Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 41
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Hon. D. Eby | |
Hon. A. Dix | |
L. Reid | |
J. Brar | |
J. Sturdy | |
R. Kahlon | |
R. Sultan | |
J. Rice | |
P. Milobar | |
Hon. L. Popham | |
I. Paton | |
A. Olsen | |
Hon. C. Trevena | |
M. Stilwell | |
Hon. L. Popham | |
J. Johal | |
Hon. J. Sims | |
S. Cadieux | |
T. Redies | |
Office of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear Management, October 2017 | |
Orders of the Day | |
Hon. D. Eby | |
J. Rustad | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Hon. C. James | |
S. Bond | |
T. Redies | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2017
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. K. Chen: Yesterday we had an important milestone that was marked by my colleague the Minister of State for Trade for his wedding anniversary. It turns out that we also have an important milestone to celebrate today, because it is a significant birthday for someone who is very special in this chamber.
She has served as an MLA since 2005 — a hard worker, a dedicated advocate for children and families in B.C., a proud grandmother of nine beautiful grandchildren, four beautiful kids. She’s also a mentor and a close friend to many of us. She is always energetic, positive and really fun to work with. To me, as a new MLA, she’s like the mommy bear in this Legislature.
Happy birthday to the Minister of Children and Family Development.
L. Throness: Many of us in the Legislature today have our constituency assistants in Victoria for meetings this week, and a couple of family members have tagged along with Dagmar Lucak, my constituency assistant. I’d like to welcome Bill Lucak and his son Emry, from Hope, to the Legislature today. Would you welcome them.
Hon. D. Eby: I was just looking up at the gallery there, and I thought I saw Jane Dyson of the Disability Alliance British Columbia. A great honour to have her in the House today. A great advocate for people with disabilities across the province. If the House would please join me in making her feel welcome.
Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are four members of the Premier’s correspondence unit. I have to tell you that we get a lot of mail. They go through it diligently, and I get a report every week. I’m not going to mention daylight-saving time in this, but I will say we have with us Jake Rochon, Titas Uzdavinys, Ashley Hampson and Allegra Wolansky. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Singh: We have in the gallery Lynn Perrin, a dear friend and a community activist from Abbotsford. Lynn was a very strong voice in the 2011 campaign to keep water in public hands. Would the House join me in welcoming Lynn.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 14 — SHERIFF
AMENDMENT ACT,
2017
D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Sheriff Act. This bill will address an identified gap in legislation by providing clear authority for sheriff services to conduct threat and risk assessments.
In British Columbia, sheriff services division is responsible for the safety and security of the courts in our province. This responsibility includes ensuring the safety of the judiciary, legal counsel, court users, the public and government employees. Sheriffs are also responsible for the safe and secure transportation of in-custody persons to and from the court.
To fulfil their mandate, sheriffs assigned to the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit conduct threat and risk assessments. These assessments directly inform the security plans and staffing levels required to ensure the safety and security of users of our justice system.
This bill will address an identified gap in legislation by providing clear authority for sheriff services to conduct these essential threat and risk assessments. In addition, this bill will provide sheriffs with the legislative authority required to continue to maintain access to the Canadian Police Information Centre database for the purpose of conducting their threat and risk assessments.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: 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 14, Sheriff 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.
BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2017
Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017.
Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Health Professions Amendment Act be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Dix: There are three changes proposed here to the Health Professions Act. The first allows any of B.C.’s health professional colleges to amalgamate. Currently — this is interesting — we can add new health colleges, but we cannot amalgamate current colleges. It’s a move prompted by a request from three professional nursing colleges: the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of B.C. and the College of Registered Nurses of B.C.
Second, the amendments allow for the appointment of an administrator for a health professional college in the unlikely event the college board is seen to not be acting in the public interest. The act states that it’s the duty of a college board to protect and serve the public at all times.
Third, patient safety will also be further supported, as amendments will ensure that infection control breaches can be reported to public health officials in a timely manner. For example, if poor sterilization practices are observed, the amendments will ensure that this can be reported immediately. While any breaches can currently be reported, they first go through college investigation processes instead of directly to public health in a timely manner.
I move the introduction of the Health Professions Amendment Act and that it be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 10, Health Professions 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)
KIDSPORT RICHMOND
L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to KidSport Richmond. They believe that no child should be left behind, left on the sidelines, and all should be given the opportunity to experience the positive benefits of organized sport.
KidSport provides support to children in order to remove financial barriers that prevent them from playing on organized teams. KidSport Richmond is a chapter of the non-profit organization KidSport British Columbia, which is an affiliate of Sport B.C. Funds raised in Richmond are spent in Richmond. These funds are used to cover the registration fees for a season of sport for financially challenged families.
Sport and physical activity provide opportunities for kids to learn teamwork, fair play, dedication and commitment. Kids learn how to set goals and achieve them, all the while having fun as they acquire important lifelong social and fundamental physical skills. As a result, kids increase their sense of self-confidence and live healthier lives.
They are proud to assist children from Richmond families access sport each year. So far this year they have raised $76,000 for 231 kids. KidSport Richmond believes in the values and benefits of kids playing organized sport. They know that sport will provide them with the opportunity to stay physically active over their life course.
I want to pay special tribute to Alexa Loo, our Olympian, who continues to do stellar work for this organization. Their funding is raised through a combination of community events, corporate sponsorships, support from foundations, organizations and individuals.
The premiere fundraising gala, Creating Community Champions, is an annual event in the spring each year. It is a remarkable evening spent amongst champion athletes working together to help all children have access to the positive experience of sport and physical activity. In 2018, the gala will be on February 16. See you there.
B.C. FAMILY HEARING RESOURCE SOCIETY
J. Brar: Good news for deaf babies. Every year almost 45,000 babies are born in B.C. On average, 115 of those children are deaf and hard-of-hearing children, and their families look for help.
I’m very pleased to inform this House that there is a place for those children in Surrey-Fleetwood. The B.C. Family Hearing Resource Society, based in Surrey-Fleetwood, is the largest, only non-profit organization in B.C. that offers a wide range of services to deaf children from birth to school age.
The society offers a variety of communication choices that include spoken language, sign-supported speech and American Sign Language. The mission of the organization is to help each child reach their fullest communication potential through family-centred and early intervention programs. In other words, the key goal of this organization is to make those children school-ready by teaching them spoken or sign language. With their support, those children become school-ready, and they walk into their first classroom like any other student.
My sincere thanks to the executive director, Noreen Simmons, staff members, board members and founders, Elks and Royal Purple of Canada, for delivering this exceptional program for our children for the last 35 years.
ABORIGINAL LEARNING IN
SEA TO SKY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
J. Sturdy: Today I am pleased to rise to acknowledge the collaborative work that has taken place in the Sea to Sky school district to enhance Aboriginal learner engagement and outcomes. Talking circles, potlatches, drumming events and cedar harvesting are just a few of the activities incorporated into the curriculum of school district 48, a district that encompasses the communities of Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and D’Arcy.
Through an Aboriginal engagement agreement, the Sea to Sky school district is committed to engaging all students with flexible, relevant learning with the aim to better enhance understanding, respect and engagement in Aboriginal language, culture and history. SD 48 aspires to create strong and respectful relationships between schools and all Aboriginal communities, and their approach has resulted in improved outcomes for learners.
The curriculum focuses on enhancing a sense of belonging and responsibility in the learning environment and community, enhancing academic skills and achievement for greater success in school, the community and life. Evidence of Aboriginal culture and territorial language is now demonstrated in all Sea to Sky schools, from daily PA announcements to a range of cultural activities. The Aboriginal enhancement agreement includes parents, Aboriginal communities, elders and schools, and all partners are accountable for providing support.
Even while significant strides have been made, graduation rates for B.C.’s Aboriginal students have lagged behind non-Aboriginal students. However, in the Sea to Sky school district, this is no longer true. Essentially, there is no difference between graduation rates across the whole student population. Clearly, this is great news and a tribute to the good work of families, students, teachers, administrators and the board of education for the Sea to Sky school district. While there is always more work to do, I hope the House can congratulate them all on this important milestone.
INDIANS ABROAD FOR A PLURALIST INDIA
AND WORK OF SARWAN
SINGH AUJLA
R. Kahlon: A Lower Mainland–based group, Indians Abroad for a Pluralist India, also known as IAPI, honoured retired school principal Sarwan Singh Aujla in Surrey on October 12. It was fascinating for me to learn about the work of Mr. Aujla. IAPI honoured him in recognition of his contribution to strengthening cross-cultural bonding and human relationships beyond religious and national boundaries.
Mr. Aujla was instrumental in the renaming of a school in Punjab after Rehmat Ali Wajidke. Rehmat Ali was a Muslim freedom fighter and a member of the Ghadar movement. He was executed by the British in 1915 for organizing against British rule of India. Mr. Aujla has been instrumental in sharing Rehmat Ali’s sacrifices and ensuring that his history lives on.
