — to several consumption tax statutes. The idea, the intention, was to improve consistency. Hopefully, that was achieved.

But in the process of doing so, the collection bond provisions in the Tobacco Tax Act ended up having an unintended restriction, which, on the amount of the bond, the director would require as a condition of holding a permit to sell tobacco products.

[1130]

I’m reminded that, as a result, the director was left with a statutory authority that required the imposition of either a $5,000 bond or a much higher amount, a formula six times the amount of something. But it was one or the other, so $5,000 or much higher.

There was really no intention to remove the discretionary authority for the director to choose an amount between $5,000 and that higher amount. This is intended to restore that discretionary authority for the director to, exercising their discretionary authority, pick either one of those amounts or an amount in between.

C. James: So it’s not expanding the discretionary authority. It’s basically confirming and restoring the discretionary authority that was there previously, before the changes were made.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the member is correct. It is intended to restore authority that previously existed until it was inadvertently limited in 2015.

Sections 37 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: With thanks to the hon. member, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:31 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: We are now at committee stage on Bill 3, Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS
(HISTORICAL WRONGS) REPEAL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:33 a.m.

On section 1.

A. Dix: The minister and the ministry went through a process here of comprehensive review of legislation. So as we open the debate on section 1, what the minister determined and what the ministry determined was that there were 204 discriminatory provisions not in effect and 19 which may still be in effect, and there was an overall review of, really, thousands of provisions.

Can the minister, as they do in some of the documents provided by the ministry, take us through the process that staff went through to identify these 19 provisions that we’re dealing with here in section 1 and tell us about that process — how they were identified and why the decision was made to specifically address these 19 pieces of legislation?

[1135]

Hon. T. Wat: Before I begin to respond to the hon. member’s question, I’d like to introduce my staffers. On my right is Dean Sekyer. He’s the executive lead for multiculturalism. On my left is Lynn Tang. She’s senior manager at the ministry.

With regard to the question from the member about how the process goes, we started with a list of discriminatory legislation that was identified, first, in our public
[ Page 14323 ]
consultations, the seven public consultations all throughout the province. That included the work that was done by opposition as well.

Thanks, Member, for your support of our public consultation and the final report that came about.

We reviewed all the current public acts, and we found nothing there. Then we reviewed the private, the local and special acts enacted between 1871 and 1947. That was the year when the federal exclusion act was repealed. But then it was suggested to us that we expand the scope of the review to acts enacted up to 1982, the year when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.

As a result of that, we reviewed almost 2,000 acts, including all the amendments. We identified 223 acts which included prohibitions that were discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity and place of origin. So we forwarded this to staff at the Ministry of Justice to confirm whether they were repealed or were otherwise no longer in effect.

Justice staff came back with a result that 204 were not in effect, for one reason or the other. My understanding is the member has been provided with a list of the 204 acts, from my staff to you. The remaining 19 acts are in the bill before you.

As to your second question, you asked about why we eliminated the discriminatory provisions and not the entire act. It’s because just eliminating, repealing, the discriminatory provisions will have no bearing on the remaining provisions of the entire acts. Some of the private acts might still exist and might serve some purpose. That’s why we don’t repeal the entire acts.

A. Dix: Well, I didn’t ask that question, but I will. The issue of a lot of the bills, if you look at the 220-odd bills in question, a lot of the sections of previous private acts….

I’ll give, just as an example, for the sake of argument, an act to incorporate the Coast Kootenay Railway Co., which is No. 44 on that list. That provision was repealed in 1902. I would guess — in fact, I know — that that wasn’t repealed specifically. In other words, that act was repealed in that case. In the case of a lot of the acts, the private bills, they were repealed by statute — probably in some sort of cleanup. But really, they were railways. They had been…. I think, in many ways, the purpose of the bill had been expired, and the acts were repealed for a series of reasons.

I guess my question is with respect to these 19 acts in question. They deal with different provisions, but a significant number of them are what are called incorporation bills. The minister has reviewed those, and we’re not repealing the entire bill.