After the renaming of the school, he continued his work, traced Mr. Ali’s descendants and, through his research, located them in Pakistan. Rehmat Ali’s family originated in what is known today as Punjab. His family was forced to relocate, after the partition, to Pakistan. Mr. Aujla organized for the family to visit India, where they were honoured by the Punjab government.
IAPI is a human rights organization which was recently formed to raise a voice against growing attacks on religious minorities in India. Particularly, Muslims are increasingly being targeted and seen with an eye of suspicion.
IAPI is a cross-sectional movement started by people of Indian origin in Vancouver who are concerned over a continued onslaught on the diversity and pluralism of Indian society and growing hostilities between two neighbouring communities. Seventy years have passed since India and Pakistan were separated, yet relations between the two sides remain strained.
As part of the initiatives in recent months, IAPI has chosen to honour Mr. Aujla for standing up for secularism and universal brotherhood. I want to congratulate IAPI on their commitment to building a tolerant and inclusive society, both here and abroad.
NORTH SHORE WOMEN’S CENTRE
R. Sultan: For 16 years, I’ve done my best to help the North Shore Women’s Centre, a drop-in centre helping women from Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay. Michelle Dodds and her volunteers do a lot with a little. They are grassroots and not very pushy. They don’t have much glitz and operate on a tiny budget. They try to help everybody who walks through the door. Those who do tend to be victims of poverty, violence, relationship breakdown, unaffordable housing, unemployment, discrimination, school dropout, and the list goes on.
You may think we don’t have people like that on the affluent North Shore, but we do — many of them, in fact. So if you’re hungry and dishevelled, they will give you food and toiletries. If you’re homeless, you can use their washer and dryer, telephone or copier. If you can’t use a computer, they’ll teach you how. They will counsel you and organize summer camp for your kids. You can sign up for workshops on yoga, nutrition, finance and parenting. If you’re fleeing domestic abuse, they’ll find female family lawyers to help you pro bono.
It’s rare to find a low-profile and compassionate social boutique. By way of contrast, I have become, over the years, somewhat more skeptical of the large ratio-driven conglomerates. It’s a social services bargain. Thank you, Michelle Dodds.
DISABILITY ALLIANCE B.C.
J. Rice: Since 1977, Disability Alliance British Columbia has been dedicated to ensuring that all people with disabilities in this province are able to live with dignity, independence and as equal participants in our communities. They offer direct services, community partnerships, advocacy and have contributed to numerous research projects and publications.
Most recently Disability Alliance B.C. has been advocating for the need to establish functional needs frameworks for our communities in order to integrate the needs of persons living with disabilities into local emergency plans. In this way, they are working hard to ensure that large-scale emergencies will not disproportionately affect persons with disabilities, people who have a higher level of disaster vulnerability. They also have worked to provide training for local authorities in support of the province’s commitment to the emergency preparedness building block of accessibility 2024.
This has dramatically increased the capacity for local communities around B.C. to respond to the needs of people with disabilities in emergency and disaster scenarios. Disability Alliance, in partnership with PreparedB.C., also helped create the resources for people with disabilities guide, which provides vital information for those with unique preparedness considerations, and has provided recommendations to local communities on how to identity people’s actual needs during emergency events.
I want to thank Disability Alliance for their dedication to providing essential services for people in this province living with disabilities. I look forward to meeting with the alliance later today, as we continue to work together in improving all British Columbians’ level of emergency and disaster preparedness.
Oral Questions
REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
BY AGRICULTURE
MINISTRY
P. Milobar: Yesterday, the minister of intimidation shared some startling information with this House.
Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, that statement is out of order. There is no minister of intimidation in this House.
Member, if you could please rephrase your question without a reference to a….
P. Milobar: I apologize for mistaking the Minister of Agriculture for the minister of intimidation. I withdraw that.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture shared some startling information with this House. This after she sent a coercive letter to a law-abiding company, a letter most would consider unbecoming a minister of the Crown, a letter even the Georgia Strait Alliance characterized as “an eviction notice–like letter.”
Earlier she told the Vancouver Sun that she was investigating one of the top scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture. His sin? Producing research that doesn’t work for the minister and her friends. But then, in the chamber, the minister said that it wasn’t just Dr. Marty under her eye, but an entire lab was being reviewed.
So to the minister: which is it? Is it Dr. Marty who she’s trying to intimidate or the entire lab?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I’ll be clear with the member. There is no investigation, formally, and nobody is being fired. But we are focused on ensuring that there is integrity in our lab. With the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we’re reviewing the results of previous samples to make sure there is integrity in our results.
As I’ve said, we’re in the initial preliminary assessment phase, reviewing the overall fish health audit program from front to back, which is welcome in the scientific community. This will involve looking at our policies and practices of the lab and examining them for scientific rigour, and I don’t understand why the members across the way would have any problem with that.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: It is a little hard to take the minister seriously. She says that there’s not an investigation, and two sentences later she says “investigation.”
She told the Vancouver Sun: “There were some very strong allegations that were made, and that’s very concerning, so we are looking into that currently.”
In the space of the weekend, she went from investigating Dr. Marty to now reviewing all of the work done by the ministry’s lab. Now, that doesn’t fit with what the minister said yesterday in this House. She said the review was being undertaken because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans asked for it.
Can the minister table, in this Legislature, exactly what form her investigation has taken?
Hon. L. Popham: I’m very happy to answer this question, because when it comes to integrity, you will find that our government makes sure that that’s a priority.
Our priority, for the member’s information, is ensuring that the public can trust the information that government produces so that we can work together to protect B.C.’s wild salmon and the nearly 10,000 jobs that depend on it.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a second supplemental.
P. Milobar: Let’s be clear for the minister. She has accused a respected scientist, a respected public servant, of lacking integrity. She has told someone who is serving the people of British Columbia that she doesn’t believe his work because it doesn’t match her world view.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
P. Milobar: And she seems unable to give anyone a hint of evidence about his alleged wrongdoings.
She said it was because First Nations and others don’t agree with him, in the Vancouver Sun, but then she said, in this House, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has raised serious concerns — talk about shooting first.
To the minister: was Dr. Marty given the decency of an official warning that the minister he reports to was going to publicly accuse him of lacking integrity?
Hon. L. Popham: As I said at the beginning of question period, there is no official investigation happening on any individual, and nobody is being fired. The only people in this chamber that are mentioning individuals are the official opposition.
Our lab in Abbotsford is very well known to do excellent work, but when allegations are made, we take them seriously. We want to make sure, on the world stage, that we have the respect from other scientists around the world. It’s very important to the work we do. I would imagine that the members on the other side of the House would also want our lab to be held up at the highest esteem on the world stage.
I. Paton: Let’s recap this rather disturbing situation. The Agriculture Minister has written the Agricultural Land Commission previously to intimidate them into making a quick decision. She has also written to a law-abiding business in British Columbia, threatening the livelihood of all who work there because it doesn’t fit with her view. Now we find the minister is going after a scientist because she doesn’t agree with his research.
The minister keeps talking about how she wants integrity in the system. Well, here’s the minister’s chance. Yesterday she said Dr. Marty’s job was on the line, so she must know why.
Can she tell us what Dr. Marty has done — aside from disagree with her — that would imperil his job?
Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be clear. I’ve never said that anybody’s job was on the line.
I. Paton: The Minister of Agriculture, a minister of the Crown, is threatening the reputation of a respected public servant. She has taken the whole lab and thrown them under the bus. She seemingly has no basis for this at all. All we have is a continued pattern of intimidation by this minister of anyone who tends to disagree with her.
The minister has the opportunity to make this right. She has the opportunity to try and salvage any shred of dignity she has left. Will the minister do the right thing — admit she has made a mistake and clear Dr. Marty’s name — instead of dragging his name through the mud to make her friends happy?
Hon. L. Popham: As I’ve said many times already, we are in the preliminary stages of an assessment phase of our lab. We’re going to be reviewing the overall fish health audit program from front to back. This will involve looking at policies and practices of our lab and examining them for scientific rigour. I think that’s the right thing to do.
REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING
AND TAXI
INDUSTRIES
A. Olsen: Last week my colleague asked the Minister of Transportation why we’re updating legislation for the taxi industry without engaging ride-sharing companies. What we are deeply concerned about is a two-stage process where a new taxi-only status quo is created before considering ride-sharing at some later date. What we need is a parallel process that considers both simultaneously.
In response to our question, the Minister of Transportation suggested that the government is in fact engaging with ride-sharing companies. However, the government’s terms of reference for the modernizing of passenger-directed vehicle services has a list of 19 different stakeholder groups that are to be consulted, and ride-sharing companies are not among them.
To the Minister of Transportation, how does the minister explain this inconsistency between what is being said and what the documents are telling us is happening?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for the opportunity to share how we are looking at bringing in a new way of doing business in B.C. and finding a made-in-B.C. solution.
Yes, we are looking at the taxi industry. There’s no question about that. Yes, we are talking to ride-share companies, and yes, we are engaging with stakeholders. We listed some of the stakeholders on the terms of reference. Obviously, we didn’t list every single one. It would have taken pages and pages and pages to include them.
We are involving people. We are talking with people. We are accepting comments from people. We want to make sure we get this right and that this is the proper made-in-B.C. solution. I look forward to the involvement from the opposition members to be part of this.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: To be clear, this is not an issue of time for us, necessarily. I think that everyone understands that public policy that’s debated and developed in this House needs to be done right, and reviewing taxi legislation is part of the solution.
However, what makes no sense to us is that a process is set up for updating this industry while pretending we can ignore the biggest change of it, which is what we see in the process that’s been set up. This is actually a change in the business model. Disruptive tech businesses are changing the business model. We need to be looking for fairness, not a level playing field.
To the Minister of Transportation, will the minister commit to providing an updated terms of reference that includes a more inclusive list of the people that are being consulted on this and that Mr. Hara will not simply engage ride-sharing companies but ensure that the report produced will include considerations for a regulatory regime in which ride-sharing companies can operate in this province?
Hon. C. Trevena: As I mentioned in answer to the previous question, we are talking to ride-share companies. We’re talking to a wide range of organizations, both international ride-share companies as well as local ride-share companies. We’re talking to stakeholders from across the province and beyond.
As people know, we have had Dr. Dan Hara, who I think perhaps said it best — and if I might quote him: “Whenever there’s a new technology that offers potential benefits and improvements, it’s always possible to allocate those benefits so there’s a win-win-win” — so that users win, customers win and providers win.
That’s what we’re wanting to do to make sure that, in B.C., everybody wins, that we get a solution that works for people. We will be bringing that on, and I look forward to engaging the member for Saanich North and the Islands in this discussion as we move forward.
REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
BY AGRICULTURE
MINISTRY
M. Stilwell: Last week the Minister of Agriculture refused to stand up for her employee — a respected scientist, a respected public servant. Instead she announced that she was investigating him for what she called very concerning and very strong allegations. Yet yesterday, when asked if this could lead to Dr. Marty being fired, the minister had this to say: “I’m not going to answer that right now.” Talk about intimidation. Not content with just going after one scientist, the minister has actually cast into doubt the reputation of the entire lab.
The minister has already smeared the reputation of Dr. Marty without any due process. Will there be a full, fair, independent hearing into the allegations against all those who work at the Animal Health Centre?
Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. First of all, I want to emphasize that it was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who called some of our data into question. We would take that very seriously because these are the partners that we work with as we look at fish pathology.
I can tell you right now, and I’ve said it many times before today, that we have the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as we try and review previous samples and results.
We are in the initial stages of examining all of our results for scientific rigour. If the members know anything about science and how the scientific community works, peer-reviewing information is part of the process. So I would imagine that they would feel much more confident if we could come out after a review saying that our results are fine and that we’re confident in our lab.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: Apparently, it’s the federal government who has made the allegations. It’s the federal government’s fault. I’m asking the minister if she will table the documents that she refers to — if this is, in fact, what the basis of the case is based on.
Hon. L. Popham: I’m not sure the member understands what I’m saying, so I’ll try and explain it again. There is no investigation into any individual, and nobody is getting fired. But what this is about — and the members should be glad about this — is ensuring integrity of the science that we’re using.
ATTENDANCE OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES
MINISTER AT BUSINESS
OPENING EVENT
J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services, possibly in the spirit of government outreach, attended a grand opening of a new business in Surrey a little over a week ago. The minister had her picture taken with some friends at the opening of a local sweet shop. She’s smiling, enjoying the sunshine and showing no signs of discomfort or coercion.
Included among those friends is one Jawahar Padda, a man we’ve talked about in this House before. The minister knows he’s the man facing significant criminal charges involving firearms, uttering threats, forcible confinement without lawful authority, assault. Unfortunately, the list, sadly, goes on. The location where this photo was taken was at a business opening. The business being opened belonged to Mr. Padda. It was his event.
Members want to know: can the minister explain why her outreach activities took her to a business owned by a man facing serious criminal charges?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank the member for raising that question.
I was at a business in Surrey that opened over the weekend. I was there with…. People from all different political parties were represented there. I was invited by a very close friend of mine whose husband is a partner in the business. I was in a photograph with many different people.
I can assure him that there were people there from the Liberal Party federally. There were other elected officials there. I am sure that members across the way have gone to public events, to businesses in their communities, because after all, they support the development of businesses and growing good-paying jobs. That’s what I was there to do.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: That’s the minister’s response: they’re not elected officials. She is. That’s the difference.
I’m trying to understand why a minister of the Crown would attend such an event at the sweet shop. Perhaps the minister had a sweet, or perhaps the minister wanted to buy some samosas for her next fundraiser at the O.K. Corral.
The Minister of Citizens’ Services was asked in this House last month about associating with an individual charged with gun-related charges. A week ago Sunday she attended the opening of his latest business and took a picture standing right next to him. It turns out that the business isn’t even located in the riding of Surrey-Panorama. Perhaps the Minister of Labour invited her to the business opening in his riding.
To the minister, this speaks to the judgment of a minister of the Crown. She has stood in this House on more than one occasion and claimed to abhor violence. British Columbians want to know: why did she attend the event of an individual she claims to abhor?
Hon. J. Sims: It actually gives me great pleasure to answer a question from my colleague across the way. I would really ask him if he has ever attended functions. Can he really say that every function he attends, he knows everyone who was there, especially when they are public? My colleagues should listen to the answer right now.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the response.
Hon. J. Sims: We have a well-known business in our community, and it expanded. It’s not owned by one person. It’s owned by a number of families.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, could we please hear the response.
Hon. J. Sims: Let me assure my colleagues across the way that if they search through the photographs, there were other federal elected people there. There was even….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you may be seated for a moment.
Minister, please proceed.
Hon. J. Sims: It’s a bit rich coming from the crowd across the way when there are photos of them not just being with those who may have allegations against them but with people who have been convicted.
I really want to say that I went to a community event, an opening of a business that is expanding, adding jobs in Surrey. I was invited by a very close friend who is a partner in the business, and I went. I make no apologies for that.
S. Cadieux: Let’s be clear on this. This is not the first time we’ve seen this minister with Mr. Padda and their cozy relationship. Last month the two were at the same NDP fundraiser, the one where the minister took her boss along. It doesn’t end there, though. Mr. Padda was at her election office opening as well. And now, she’s at an event hosted by, invited by that same individual, an individual the minister suggested before she didn’t know was going to be at this event.
But the Minister of Citizens’ Services was asked about the first event on September 12 and again on September 14. When asked, she dissembled and said that she didn’t know all of the people and that she abhorred violence. I’d like to believe that, but she’s been caught front and centre again at an event hosted and organized by Mr. Padda himself, and that’s a fact.
She can no longer try to hide that it was someone else’s event that she chose to attend. She chose to attend, as a minister of the Crown, an event organized by someone she knows is facing gun-related charges. For someone who claims to abhor violence and should have learned from her mistakes, why did the minister again allow herself to be photographed with this man?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to say to my colleague across the way that she and I have attended many, many events together in Surrey, where many of these people she’s now questioning have been. Let me say that we still live in a country where you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Is that the minister’s explanation — that she thinks it’s okay to associate with those charged with violent crimes as opposed to those convicted of violent crimes? Then again, she did that too.
Perhaps that’s the advice she had received from the Attorney General, but this is a serious matter. It’s about appearances. The minister can continue to claim that she’s appalled. She can claim that she didn’t know. She can declare that she abhors violence. But we have a minister of the Crown repeatedly associating with and having her picture taken with a man who is charged with serious gun offences. This speaks to the judgment — rather, the appalling lack of judgment — of the minister.
Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services please explain to this House, to the citizens of Surrey-Panorama and to any British Columbian who has been affected by gun violence how this does not constitute conduct unbecoming of a minister?
Hon. J. Sims: Being a teacher, a mother, a grandmother and, proudly, a great-grandmother, I can tell you that I abhor violence of all types. I have answered this question.
T. Redies: What keeps occurring here is a serious matter that the minister has to answer to. Mr. Padda was there, standing behind her while she spoke at her campaign office opening. He was there at a private….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question, please.
T. Redies: He was there at a private fundraising event that she brought the Premier to. Just over a week ago, the minister travelled outside her riding to attend his event.
It’s clear that the minister knows Mr. Padda very well. Can she explain why this man has such an active involvement in her political life?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me say again that I attended an opening of a business that is owned by a number of people. There were other elected officials there — federal, even leadership candidates for the other side, as well as other elected officials.
You know what? All of us on both sides of the House attend public events and openings for businesses, because you know what? We want to grow businesses. To link that to say that I support violence is just stretching it to the absolute limit. I categorically abhor all kinds of violence. Those who do a crime should get convicted in the courts. I am not going to be judge and jury.