[1140]

Is it the case, for example, as we go through just the incorporation ones — the Vancouver Electric Light Co., the Vancouver Gas Co., the New Westminster and Port Moody Telephone Co., The Vancouver Streets Railway Co., the New Westminster Electric Light and Motor Power Co., the Lightning Creek Gold Gravels and Drainage Co., the British Columbia Great Gold Gravels Dredge-mining Corp., the Red Mountain Tunnel Co., the Big Bend Transportation Co., the Pine Creek Flume Co. — all of these companies are still in existence, or is it the case that they are no longer in existence? And if they’re no longer in existence….

I’m just asking, because the previous method by which the discriminatory bills’ provisions were eliminated wasn’t to eliminate them but to eliminate the whole act. That’s what happened in 1902. Why aren’t we eliminating the whole act here, in the same way as governments have in the past?

Hon. T. Wat: To answer your question, Member, it’s not really my mandate to look at the entire act. My mandate as Minister for Multiculturalism is to identify the discriminatory language in any act that is based on place of origin or any of the others. So that was my mandate — to just repeal the discriminatory language.

Also, our staff discussed with JAG staff, and they cannot confirm whether those corporations that you mentioned in the 19 prior acts are still in existence or not. If we have to do a corporate audit of all those companies, it’s quite expensive. That’s why we are not going to repeal the entire act — in case there is any unintended purpose that that act is still there for, for those corporations.

A. Dix: Just so I understand it, in none of these cases we know…. If these corporations were in existence to the present, then they would presumably be operating under this act. That’s the concern of the government, presumably, in not repealing the entire act — that the corporation may be in existence. It’s the case, in doing the work on this, that the government doesn’t know whether the companies still exist or not. Is that the case? Am I to understand that in the case of…? My guess would be, having looked at….

Some of these are actually quite famous companies — or were, in B.C. history — and had a very significant impact on the development of communities. I know that in at least a couple of the cases, including the New Westminster and Port Moody Telephone Co., they don’t exist in that form. Is it the case that the government doesn’t know — and we’re not talking about a lot of companies here — whether the companies still exist? Had they still been in existence and still operating under this act, these provisions, for them…. I presume that they would have been seeking their change for these provisions over the time.

What the minister is saying is that the government doesn’t know whether any of these companies that are affected still exist, still operate in British Columbia or not. They’re not all, the 19, incorporation bills. I would say that from the list I mentioned, probably half are in-
[ Page 14324 ]
corporation bills. What the minister is saying is that the government doesn’t know whether they exist or not.

I say that because, as the minister will see from the other pieces of legislation, a significant number of which were private incorporation bills, that the provisions in question were repealed at the time when the full act was repealed. So the decision was taken that it would be too expensive, essentially, to review whether the companies in question, which were incorporated between 1871 and, roughly, 1925…. I think that was the latest one. For those companies, the ministry, in its review, didn’t determine whether they existed or not. Is that the case?

[1145]

The minister is saying it’s a financial question. “We were being very precise. We don’t know if the companies exist or not. We’re getting rid of the provision. That was the method.” Why wouldn’t the ministry do what governments have done in the past and simply eliminate the entire act?

Hon. T. Wat: Just to reiterate what I told the member earlier, it’s not my mandate to review the entire act. My mandate is to try to identify all the discriminatory language in any public or private acts. That’s what my mandate is.

We have talked to the Ministry of Justice staff, as I told you earlier. They cannot confirm whether those private corporations are still in existence. So to repeal the entire act might have certain consequences that we don’t know. That’s why we are not taking on the task of repealing the entire act.

A. Dix: If I were to ask the question, “Have any of these companies been operating under these acts, which are racist acts, for the last 100 years?” the answer to that question, just to be clear, is that the minister doesn’t know.

Hon. T. Wat: Yes, we cannot confirm. We talked to our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. They cannot confirm whether those companies mentioned in the 19 acts are still in existence or not.

A. Dix: Some of the provisions — such as, for example, section 1(d), section 1(i) and others — had time limits. Those provisions granted mining rights and other things for a period of years. In those cases, there wouldn’t be any move into the present because the legislation itself, the private act itself, was constrained by the time limit within the act. It was a granting of mining rights for 25 years or, in the other case, two years.