T. Redies: There’s just so much surprising about what the minister is saying.
A minister of the Crown is expected to uphold a standard of conduct. This is not about other federal ministers. This is about the minister herself. The minister’s lack of judgment really casts serious doubt on her suitability for cabinet. She is repeatedly associating with Mr. Padda, an individual charged with uttering threats, pointing a firearm, assault, using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. This falls well short of that standard of conduct. This is very, very disturbing.
We’ve asked this question in the House before, but it’s worth repeating. How should people have any confidence whatsoever in the minister’s judgment when she engages in behaviour that is hypocritical in the extreme and that falls dramatically short of any standard of conduct that people are entitled to expect of a minister of the Crown?
Hon. J. Sims: I attended an event, a business opening in my community that is growing jobs. It’s a business that is well used by the community. I did not go to any individual’s house for their business opening.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear Management.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the little House, I call estimates of the Ministry of Finance. In this chamber, I call continued committee stage, Bill 5.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2017
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 10:59 p.m.
On section 3 (continued).
Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined again by Nancy Carter, executive director, and Renee Mulligan, legal counsel for the civil policy and legislation office, justice services branch, Ministry of Attorney General.
Just before we get into my colleagues’ questions, there were a series of questions yesterday related to Saturday dates and why October was chosen.
It’s been drawn to my attention by staff that in 2010, there was a report tabled in the Legislature from the former CEO at Elections B.C., Harry Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld, in this report — and I’d be glad to provide copies to members, if they wish — discussed the timing of elections. He wrote to this House:
“Legislators may wish to consider amending the Constitution Act to establish that general elections shall be held in the fall. It would be preferable that the date be selected with consideration given to the timing of local government elections, fixed-date federal elections and statutory holidays. Due to weather concerns, concluding voting before the end of October would be preferred.”
Then with respect to Saturdays:
“The Constitution Act establishes that general elections are to be held on the second Tuesday in May. Establishing Saturday as general voting day would resolve a number of issues, such as the security concerns associated with using schools as voting places while students are present.
“A Saturday election would make more people available to work as election officials or scrutineers and would ensure sufficient time between the end of advance voting and general voting day to mark the voters lists used for general voting to indicate which voters attended advance voting.
“It is also possible that having a general voting day on a Saturday would increase turnout. Legislators may wish to consider changing general voting day to a Saturday for all provincial general elections and by-elections.”
One note on that. Since the time of this report, Elections B.C. did make changes to pre-marked voters lists, so that particular concern about Saturdays has been addressed, but the rest stands.
I hope that helps members that raised questions about those issues yesterday.
J. Rustad: Thank you for that information from 2010 — seven years ago.
I’m curious. In a response earlier in this discussion around the Saturday, the minister made mention that he had engaged with Elections B.C., and they’d provided him with some feedback. I think what he had said was he’d mentioned that the feedback was around Elections B.C. having the ability to be able to track staff and locations.
I’m wondering what other feedback Elections B.C. gave the minister this time around when the minister asked about moving to the election date on a Saturday in October?
Hon. D. Eby: I think it might help the member to know that we engaged with Elections B.C. on the content of the 2010 report that I just read from, and, in particular, that Elections B.C. continues to support the recommendations of the 2010 report — even now, as the member notes, some considerable time later.
J. Rustad: I want to go back to asking, one more time, around the advance polling dates, particularly on the long weekend and the holiday weekend. I am concerned about that, obviously, with that particular weekend.
Just for clarity right now, can the member say what days the advance polling dates will be for the next upcoming election?
Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, this will just take a second while staff look it up. Thank you.
Thanks for the member’s patience as we work through the calendar here. The bill provides that October 15 through 20 would be advance voting days. That’s Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The general voting day in 2021 will be October 23. Thanksgiving that year is October 11, which is the second Monday.
J. Rustad: Maybe I need to ask one other question. I haven’t actually paid too much attention to when these advance polling dates were, actually, during the campaign.
I thought in previous years that the advance polling had been done over two weekends. Clearly the block of the 15th to the 20th would be just over one period of time. I’m wondering why that shift has been made.
Hon. D. Eby: There are two reasons. The member is right that this is a change from existing practise. There are two reasons for that.
One is that to have the last advance voting day on a Saturday would leave a week before the general voting day election. Elections B.C. was concerned about a lack of momentum in terms of staffing and public awareness around the election, that a week was a long period of time in terms of a gap.
The second is that this act does not change the fact that by-elections can be held on any day of the week. The concern of Elections B.C. about having advance voting days on a Saturday, and permitting by-elections any day of the week, is that it didn’t give them enough time between the end of advance voting on a Saturday and, if the by-election was to be held on a Monday, for them to retool for the general election because they use a lot of the same staff between advance voting and the general voting day.
So there were two somewhat technical reasons for the preferred model that’s put forward in this bill, which is a block of five days of advance voting and then the general voting day occurring. The member will note it occurs…. The last day of advance voting is the 20th, and then the general voting day is the 23rd, to give Elections B.C. that time to prepare.
J. Rustad: I’m curious about this. I’ve got to explore this more, because I can see how this could potentially be a flaw in the election date. The reason why I’m saying that is that it may work for 2021. However, in future years, being the third Saturday, you could end up having Thanksgiving fall on that weekend before the general election.
It is a potential challenge in terms of picking this date and the pattern that falls before it — in terms of the election and the advance polling on that weekend. That then would mean, unless Elections B.C. is planning to hold advance polling days on a long weekend…. It could create a problem with when the availability of election dates is and not having a weekend available for an advance vote.
I’m wondering if the minister has looked at this potential problem and whether he considers it to be a significant issue.
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. He’s right. There is a scenario where advance voting days could fall in an overlap with the Thanksgiving weekend. It’s important to note that the general voting day and the majority of the advance voting days would still not fall within that weekend.
But also to note, off the top of my head, there were six or seven holidays — I went through them yesterday — that different cultural groups have during October. Our goal was to avoid as many of them as possible — any kind of overlap — while attempting to achieve some of the recommendations that I outlined to the member around the benefits of a fall voting date and a Saturday voting date.
It left staff certainly constrained in terms of the options. The option we’re presenting in the bill here is — certainly, in my opinion and the opinion of staff and in consultation with Elections B.C. — a date that works and a format for advance voting that works for them.
I think that’s the extent of what I’ve got for that member’s question.
J. Rustad: I just want to read the section. This is section 3. It says: “Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on the third Saturday in October in the fourth calendar year….” I’m assuming the fourth calendar year you’re talking about is 2021 in terms of election, right? — in terms of that. The 23rd, the date mentioned, is actually the fourth Saturday. I’m wondering if the minister can clarify whether or not he misspoke about the election date, or whether or not there is an error in the piece of legislation that is being brought forward.
Hon. D. Eby: The member is absolutely right. This will teach us to do math on the fly. We didn’t bring in the calendar with us, and we should have, of future years’ dates. We can provide that to the member.
The correct answer, to the member, is that October 16 is the general voting day. Advance voting would be the eighth through the 13th. The tenth is Thanksgiving that year, and Thanksgiving falls within the advance voting block. The days outside of the Thanksgiving weekend for advance voting are the eighth, the 12th and the 13th. It’s not a dissimilar situation from the current advance voting in the campaign period, which often falls within the Easter weekend.
J. Rustad: Thank you for that. Once again, I’m quite disturbed about the discussion we’re having, given that there is not advance voting over two weekends in advance — and if that one weekend, if people are unavailable to vote, happens to fall on the long weekend of October. In the case of general elections in the spring, that has never been the case that I know of — when the advance polling, particularly the weekend before, was not available because of a holiday.
I think this poses an important problem. I’m wondering if Elections B.C. has provided you with any guidance about this problem that has been created by having the only advance polling dates available the weekend of a long weekend prior to a general election. I do recognize that there are dates outside of the weekend, but I also recognize that people who work are not entitled to time off to go and vote during the advance polls. If I am correct about that, they’re only allowed time off on general election day, which means there are no weekends available for people to be able to vote, other than the general election day on a Saturday, because of the potential holiday challenge that has created.
If you want people to be voting on a holiday, I suppose that’s what government wants to do, but it does create a challenge that we have not had in the province before.
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. It’s a very interesting discussion we’re having over here on this important issue of making sure that people are able to vote in advance.
In the 2009 election, there were four days of advance voting, one of which was a Saturday, and the same in 2013. That was expanded for the May 2017 election, to give six days of advance voting and two Saturdays.
The federal elections process currently has four days, including a Saturday, but times, it’s important to note, are only half-day for advance polls. So British Columbia, even under these amendments and even if people aren’t able to vote on the holiday, provides significantly more opportunities for advance voting than our federal colleagues. I can’t speak to other provinces.
I definitely take the member’s concern about the difficulty that some people will have voting on the holiday weekend. The good news is that there will be a number of additional days other than the holiday weekend. By my count, it’s four additional days over two weeks for them to vote. If that’s a problem, there is, of course, mail-in voting, and people can vote at any time at an Elections B.C. office.
J. Rustad: By my count, there’s the Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday that you’ve noted. Assuming I take the week off from the 15th to the 20th — which you originally provided, which would be the eighth to the 13th — there are only three days outside of that, a Friday.
Many people like to take the advantage of the three-day weekend to take an extra day and take a holiday, which means they may come back on that Monday night. That would leave them only the Tuesday and Wednesday prior to the election in terms of advance voting dates.
The minister mentioned, I think, at the onset of the debate on this bill, that the bill was going to be able to provide more advance voting opportunities, be able to engage more people and bring more people out. One of the rationales for moving it to the Saturday was being able to provide those additional days. Clearly, with it being the holiday weekend, it would actually provide the opposite.
Just for the minister’s note, I look forward to the 2025 election. It has the exact same problem of the holiday weekend happening the week, the Monday prior to general election day.
Given this information on the challenges, I’m wondering if the minister is prepared to either consider a different day for holding a general election or whether or not the minister will direct Elections B.C. to consider different opportunities for advance voting so that it doesn’t overlap with a holiday weekend.
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and suggestion. If he has an amendment to propose, I’d be glad to hear it.
The reason, though, for choosing this date and this formula was that there are a number of different holidays and religious and cultural observances in the fall that we were trying to avoid. They include Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day and Remembrance Day — as well, Elections B.C. cautioned to avoid November — and religious and cultural observances in the fall: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret and Diwali, as well as the first Sunday of Advent, which is in November.
We were working with a constrained calendar. The dates that we’re putting forward are the dates that we feel work well with this and provide advance voting opportunities. Also, as I noted, we consulted with various religious groups that have Saturday observances on this proposal, and they were okay with it.
J. Rustad: I received that answer yesterday in the discussion. I want to thank the minister again for that answer. It still creates the challenge that I don’t think has been brought forward or been thought through, which is this challenge of the weekend.
Both bills that have been brought forward previously, private members’ bills, have suggested the first Tuesday in October as a potential date, because then it would avoid the Labour Day long weekend, the official Canadian holiday, as well as the Thanksgiving date, which is also an official holiday.
Once again, I’ll ask why the minister has decided to go with this Saturday, with the clear challenges of a holiday weekend, rather than with what the minister’s party had suggested in previous bills that had been put forward into this Legislature.
Hon. D. Eby: I can provide the member with some additional information. Federal elections are held on the third Monday in October. They have a similar challenge with advance voting dates, as we do, and have successfully grappled with it. The reason why it’s reasonable to believe that they chose this third Monday in October — and we chose the third Saturday — is they looked at the calendar and saw the same challenges with statutory and religious observances and came to the same conclusion. I also note that we rely on the recommendations of the chief election officer at Elections B.C. around Saturday voting and fall voting and avoiding November.
I note that there are a number of people up in the gallery. We don’t tend to have a lot of people in the gallery for these kinds of processes. Just so they know, we’re currently in committee stage on a bill that proposes to change the fixed election date in British Columbia from when it takes place right now in the spring on a Tuesday to the fall, to October on a Saturday. The member opposite me, the member of the opposition, is asking questions about the bill so that he can understand it better and communicate to people the concerns that he has about it. I’m explaining to him as best I can the rationale behind changing the date.
J. Rustad: It’s good to clarify that, especially for the many watchers of Hansard across the province.
It’s worth noting, actually, as the minister said, that the federal election is on the third Monday. That puts it a week beyond the Thanksgiving Day weekend, the statutory holiday within Canada. It also means that the weekend prior is potentially available for advance polling without overlapping with a holiday weekend.
One of the bills that had been moved forward in the previous years by the members, when they were in opposition, actually called for the second Tuesday, which would be a definite problem. Would the minister consider moving it to either the week before Remembrance Day or moving it into that third Monday or Tuesday in October so that it would not overlap with the Thanksgiving Day weekend for advance polling opportunities?
Hon. D. Eby: One of the cautions that we received from Elections B.C., both in 2010 and then again in 2017, was the challenge in many rural parts of the province, as you get later into the season.
I respect the member’s policy recommendation that we consider looking at November. We’ll be taking the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer to stay out of November and that an October fall election on a Saturday is preferable.
J. Rustad: If I’m hearing that correctly…. First of all, I need to be clear. I do not suggest that we move the date into November. Certainly, coming from a rural area — an area that experiences sometimes some rather cold weather temperatures in even October, for that matter — the later you go, the more challenges you will have, certainly for some of the people in the rural areas of the province.
I’m not suggesting the idea of going to November at all, but to avoid the Thanksgiving weekend, particularly as that advance polling…. That would mean putting it on a weekday, after the member has suggested — putting it into that third week in October, on a weekday, or holding it on a weekday prior — or even, for that matter, the Saturday prior — to the Thanksgiving Day weekend.
That’s what I’m questioning — whether the minister would consider keeping it in October but trying to avoid having that holiday weekend wrapped up in advance polling, when the only block of time for advance polling will be immediately before and after and during that long weekend.
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member, and I can provide him with some additional policy rationales for the later in October date.
The policy reasons that were identified to go later in October rather than early in October was that when you look before the election, the things that need to happen before, you’re talking about enumeration and the movement of students around the province in September. So enumeration is challenging during summer when people tend to be away or are on vacation and then September…. And in August, students are moving into places for September.
If you have it in later October, enumeration can move back as well. Hopefully, you can have more time to catch those students in their new locations and people when they move for the fall.
The second is when you look at what happens after an election. Election financing reports are due 90 days after the general voting day. If you have a general voting day in late September, the filing deadline gets very close to Christmas and New Year’s, which is not ideal for many financial agents and candidates and parties, given the fact that it’s a very busy time of year for them as well.
There were a number of different policy considerations, including the challenge of the earlier you get, arranging voting places with schools during the summer months to make arrangements for September voting dates. There were a lot of considerations that went into choosing this timeline.
J. Rustad: The minister mentioned something that I’m curious about, and it’s piqued my interest, particularly around location of students. How long does an individual in British Columbia need to be in a residence before it’s considered that is their riding with regards to voting?
Hon. D. Eby: In terms of moving into the province, it’s not in this bill, but my understanding is the rule is six months in the province before you can vote in British Columbia. The other rule, for students, is that Elections B.C. has a policy that students can either vote in the constituency where they’re going to school — where they live for going to school — or they can vote, typically, in their parents’ home constituency. It’s up to them, but they’re not permitted to vote in both.
J. Rustad: Thankfully, that is the case. So there is no time requirement for students to live in a particular area. They’re allowed to vote. That’s what I’m hearing from the minister. Okay, that’s good to know.
Whether it’s the first week in October or a weekday in the third week of October would make no difference for students and the ability for students to be able to vote in the area that they currently are living or attending school. It wouldn’t make any difference in terms of people moving from out of province or any of those kinds of components.
It still begs the question, then…. The reason why I keep going on about this, particularly on Thanksgiving weekend, is that for myself and, I’m sure, many people…. When there is a long weekend, people like to often utilize holiday time — take four days and allow them to be able take weekend to weekend off on a holiday, whether that be out of province, in province or wherever it may be.
It’s only four days off to be able to connect those two as opposed to five days off. It extends the number of days people have on holidays. So in essence, what you’re saying to people who do that is that you have to work on Friday and somehow get home and vote prior to taking off for a holiday trip. Many people actually leave on the Friday evening on that week of holiday that they’ll go. Which means, according to the dates that you have provided, they would have no opportunity, for anybody that takes that holiday, to actually be able to vote in advance polls or on the general election.
Given that, once again I’ll ask: will the minister consider a discussion here that would consider moving that date outside so that the holiday weekend is not a factor in the upcoming elections?
Hon. D. Eby: Depending on the length of vacation that somebody is taking, if they’re just away for the weekend, they’ll still be able to vote on the 12th, the 13th or the 16th, the general voting day. They’ll be able to vote at any Elections B.C. office anywhere in the province. If they’re visiting someone somewhere else in the province, they can vote at any Elections B.C. office. In an absentee ballot process, they could get a mail-in ballot from Elections B.C. There are a lot of different ways for people to vote in British Columbia, and we certainly support that.
J. Rustad: So for people that live in the province of British Columbia that want to take one week out of an election campaign and go away on a holiday break, what the minister is suggesting is that their only opportunity would be a mail-in ballot. In all the previous elections, there have been opportunities to increase the voter turnout by providing advance polling dates, advance polling opportunities for people over a number of weeks and a number of weekends, two weekends in particular, because of these various types of scenarios that come up, to allow people to be able to participate.
As the minister has said in the past, we have seen an increased number of people participating in those advance polls. What we’re seeing here is actually a potential decrease in those voting availability dates and times for people that might take advantage of advance polling.
If the minister is not prepared to have the discussion around moving a date for the election, is the minister prepared to work with Elections B.C. to expand the number of days available for advance polling?