In this case, we’re repealing the legislation — just to be clear, those sections of the legislation — because the actual bill is no longer in force, right? If the bill’s purpose is to grant mining rights for 25 years — which it was in, I think, the case of section 1(d) — and those 25 years expired, then the bill sits on the books, but the mining rights don’t exist any longer. Is that a fair description of those provisions?

So this is genuinely a cleanup. The mining rights don’t exist, they were granted for a period of time, but this cleans up the legislation.

Hon. T. Wat: None of the 19 public acts have been previously declared to be ineffective or repealed, and that’s why we’re doing a cleaning up job, as you suggested.

[1150]

From what we heard from the consultation, the Chinese community are very emotional about this whole issue. They don’t really want to see any discriminatory language still in existence in any of the acts in British Columbia. That’s why we are doing all the due diligence to make sure that none of the discriminating language is still there, and that’s why we are repealing the discriminatory provisions only.

A. Dix: Of course I agree with that. I’m just wanting to be precise in this discussion.

Is the minister confident now, having done this review, that no such language exists in B.C. legislation?

Hon. T. Wat: To the member’s question, I agree with you that we do have some caution. During our review, our staff did all they could do, exhaustively, to scrutinize thousands of piece of legislation — actually line by line. However, I cannot fully guarantee that something was not missed. So going forward, if any further discriminatory provincial legislation is identified, we will take appropriate steps to repeal it.

I just want to cite you an example, to see that sometimes things can be missed. The city of New Westminster carried out a similar process to clean their bylaws of discriminatory language. They did repeal all those that they could find at that time. But during our review process, the Ministry of Justice staff discovered two New Westminster bylaws containing discriminatory provisions that were missed in the New Westminster original repeal.

When we, as a province, informed the city of New Westminster of that fact, they repealed the two bylaws right away. We will do the same, just in case in the future other obscure historical laws are identified.

A. Dix: It is a remarkable process. I think that — for people who are students of B.C. history, especially — these pieces of legislation are in fact profoundly interesting. I think people will understand, as the minister does, that this Legislature did a major review in the 1920s that resulted in a report to the Legislature, tabled in 1927, that stated very bluntly how successful the government had been in ensuring that no one who was Chinese Canadian, who was Japanese Canadian, who was South Asian worked on public works in British Columbia. They didn’t work on public works.
[ Page 14325 ]

You look at these bills, and while some of them are incorporation bills — and the way that companies incorporated changed after a time and these provisions did not continue to exist in any form, discriminatory or otherwise, afterwards — many of these bills were how the government intervened in the economy at the time. The government of British Columbia, for decades — you can see it in the bills that were repealed and you can see it in these bills — intervened in the economy and felt it necessary, when they intervened in the economy, to include, in that intervention, racist provisions.

This is profoundly a part of Canadian history, of course. The national railway was constructed in a way and — this was the provincial government — with the use and, in many cases, abuse of workers who had been imported to Canada. This was part of the reaction to that.

[1155]

I wanted to thank the minister and her staff. I think that what this tells us is that these are not just obscure pieces of legislation. They represented, if you will, the expression of government policy in the market and in the economy. They were specific, they were repeated, and in some cases they went on, clause after clause, in the creation of private bills to ensure the exclusion from the economy of thousands and thousands of people who in every other way were and ought to have been citizens.

Some, of course, were with respect to voting rights, and others were repealed very famously when people were given the right to vote. It’s almost laconic here when you talk about when an election act was repealed or changed. That was actually a major day in the history of British Columbia.

What we see in legislation here…. Even though some of the bills about specific sites and about specific mineral rights might be seen to be unimportant, they were in fact the expression of a broad government policy. They profoundly affected families in question. They were a decision by government that was a policy for decades to ensure British Columbia to be a white man’s province. So it’s a very good day.

I think we’re not going to ask questions on section 2, which is that the bill will be brought into effect by royal assent. But that day — and, you know, there may be other things that come up — demonstrates a different view and a different vision in the present.

I want to thank the minister’s staff for all the work they’ve done and the minister’s team for doing the work they’ve done and express support for section 1.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, I would like to thank the member for all his input and all his insight.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS
(HISTORICAL WRONGS) REPEAL ACT

Bill 3, Discriminatory Provisions (Historical Wrongs) Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone 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 11:58 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