Hon. D. Eby: I definitely hear that the member is concerned about this issue. I note that in 2015, the federal election did have advance voting over the long weekend, and voting turnout was up for that election. I do hear his concern about this. We put these dates forward in consultation with Elections B.C. They are based on a report from 2010 from Elections B.C. that Elections B.C. has re-endorsed, which recommended a Saturday in October. Looking at all the different factors, these are the dates that the government is putting forward in the bill.
J. Rustad: What I’m hearing is that there seems to be no flexibility in terms of potential date or flexibility in terms of expanding opportunities for advance polling outside of a holiday weekend. It’s unfortunate, but that will be, I’m sure, factored into what people are thinking when it comes time for voting, down the road.
I do want to ask one more thing around Saturday and the Saturday dates. The member, earlier in comments yesterday, talked about, particularly, that workers who may participate as volunteers during elections would be considered an in-kind contribution, whether it’s from private sector companies or from unions associated with this. There’s another bill on the floor that will be debated — and passed, I’m assuming — which talks about banning corporate and union donations.
Would the fact that certain workforces would not be available on working a particular election day, because of the changes to the other acts around union in-kind type of donations and corporate in-kind donations, factor into moving the election date to a Saturday?
Hon. D. Eby: The report from Elections B.C. that recommended a Saturday in October predated any discussion about banning union or corporate donations, in this Legislature, from the government. There were certainly discussions on the opposition side, but it predated that, and as far as I know, there is absolutely no relationship there.
I do apologize to the member if I misspoke. That is correct. It is the bill, which has not yet gone to committee stage, that would make such donations of workers’ time, while they’re being paid by an employer or by a union, to go and work on a campaign…. People have to do that on vacation time now, if that bill passes. But that’s not currently the law. I’d have to get advice in terms of outlining specifically what the current state of play is, for the member, in terms of those kinds of donations.
J. Rustad: In my understanding, the current situation is that if people are paid to work on a campaign, whether it be from corporate or union, that of course would have to be considered as an in-kind donation to various campaigns and be accounted for accordingly.
What the minister had said yesterday was: “Members and those who wish to become members will be more reliant on volunteers, and Saturday may provide an additional opportunity for more people to be able to participate in the election process as volunteers” in the election. He made that specifically with regard to “including donations of in-kind staff to participate as volunteers in an election,” which will be banned, of course, assuming that piece of legislation passes.
The reason why I’m still struggling with the Saturday-or-Sunday, or Saturday-or-weekday, type of approach, in terms of it…. I know the member has made reference to the Elections B.C. report from 2010 and some conversations he’s had more recently, obviously, which still support that. But I find it curious. Being a veteran of many campaigns now myself, a number of campaigns, I did notice, in particular, that many of the volunteers for members opposite that were working in campaigns that I’ve run, of course, were people that were basically paid by the union — they weren’t paid by the employer of the union, obviously — to work on those campaigns.
Given that there is this potential change, in terms of how those are considered, and banning the potential for that kind of in-kind, paid-for volunteers — or “voluntolds,” as some people like to refer to them — is that a part of the rationale, as the member had referenced before, for why they’re choosing a Saturday as opposed to a weekday?
Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member rightly notes that I think it’s a benefit. I think it’s a benefit that more people are going to be able to volunteer and participate in a general voting day on a Saturday.
I’m not the only person who thinks that. The former Chief Electoral Officer, in his 2010 report, was quite clear: “A Saturday election would make more people available to work as election officials or scrutineers.” It’s clear that he believed, as well, in his report, which has been endorsed again in 2017, that more people would be available to participate in the election. I think it’s a benefit of a Saturday voting day, and it’s why I hope the member supports it.
J. Rustad: Thanks for the clarification on that component.
Moving from the date, the Saturday, through to “the fourth calendar year,” I’m just curious why the minister chose those words, in particular, the fourth calendar year, as opposed to the fourth year following an election.
Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that this is a drafting convention in British Columbia. The previous fixed election date had to be amended to add the word “calendar” in, and this is consistent with that act.
J. Rustad: Can I get the minister’s interpretation, then? The date coming up to 2021 — as opposed to ’17, ’18, ’19, ’20 — is the fourth calendar year? Essentially, what this seems to do is suggest that the election date will actually be held in the fifth year of a mandate as opposed to the fourth year. So I’m just wondering how the minister takes it out to the fall of 2021.
Hon. D. Eby: The general voting day for the last election was May 2017. The provision says that the “general voting day must occur on the third Saturday in October in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day.” So if the election date was in May 2017, the first calendar year is January 2018 to December 2018. The second calendar year is January 2019 to December 2019. The third calendar year is January 2020 to December 2020. The fourth calendar year is 2021, and October is mandated by the section. So October 2021 is when the fixed election date would take place.
J. Rustad: Thank you for that explanation from the minister. The reason, of course, why I ask him that is there’s an amendment that we’ll be moving with regards to that.
All fixed election dates going forward since 2001 have always been four-year mandates. I seem to remember a lively discussion at one point in the past term about moving to the fall and whether it would be the fall before or the fall after — with some very interesting discussion from members opposite, the governing members, about their preference with regards to whether it would be the fall before or the fall after.
That’s why I asked for the clarification with regards to the calendar year. This will actually create, in a situation where we have a minority government with a partner that is not in a coalition, a situation to extend this, potentially, six months beyond the election date — beyond what would have been the election date in a spring election, that is.
I’m just curious as to the rationale from the minister with regards to why the election date for the fall of 2021 was selected, as opposed to going for the fall of 2020 and, based on the record of the government of the day, why they wouldn’t be looking for a full mandate to be able to go forward, as opposed to carrying it on long after what normally would have been a four-year mandate.
Hon. D. Eby: We are not the first province to move from a fixed spring election to a fixed fall election date. I’m advised by more experienced members of the House…. He recalls that members, when they were on this side of the House and this was raised, regularly talked about the fall, four years following the introduction of legislation, as the effective date.
In any event, putting House wisdom aside, Saskatchewan moved from a fixed spring election to a fixed fall election. That term they did that was four years and three months. Manitoba did the same. That term they made that move, the term of government was four years and five months. Quebec has introduced legislation but hasn’t yet had a fall election. Assuming that the government doesn’t fall, the fixed election legislation that they’ve introduced will have a four-year-and-six-month term between the previous election and the scheduled 2018 fall election.
So it’s quite common that when this type of legislation is introduced, there is an extended term. I don’t blame the member one bit for wanting to have an amendment that would call an election sooner. I know the feeling when I was opposition, wanting to call elections as soon as possible. But this is not out of the ordinary in this type of situation.
Noting the hour, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $170,312,000.
The Chair: Minister, did you have an opening statement?
Hon. C. James: I’ll keep the opening remarks brief. I know we want to give the members an opportunity to be able to have a good discussion on the Ministry of Finance, on the building of the budget. I know they have a number of questions.
As I have said previously to the members across, I certainly see estimates as an opportunity to have that good discussion and dialogue. I think this is a great opportunity for issues to be raised. The Ministry of Finance and the budget are here for British Columbians, not just here for us and not just here for me as Minister of Finance. I think this is an opportunity to engage in that kind of discussion.
I have a number of staff with me. I’ll just do some quick introductions. I have Dave Riley, Sadaf Mirza, Chris Skillings, Steve Klak, David Galbraith, Tara Richards and Lori Wanamaker. I want to just begin by saying how much I appreciate the staff of the Ministry of Finance.
It has been an extraordinary year for a Minister of Finance and for the Ministry of Finance, to go through a public accounts, a budget and another budget coming up in February, so I know the work that has had to be put in, in this unusual time of transition. I’ll just express my appreciation for the work that happens, ongoing regardless of who’s in government, by the staff in the Ministry of Finance.
With that, I’ll turn it over to the members.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for her opening remarks. We certainly agree with the fact that this is an opportunity for us to ask questions on behalf of British Columbians.
We’re going to start, obviously, this morning. We’re going to spend some time together for the rest of the day and probably tomorrow as well, so maybe just a little bit of a road map. I know that we have provided the minister with an outline of our anticipated order of questions. We have discovered that when MLAs have issues, they will appear, so we expect it to be later this afternoon, probably around three o’clock, but we don’t know when they’ll wander in for sure.
There will be a number of MLAs that will bring a variety of questions. Much of it is around tax policy, as the minister can imagine, so we’re going to try to group that together to make it easier to manage the staff. I think both the minister and I have been through this process a number of times, and we don’t intend for this to be the Inquisition. This is actually a chance for us to have some thoughtful dialogue about how we get to where we are and what British Columbians can expect over the next number of months and years.
I also want to express, on behalf of my colleague, our thanks to the minister — she was very cooperative in setting up briefings for us — and the staff. We certainly appreciate the work that they did in bringing that information to us. It was very collegial and cooperative, and we appreciate that.
With that, we’re going to begin generally, with the responsibility changes that have occurred. When any government takes office, there’s always an adjustment in responsibilities as new ministers are named and things are added, things are changed. If the minister could, in essence, walk through what the ministry changes would have been, through the transition: new departments that were added, new areas of responsibility or things that have moved out of the ministry.
Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. Yes, as the member mentioned, there are adjustments that happen when a transition occurs with government. Some programs are moved to other ministries or moved in. So the program transfers out of the Ministry of Finance were the gaming policy and enforcement branch, which moved over to the Attorney General; corporate information and records management office. And then there was one transfer into the ministry — I expect that might be the next question that’s coming from the member — which was government communications and public engagement.
S. Bond: Thank you for that. We are going to get, obviously, to the government communications piece, and it’ll probably be later today. But in terms of overall staffing, could the minister walk through, basically, the puts and takes in terms of the overall size of the ministry under the previous government and what it looks like now, and perhaps a bit of a breakdown between, exactly, the minister’s office staff and the ministry, more broadly?
Hon. C. James: Thank you for your patience while we make sure we were looking at the numbers. So 1,733 staff before the changes, before the transfer occurred; 1,380 staff, post-transfer. Those are the restated numbers after the gaming was moved and after the corporate information and records management were moved. GCPE is on top of that, so GCPE is 329. I know we’ll get into the specifics around GCPE as we get to those discussions. And the minister’s office is six, which is unchanged from previous.
S. Bond: In terms of the numbers, it’s 1,380 post, so how many…? Just to confirm, then, that was gaming that was actually moved out, and other staff. And then, on top of that, we have government communications staff. In the minister’s office, there are six. Can the minister…?
First, let me ask this question. Is the minister’s office generally fully staffed now? Does the minister anticipate further hiring?
Hon. C. James: We have a complement of six. We currently have five staff, so I only anticipate filling the position that isn’t filled at the moment.
S. Bond: Could the minister walk through…? I think it’s probably common now, across ministries, but it would be good to understand the utilization of staff in the minister’s office. Are all of those staff located in Victoria?
Hon. C. James: Yes.
S. Bond: Well, in the minister’s case, that’s because she lives in Victoria. So that was very clever. But let’s walk through that a little bit. If the minister happened to live in Smithers, for example….
Let’s walk through the general placement of staff and perhaps a bit of the rationale around the deployment of…. And I certainly recognize, having been a minister for a very long period of time, staffs are never…. I don’t consider them overly large. There is a very big job that they do, particularly constituency files and caring for British Columbians.
It’s an interesting choice to deploy staff outside of Victoria, where typically EAs, MAs and other ministers’ staff work. If the minister could let us know: is it now a practice across government to place minister staff in their ridings — other than her own, which is in her riding but not outside of Victoria — and also, are there cost implications to that decision?
Hon. C. James: The one position that is being looked at in ministries for work out of the constituency offices is the executive assistant position. That’s one position.
Whether there are travel costs, I think, again, would depend…. I think you’d have to ask each individual ministry, until the numbers come in. I expect, if it’s a position that is based in a constituency office, you probably have a member from that constituency who has been hired.
I would expect there wouldn’t be travel costs, because it could be an individual…. For example, the member used the example of Smithers. I expect that it may be someone who lives in Smithers who has been hired who works out of the constituency office for the minister. But there wouldn’t be travel costs, because they’re based in Smithers.
That’s what I would expect, but the details, again, will come out in each ministry when we do public accounts. But I expect that that’s the case.
S. Bond: I just want to clarify, then, that the placement in constituency offices will be part of the minister’s responsibility out of their budgets, so the minister doesn’t expect additional costs to government. They simply will have to adjust whatever it is they do within their minister’s offices to cover that external placement.
Hon. C. James: That’s correct.
T. Redies: I’d also like to add my thanks to the staff for their support through this process — so thank you.
Just a question to the minister. I’m just curious why GCPE was brought into the Finance department.
Hon. C. James: I think the decision was made by the Premier’s office. That’s who makes the decision around the structure of government, so it’s a question you could certainly ask the Premier’s office. I think, as they look at restructuring government, they make a determination around which ministry areas responsibility will go to. So more a question for the Premier.
T. Redies: Could the minister not ask the Premier why she was getting this particular department?
Hon. C. James: As a person who was appointed minister, I was happy to take any and all responsibilities that the Premier offered to my office and to me.
T. Redies: We’re going to turn now to the budget and the fiscal plan, if we can. I want to specifically ask the minister about balanced budgets and the intent of this government going forward. Are the minister and the rest of her colleagues committed to balancing the budget beyond this year? British Columbians, as you know, have come to expect balanced budgets. They’ve had five consecutive ones. I guess my question is: is there going to be a sixth, seventh and eighth?
Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. Yes, as the member knows, balancing the budget was in my mandate letter. It’s a mandate not only for me as Finance Minister but also for the government. The Premier included it in my mandate letter.
I have often been asked by people: “Never say never. Is that part of the issue when it comes to deficits?” I think it’s important to recognize that, just as the previous government did, when there was a downturn in the economy and they weren’t able to balance the budget, they looked at the legislation. They made a temporary decision because of the fiscal situation of the province. But as the member knows from the three-year budget, the plan is to balance the budget over the three years. That’s my commitment, and that’s our government’s commitment.
T. Redies: That’s good to have that commitment on record. One of the reasons why we ask is that the minister’s mandate letter only requires her to ensure that the 2017-18 budget reports are balanced.
The other challenge, I guess, that we’re having is that there have been some conflicting statements around balanced budgets in the NDP platform. So I guess what we want to do is just confirm that it is the intention…. And also, is the plan to hold ministers responsible for ensuring that there is a balanced budget?
Hon. C. James: As the member knows, there’s been no change to the balanced-budget legislation, which requires that ministers be held to account. And yes, the plan — as the member knows, from the three years — is to balance the budget.
T. Redies: There are no plans to change the balanced-budget legislation?
Hon. C. James: No.
T. Redies: Recently, the minister stated…. She said, “I don’t think anyone could ever say never,” in regard to deficits. You referenced the 2008 economic crash as a period of time when the government felt it was important to carry a deficit. Could the minister explain…? Is this the minimum level of crisis that she considers acceptable circumstances to enter a deficit? If not, when does she believe deficits become acceptable?
Hon. C. James: I think the kinds of examples that I would certainly point to would be external shocks. The member mentioned 2008. I think that would be classified as an external shock to the province, to the country, to the global economy. It’s something that would occur that would not give time for planning. The wildfires would be another example — if we had another wildfire season.
I think it’s part of the reason — I know the member has heard me say this often — you build prudence into the budgets. It’s part of the reason that we have the contingency allowance, the forecast allowance. It’s part of why growth projections are below the Economic Forecast Council — to ensure that those things are built in. As much as possible, those contingencies are built into the budget.
Those would be the examples — something that doesn’t give the opportunity to plan, like a wildfire, and external shocks that may hit the province.
T. Redies: That’s helpful. Thank you. There have been, as I mentioned, a few conflicting statements. That’s why we’re spending a bit of time on this.
I think the Premier mentioned in December ’14 that he felt that, largely, balanced-budget legislation is a gimmick. And the minister herself, in ’08, said: “I don’t agree with deficits. I think a balanced budget is critical.” That seems to be her response. I guess what we’re trying to clarify is: is the commitment to balance budgets widespread throughout cabinet, in the Premier’s office and throughout this government?
Hon. C. James: I’ll speak for myself as Minister of Finance and the direction that I’ve been given by the cabinet, by the Premier and by government, which is to balance the budget. The member has the three-year plan and sees that it’s there.
S. Bond: I just want to pursue that a bit further, because we talked about the threshold for a deficit and what that might be. I think all of us recognize that external shock is something you can’t plan or prepare for.
This is an important issue, because one of the reasons that British Columbia…. I have appreciated the minister’s willingness to talk about the strength of the economy in British Columbia. Frankly, it’s a fact. One of the reasons that we’re in the position we are today is because of a very, very disciplined fiscal approach. This is really about discipline and trying to balance all the needs of British Columbians.
In the commentary leading up to the election, there was a lot of conversation, and certainly, British Columbians spoke. They believed that the previous government hadn’t spent perhaps as much as it should have, when it came to caring for families and children.
One of the words used in the discussion by the minister and her party prior to the election was: “We will aim to balance the budget in every year…but not at the expense of children, seniors, families and the most vulnerable.” Notionally, we all want to believe that we are caring for the most vulnerable in our province.
How will the minister grapple with the issue of balancing a budget, while at the same time having stated the principle that we won’t do that at the expense of vulnerable British Columbians? How does she intend to grapple with that issue?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think this really is a question of government’s responsibility and choices when it comes to priorities. As the member knows — and I’ll just put them on the record again — our government has three priority areas. As I introduced the budget in September, the budget update, the member will know that I talked about the key investments we made in those three priority areas.
We are not going to be able to do everything. I’ve done my investors tours. I’ve talked to the bond-rating agencies and talked about priorities. I think one of the biggest challenges after a change in government after 16 years…. And this isn’t a political statement; I think it would happen with any government change. After 16 years, there is a pent-up demand for supports, for programs and services that perhaps weren’t priorities previously, and a need to be able to look at those.
I have been very upfront about the fact that you can’t do everything overnight. It’s not going to be possible, so we have three priority areas, the first one being affordability and addressing affordability for families and individuals in our province. The second priority is improving services and supports. And the third priority area is building a long-term, sustainable, strong economy for British Columbia.
The member will know, in looking at the September budget, that we made some very key investments in those particular areas as the resources were available. I think one of the other important pieces to note is that a large number of programs and services are investments over time. If I look at the child care program, for example. That’s a ten-year program. Our housing investment is a ten-year plan. These are programs that are invested as the resources are available.
I know I don’t need to tell the member — I know she knows this well — that that’s what government is about, making those choices. And those are choices that we’ll be making as well.
T. Redies: Again, just pursuing this a little bit further, which priority is more important to the minister: balancing the budget or keeping election promises?
Hon. C. James: I think that’s a very good example of a different philosophy than the previous government, when it comes to picking and choosing programs and services. I think part of the challenge and part of the message, as the previous member said, received by the past government was that that balance wasn’t there. The balance of ensuring that the economy is strong and ensuring that the public sees the benefit of that strong economy was not there with the previous government.
That’s what we intend to do: to look at that balance where we have a strong economy, and the people who help build that strong economy benefit from the economy. It isn’t either-or. It’s making sure that the budget and the strong economy are there for the public of British Columbia.
T. Redies: With no disrespect, Minister, I don’t know if you answered my question. If there is a situation where you have to make a choice between a balanced budget or keeping the NDP’s election promises, what are you going to do?
The Chair: I would remind the member to go through the Chair.
Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member’s question, but you could imagine every hypothetical situation that could come forward. I mentioned earlier the issue of external factors coming into play, the forest fires being a good example. Those are resources that went to fight fires that are not resources that are in the budget. Therefore, choices have to be made. That’s what government is all about.
We will have to, as every government has done, take a look at the budget, take a look at the options that are there and the choices that are there, what’s available, and make a determination. That may mean looking at implementation. As I mentioned, child care is a good example. If there were federal dollars coming in on the child care program, we’re able to implement that program in a different kind of way. Those are the kinds of decisions that you make.
S. Bond: Thank you, Minister. I think all of us recognize that, first of all, getting to a balanced budget is about tough choices. I think what’s most important here and part of what we’re trying to at least lay out is that promises are important too. It needs to be a transparent process for British Columbians.
There are very expensive promises that are not reflected, obviously, in the budget update, and we understand that. That process is a short-term process. But the fact of the matter is there were promises made which, at least from our perspective, would be very difficult to manage — without, as the minister suggests, longer implementation times and all of those kinds of things — within a balanced budget.
I think it is important that there be a transparent process. Does the minister intend to lay out for British Columbians, for example, that expanded timeline? If it’s a ten-year daycare program, exactly how that’s going to — obviously not today but over time…. It is important. Promises were made. British Columbians made choices, as well, based on the promises.
It is going to be very difficult, looking at this from a purely fiscal perspective, much less political, to cover all of the promises that have been made and maintain a balanced budget. So if the minister could identify for us how she intends to keep British Columbians informed about how those promises will be kept over time.
Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. As the member knows, and as all members in the Legislature know, the budget process is transparent. The budget is released on the third Tuesday of February. We’ll be back in the regular cycle. This is an unusual year because of the election and the change of government and doing a budget update in September. As the member knows, that budget came forward with many of the same programs and services that were in place, with some additional key investments that we put in there.
The budget will be transparent. People will see, on the third Tuesday in February, the programs and services — what is able to be funded. That will be a transparent document for all British Columbians.
It’s a three-year plan. I think that’s the other important piece, that it’s a three-year plan. That, again, gives the ability for the public to see where priorities have been decided on and what’s been built into the budget for what year.
Then I think the other piece, just to layer on top of that, of course, is the budget consultation going on right now. I think the member’s a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. That process is occurring as well. That again will inform choices that a government makes, when that report is received, to see the priorities and the areas that the public has also recommended that government take a look at.
S. Bond: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I want to go back to the legislation about how we maintain discipline and how the minister intends to maintain discipline around individual ministries and ministers in terms of their own budget expectations.
As the minister well knows, and I certainly faced it for a lot of my career, if you didn’t balance a budget, there was going to be a penalty for that. I can tell you, it was not just because we wanted to be fiscally prudent, but there was a great deal of personal pressure about not wanting to be the first person who did not meet their expectations.
Will the requirements related to individual ministers balancing their budgets remain in place? And will there continue to be a penalty, so to speak, should the minister and the ministry not balance their individual budgets?
Hon. C. James: As I mentioned earlier, there is no plan to change the legislation. The existing legislation is in place as it was previously.
S. Bond: Thank you for that. I wish them all well. I remember how that impacted the work that ministers do.
There is another key part of that legislation, which I am, I think, very interested in knowing. I heard the minister say no changes, but I do want to check on this piece, in particular. With a focus on balanced budgets, and obviously, there are modest surpluses projected in terms of the budget update — we’ll wait to see what February says — will the government continue to use surplus to pay down the debt?
Hon. C. James: No change. There is no change in that section of the legislation.
T. Redies: Just turning now to economic growth and the assumptions around that, I’d like to ask a few questions about the growth rates, if I may. I want to understand what the process was and how the growth rates were determined for the plan, particularly after 2017-2018. Is the minister confident in those growth rates given, perhaps, a rising tide of uncertainty in the economy?
Hon. C. James: I just wanted to make sure I had some detail for the member. The first question was: do we feel optimistic and positive about the forecast? Yes, we do. I think that’s because of the process that is used by the Ministry of Finance. I think it’s important to note that this is the same process that has been used for approximately 20 years in the Ministry of Finance. That has not changed. It’s a macroeconomic model which contains over 300 equations with a variety of areas that are in the formulas.
I won’t run through all of them, but just to give the member some ideas, there are economic indicators in that formula for Canada, U.S., Japan, China and Europe. We take a look at interest rates. The Canadian-U.S. exchange rate, for example, is one of those factors that is built in. We look at commodity prices and utilize that when we take a look, again, at our forecasting. Population and migration — that’s an important factor that’s taken into account. And then fiscal policy of the government.
As the member knows, our forecast for growth — we take a number below the Economic Forecast Council, which is the independent group that comes together to put together a growth estimate. We have put our estimate below that — again, to build in prudence.
The members may be interested. It was something…. It wasn’t a hot ticket, I have to say, in opposition, but I attended for the years I was critic. The Economic Forecast Council meeting is open. That’s on December 1 of this year. That’s going to be here in Victoria. The members are certainly more than welcome to attend. It’s an interesting process. It’s interesting watching the debates around the table, around why they gave the growth numbers that they did. It gives very good insight, from my perspective, around the kinds of numbers that come up in our growth and in our estimates.
T. Redies: Thank you for that comprehensive response, Minister. As the minister knows, I like numbers. I’m also very interested in economics and forecasts and what’s behind them, so it’s very helpful to understand some of that process.
Again, I like numbers. I just wonder if the minister or staff can explain. If growth rates rise by 0.1 percent, what’s the impact to the budget? If growth rates fall by the same amount, what is the impact?
Hon. C. James: I should have also let the member know, since she enjoys numbers, that she can actually take a look at the entire model. The macroeconomic model is on the Ministry of Finance website. That’s, again, just another detailed piece that, if she’s interested in following up, she can take a look at.
In case the member wants to go into more detail, there is a sensitivity table in the budget table, 1.23 on page 46 in the budget document, just in case there’s follow-up that the member wants to do later. But a 1 percent change in nominal GDP is $150 million to $250 million.
T. Redies: Again, just going into the forecast. I think I mentioned that there are a lot of uncertainties out there. I think the minister has expressed a number of those in various meetings she’s had on the budget update.
I just want to understand…. We are going to be talking about taxation a little bit later. Has the government factored in the impact of increased carbon and corporate taxes into their forecast after this year in terms of their impact on GDP growth, corporate spending, retail spending and the impact, by osmosis, on government revenue?
The Chair: Minister of Finance — and also, note the hour.
Hon. C. James: Have we got time to answer the question first?
The Chair: We sure do.
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Then we’ll come back, I’m sure, to this discussion.
Standard practice — and again, this is no change from 20 years of practice when it comes to economic forecasting — is that tax changes are not built into economic forecasting until the decisions are made. The examples that we take a look at for this coming budget would be that the decisions made in the February budget that were carried forward were built into the economic forecasting.
For example, the 50 percent cut in MSP for incomes $120,000 and below was built in because that was a decision made in the February budget. The small business tax break and the tobacco tax increase were built in. But, for example, doing all of MSP was not built in, again because that wasn’t a decision that was made while the forecasting work was being done.
The PST on electricity, the corporate income tax and the high-income earners change, and corporate income tax by a percentage point as well — those were changes that occurred after. So those will be built in, obviously, in the forecast for the February budget, and you’ll see those in the three-year budget plan.
Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada