Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 44
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Hon. C. James | |
A. Olsen | |
T. Shypitka | |
N. Simons | |
T. Redies | |
B. D’Eith | |
A. Olsen | |
G. Begg | |
J. Johal | |
Hon. J. Sims | |
Hon. M. Farnworth | |
S. Cadieux | |
A. Weaver | |
Hon. C. James | |
A. Weaver | |
Hon. C. James | |
S. Gibson | |
Hon. L. Popham | |
N. Letnick | |
P. Milobar | |
Hon. L. Popham | |
B.C. Ferries Commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2017 | |
Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2016 | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, Room for Improvement: Toward Better Education Outcomes for Children in Care | |
Office of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of the Regional Transportation Management Centre’s Cybersecurity Controls, October 2017 | |
Orders of the Day | |
S. Bond | |
Hon. C. James | |
T. Redies | |
A. Weaver | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Hon. B. Ralston | |
J. Johal | |
G. Kyllo | |
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Fraser: We’re honoured today to have chiefs and elders and representatives from the Secwepemc Tk’emlúps First Nations groups in the Legislature today in the gallery. Would the House please make them feel very, very welcome.
Hon. S. Robinson: Joining us in the gallery today is David Hutniak, the CEO of LandlordBC. Mr. Hutniak is a respected voice for the rental housing industry, and I want to thank him for being a supportive partner for our government as we work together to make rental housing fairer and better for everyone. Will the House please join me in welcoming Mr. David Hutniak.
Hon. R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today are grade 10 students from Maria Montessori Academy, who are here with their teacher Mr. Aaron Gillatly. I think I see some of them up there, and I would ask the House to make the students from Maria Montessori welcome in the Legislature this morning.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to introduce three staff members from the highways department, from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, who have joined us in the gallery today. We have Courtney Hayre, who’s the manager of divisional operations for highways; Haley Leech, the executive administrative assistant; and Megan Schiarizza, the branch administrator. I’d like to thank them for all the work they do keeping our highways safe and efficient, and I hope the House will welcome them as much as I do.
B. Ma: It is my pleasure today to rise to introduce a group of 40 social studies 11 students from the international boarding school of Bodwell High School in North Vancouver. I’m not certain if they’re in the gallery right now, but they are in the Legislature, and I understand that the intention is for them to observe question period this morning. I’ve already given them a bit of a warning about what’s to come, and I’ve assured them that we are normally much better behaved outside of question period. I invite the House to please join me in making them feel welcome.
A. Olsen: I’m honoured today to introduce some special guests to the House, some respected W̱ILṈEW̱ elders who have come from across Vancouver Island today. They’re here today to witness the work that we do in this chamber. Today’s visitors include Fred Charlie, Henrietta Charlie, Laurella Bounty, Monica Jack, Marcia Bill, Hayward Jones, Simon Smith Sr., Frazer Smith, Clyde Jack, James Jack, Charlie Bill, Alexis White; my mother, Sylvia Olsen; her partner, Tex McLeod; and Vern Jacks. I’m honoured that they have come here today. HÍSWḴE SIÁM. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — POOLED REGISTERED
PENSION PLANS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill would be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017. This bill will reduce unnecessary costs for Gazette publication that are required every time British Columbia signs a multilateral agreement under the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, or amendments to agreements.
Pooled registered pension plans are defined contribution pension plans administered across participating jurisdictions by financial institutions. The idea is to support employers with the responsibility of pension plan operations. B.C. participates in this program, and currently the act requires every multilateral agreement and amending agreement and notice of its date to be published in full in the Gazette. If this bill is enacted, only publication of the notice would be required.
We continue to publish the full notice on the Internet so that people have access to it. This bill also makes minor corrections to the act.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: 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 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans 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 M205 — FIRST NATIONS
HERITAGE PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION ACT, 2017
A. Olsen presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2017.
A. Olsen: I move that a bill intituled the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read now a first time.
I am pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2017. This is a bill that was introduced a number of times by Ms. Maurine Karagianis, former MLA for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. I would like to recognize her work on this subject.
This bill is a first step towards recognizing that Indigenous burial and sacred heritage sites should have the same respect and protection as non-Indigenous sites. It creates a framework for First Nations to request and the minister to issue emergency temporary protection orders to protect heritage sites or objects from injury or desecration. It also creates a First Nations heritage protection program which will provide funding to local governments to protect sacred sites.
The Grace Islet case, in which the province finally purchased land to protect First Nations grave sites of our S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN, our ancestors, from destruction illustrates what happens when we do not have a solution to this problem and, instead, government takes a piecemeal approach.
This bill outlines one approach to better protecting First Nations’ sites in our province. I would like to recognize that there are a number of different approaches that could be taken. I’d also like to recognize that there has been ongoing work on this problem for a number of years under the direction of the First Nations Leadership Council.
I am introducing this bill in order to move us forwards toward remedying the unequal treatment of First Nations heritage sites and non-Indigenous sites. What is critical is that we develop a solution. I hope we will debate and discuss this bill in this the House. Perhaps we could send it to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, of which I am a proud part. I hope that it will lead to First Nations’ sacred sites finally having the same respect and protection they have long been denied.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
A. Olsen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M205, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation 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)
COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO
INCIDENT AT FERNIE
ARENA
T. Shypitka: I would like to take this opportunity to bring attention to this House to the power of community. As many of us know in this House, the city of Fernie was devastated last week by an industrial accident that took the lives of two local residents and the life of a resident from Alberta.
When first responders were initially alerted to the accident, the city was immediately paralyzed. People wondered who was involved and what had happened. Several blocks were closed — close to 100 people were displaced — including the closing of several businesses, a recreational centre, a seniors home and numerous residences.
Reception centres and communications were set up, and city staff and employees immediately went into action to help where they could. Displaced residents were boarded at the Stanford Resort, where management prepared a spaghetti dinner for those that were hungry, and locals provided clothing to those who did not have time to gather their belongings.
The Cranbrook fire department came immediately and offered assistance where it was needed. The residents provided food and coffee to all the support staff and first responders as well. The towns of Sparwood and Elkford offered the use of their hockey rinks to be used by Fernie minor hockey and the senior team, the Fernie Ghostriders, and children gave up their hockey equipment to those children that lost theirs. Save-On-Foods provided a huge lunch to the entire workforce last Friday. Communities like Jaffray, Baynes Lake, Moyie, Grasmere and Elko all did what they could physically and spiritually.
These are but a few examples of the power of community and how it can help in times of despair. I congratulate my community and thank all of those who made things a little easier. In short, the power of community is people helping people.
On behalf of Mayor Giuliano, CAO Norm McInnis, the staff and employees of the city of Fernie, as well as the B.C. Liberal caucus and — I am hopeful I can be bold enough to say — this entire B.C. assembly, we send our thoughts and prayers to the friends and family of Wayne Allan Hornquist, Lloyd Stewart Smith and Jason Donovan Podloski.
THOMAS UPHILL
N. Simons: Thomas Uphill holds the record for longest-serving MLA in British Columbia history, having sat in this very chamber for 40 years. He first ran for the Conservative Party — constituency of Fernie, in 1916, under the Conservative banner — but was defeated.
In 1920, having seen the light, he ran for and was one of three members elected to the Federated Labour Party. He went on to serve in this Legislature under various parties, including his own, the Independent Fernie and District Labour Party, finding the CCF a little too conservative. Needless to say, as a single member, he did not have official party status.
What I’m bringing to the House’s attention today is that Thomas Uphill is being honoured this evening in a way that few of us could ever dream of being remembered, by having a beer named after him. Thomas Uphill Amber Ale is the creation of Swans Brew Pub brewer Chris Lukie but the brainchild of Wayne Norton, a local historian, who has written about Thomas Uphill and, in particular, the MLA’s eponymous battle against prohibition, which he believed inappropriately included a prohibition against beer.
As prohibition lost its strength after the First World War, with doctors prescribing alcohol to thousands of British Columbians, restrictions on beer remained in place. A plebiscite was held in 1924, which maintained strict rules around beer consumption. He decried this fact, pointing to the fact that his district voted 4 to 1 in favour of allowing beer to be served.
He said, “When I mention beer, I mean good draft beer, and I would prosecute anyone who would brew this 2 percent stuff,” referring to the beer that was allowed to be served. He apparently also said: “Beer is as necessary to the worker as milk is to the baby.”
I’d like to point out he was also a champion of women’s causes, workers’ rights and other important social issues as well. Tonight at Swans, we’ll have a chance to raise a pint in tribute, celebrating his achievements with some of his descendants while also celebrating the craft brewery industry here in British Columbia.
UNITI HOUSING INITIATIVE IN
WHITE ROCK AND SOUTH
SURREY
T. Redies: It’s very hard to follow a two-minute statement like that. I’m not going to be talking about beer or wine, but I do want to take this moment to recognize a new and important organization doing great work within my Surrey–White Rock constituency.
Unveiled just last month, UNITI is the collaboration of three long-time Surrey–White Rock organizations: Semiahmoo House Society, Peninsula Estates Housing Society and Semiahmoo Foundation. These three organizations have come together to create a partnership aimed specifically at building inclusive, affordable rental housing called Chorus.
Chorus is the first purpose-built rental apartment to be constructed in Surrey in over three decades. It features 20 homes for people with developmental disabilities and 51 homes for the general population. This development has been active for just over a year now and has demonstrated to the community that this model works. Tenants who have disabilities have shown great personal growth and have integrated into the community by meeting neighbours, shopping at local businesses and taking transit to their jobs. Other tenants living within Chorus have also benefited by living in long-term, quality affordable housing.
Moving forward, it is UNITI’s plan to create more inclusive housing by partnering with B.C. Housing, CLBC and the city of Surrey on more developments throughout the area.
I’d really like to recognize Doug Tennant, the executive director, and his highly capable team, Louise Tremblay, Lise Boughen, Ellen Powell and Casandra Fletcher, as well as Rich Gorman, who is the chair of the Semiahmoo House Society, for all of their remarkable efforts on behalf of people with developmental disabilities.
I’d also like to give a special shout-out to the wonderful people who use these services, especially Manjeet Ghangass, who I’ve known since her brother and my son played on the same hockey team ten years ago. I had the great privilege of meeting with her again and speaking with many of the residents and day clients of this wonderful organization during the campaign, and it was very inspiring.
I’m so very proud of the important work these organizations are doing within our community. I want to thank them for making White Rock and South Surrey a better and more inclusive place to live.
RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
B. D’Eith: Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation is a non-profit, registered charity investing in better health through community partnerships. The foundation provides support for home and community care, health promotion and prevention, and mental health and addiction services through funding for the Ridge Meadows Hospital, Baillie House, McKenney Creek Hospice, Gardenview Pavilion and other community organizations.
The foundation produces a number of fundraising events each year, including their annual gala. The 29th annual gala, Enchanted, was held on October 14, 2017. This year they raised over $230,000 for the Ridge Meadows Hospital through various donations and auction items provided by Meadow Gardens Golf Club, the Keg, Ban Chok Dee, the Chameleon Cafe, local firefighters, Fraser River Pile and Dredge, H and I Roofing, and many, many more.
Laura Butler, who is the foundation’s executive director, produced an amazing event that saw new sponsors, new donors, new guests and new volunteers. The work that she, her amazing staff, the board of directors and many volunteers do each year is incredible.
This year’s event helped to raise money to purchase equipment for an infant resuscitation warmer for the hospital’s maternity department. But there’s more. The chair of the board, Ron Antalek, commented that the event has expanded support beyond the walls of the hospital. They’re very proud to support mental health in the community with support for the youth wellness centre and funding for essential services for Alouette Addictions.
Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation is an important part of the health care system in our community. Their continued work helps to improve the quality of care in our hospital and throughout our community. I want to thank them and all of the hospital foundations throughout British Columbia who work tirelessly to improve our health care services.
PENINSULA STREAMS SOCIETY AND
ECOSYSTEM
PROTECTION
A. Olsen: Saanich North and the Islands is home to an amazing non-profit called Peninsula Streams. Like streamkeeping organizations all across our province, their work is restoring the vital, circulatory network of a healthy ecosystem and healthy communities. The life force driving them is SĆÁÁNEW̱, the wild Pacific salmon — ŦEḴI¸, SȾOḰI¸, HENEN¸, ŦÁ¸WEN and QOL¸EW̱; sockeye, chinook, pink, coho and chum.
Soon after I was elected councillor in Central Saanich, I began to understand the tremendous impact community neighbourhood development has on our SĆÁÁNEW̱ relatives. This week the Auditor General released a report about the impacts of human development under the guidance of the Ministries of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and Environment on QÍYEĆEN, the grizzly bear.
The stories of STḴȺYE¸, wolf culls, apparently to slow the extirpation of Selkirk caribou, the KELȽOLEMEĆEN, orcas struggling to find food and quiet in the Salish Sea, or the sad case of SXEU¸KEM, the Thompson River steelhead, are told daily.
The SĆÁÁNEW̱ is our provincial fish, and all these animals are powerful symbols of our home. In their absence, we dare to call this place super or natural. With just 1.4 million salmon returning to the Fraser this summer, alarm bells are ringing, not just for them or the rest of the complex web that they exist in but for all of us.
It does not have to be this way. In a new generation of leadership, we can choose to renew our relationship with the ecosystems that sustain our lives so fully. Streamkeepers are just one example of people making a difference, a difference for our environment and the quality of life in our communities. For those who think we can eat money, they make an incredible economic impact as well.
I am inspired by their passion. I hope that we invest in their work because their investment is in our relatives, all living things. It is an investment in the children and grandchildren that we will race home to hold and embrace when this place closes this afternoon. HÍSW̱ḴE.
SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY
G. Begg: It is my pleasure today to rise in this House to recognize and commend the work of a group of dedicated volunteers in my riding whose purpose is to conserve salmon wildlife. The Serpentine Enhancement Society was established in the early ’80s when a young scientist, Clare Backman, was studying at SFU. Backman had a dream to rehabilitate the Serpentine salmon run. With brood stock captured from a nearby farmer’s creek, he taught others the necessary skills to raise salmon.
After securing a land lease agreement with greater Vancouver regional parks, the Tynehead Hatchery was built in 1988 by an extremely dedicated group of volunteers. Some of these volunteers remortgaged their homes to fund the construction. The completed project includes a fish hatchery, classroom and research station. To this day, the hatchery thrives on prime real estate in Tynehead Regional Park, sitting on about 2½ acres of land near the headwaters of the Serpentine River. The Tynehead Hatchery handles four species of salmon annually.
The Serpentine Enhancement Society retains its commitment each and every day to replenish and restock all locally endangered fish species along the banks of the Serpentine River. The hatchery is completely volunteer run, relying on dedicated and knowledgable citizens to organize and participate in activities such as egg takes and fry releases.
Every year 250,000 salmon are released back into the Serpentine. The ongoing ecological effort is made possible by these active volunteers who regularly lead education sessions, workshops and community enhancement programs. Clare Backman’s early efforts and commitment have been nurtured well by this dedicated group, and I know all members of this House join me in commending them in their ongoing work.
Oral Questions
ATTENDANCE OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES
MINISTER AT BUSINESS
OPENING EVENT
J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services has made no apologies for associating repeatedly with a man accused of violent activities. What’s troubling is that we’ve discussed it many times here in this House.
On Tuesday, she said, in her own words, that she was “invited by a very close friend of mine whose husband is a partner in the business.” Then she said: “I attended an opening of a business that is owned by a number of people.” A third time she said: “It’s not owned by one person. It’s owned by a number of families.”
That’s not an excuse for her conduct. Who cares how many owners there are? Because we’re doubting this minister’s judgment, we checked B.C. registry. Well — surprise, surprise — there is only one director listed for Gateway Sweets and Chaat House. That person is Mr. Padda.
My question is to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. How does the minister reconcile information confirmed accurate by B.C. registry services and her claim on Tuesday?
Hon. J. Sims: I was invited to attend the opening of a small family business in our community. As you know, it is not unusual for members in this House from all sides to attend events like this. We all support the growth of small businesses in our community.
I attended this opening with hundreds of community members and community leaders, including a federal MP who has run for the B.C. Liberals in the past. I think British Columbians are interested in hearing about what we are doing to make their lives better, and that is my focus.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: I’m a bit surprised here. This isn’t a 1,000-person South Asian event. This is an opening of a sweet shop at a Surrey strip mall. I’m quite surprised that she’s making it sound like there are many, many politicians there.
To recap, the minister attended a fundraiser along with the Premier. Also in attendance were a convicted criminal and an accused violent offender. Then we heard that someone facing charges involving firearms, uttering threats, forcible confinement without lawful authority and assault decided to cavort with her at her campaign office. And now we hear that a week ago last Sunday she attended the opening of that same person’s latest business — more pictures of the minister smiling with Mr. Padda.
He is the only director listed for the company, despite statements made in this House yesterday. How do we know this? We checked with the minister’s own ministry. B.C. registry reports to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Her own ministry’s information contradicts her claims.
Is the minister going to provide yet another excuse for her affinity for socializing with alleged criminals? She’s a minister of the Crown. Does she think this is appropriate behaviour?
Hon. J. Sims: As I have stated, I attended the opening of a small business, family-owned, in my community. It was my understanding from the family that there were a number of owners. If that is not true, I retract my statement.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.
J. Johal: The minister has a record here, a record of regularly associating with known or alleged criminals. These are not isolated instances. She has repeatedly flaunted her relationship with this man. Faced with serious questions pertaining to her relationship, the minister is dismissive. She fails to grasp the seriousness of the situation. She fails to grasp the message she is sending to the citizens of Surrey and particularly South Asian youth.
By chumming around with Mr. Padda, a man facing charges involving firearms, uttering threats, forcible confinement without lawful authority and assault, among others, we can only assume that she is fine with it. That must be the case.
Is the minister continuing to associate with Mr. Padda because she doesn’t have any regard for the families affected by gun violence?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I must say I am fascinated by the member’s questioning, and others’, over the last few days, about who the minister has or does not have their photograph taken with. They’re concerned about the appropriateness of having pictures taken. The fact of the matter is that we all attend events, and pictures are taken.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you for that, hon. Member, because I’d like to ask….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to ask: if they’re so concerned about this individual, could they perhaps please explain why, during the election campaign, the then Advanced Education Minister, who was a minister of the Crown, was out campaigning, quite happily having his picture taken with an accused fentanyl importer? An individual charged with importing fentanyl into British Columbia — fentanyl, which is part of a crisis which is killing thousands of people across this country, and particularly in British Columbia — yet they were quite happy for the former Minister of Advanced Education to have their picture taken and raise not one single word.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: If they want to question photographers and whose pictures are being taken with, look in the mirror.
S. Cadieux: Let’s look at the Minister of Citizens’ Services’ excuses for knowingly attending a business opening for an accused, gun-toting, violent criminal in a city right now that is dealing with a rash of gun incidents and is on edge about this and is concerned about the actions that this government is taking.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
S. Cadieux: The reality is that she excuses her behavior with the point that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. That is not untrue. But what she doesn’t comprehend or doesn’t appear to comprehend is that a minister of the Crown is expected to observe, for the Crown, a certain level of integrity.
She can claim to be appalled by violence all she likes, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that she’s openly associating with these individuals on a repeated basis. Her excuse that she was brought by a friend with ties, one of the partners, doesn’t stand up because he doesn’t have any partners. And if she took the time to examine the records of her own ministry, she would have known that.
This is a very serious situation. People of Surrey are concerned about gun violence, and they’re concerned that they now have a minister of the Crown and a representative for that community that is openly associating with individuals who are accused of such violence.
Now, will she be in the visitor’s gallery on May 22 of next year to support Mr. Padda at his next court appearance?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The minister has answered the questions. What we’re waiting for is a response from that side of the House as to why it’s okay for a minister of Advanced Education to have their picture taken with an accused fentanyl importer.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may continue with the questioning.
S. Cadieux: The reality is that a minister of the Crown should uphold a certain standard of conduct, and openly associating with an individual charged with offences involving firearms, threats, forcible confinement and unlawful authority and assault is unacceptable.
We hear that she’s blaming her attendance on someone else. Now we hear from another member of the government that…. Clearly, they’re not that satisfied with her answers either, because they don’t want her to answer the question.
It isn’t just about the people that the minister chooses to associate with. She went out of her way to a neighbouring riding to flaunt this relationship. It’s about the honour of the Crown. It’s about not condoning gun violence in a community where it’s a real problem.
My question is to the minister, who is a representative of my community. How can her constituents have any confidence in her if she continues to associate so closely, so openly, with alleged violent offenders?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I know one thing. They’re definitely not drawing cabinet ministers’ paycheques.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The minister has answered the question. They clearly don’t want to answer the question that’s facing them, which is why they were quite satisfied with…. The former Minister of Advanced Education and ex-RCMP officer was happy to pose for photographs with an accused fentanyl importer.
Well, perhaps they can then ask this question, if they’re so concerned about things. Why on earth did they hire someone facing serious charges in Ontario, Laura Miller, as their campaign director?
DOWN PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM FOR
FIRST-TIME
HOMEBUYERS
A. Weaver: The single biggest issue facing British Columbians today is the issue of housing affordability. I’ve now sat in this question period for a full two months, and I’ve yet to hear anything of substance in question period from members opposite. As a consequence….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Weaver: As a consequence, please let me pick up the file.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member, if you could please be seated for a moment.
Members, I’m not sure this is a productive use of the time in the House here.
Member, please continue.
A. Weaver: As a consequence, I’ll pick up the file.
The B.C. Liberals introduced the B.C. home owner mortgage and equity partnership program in early 2017. The then opposition Housing critic and now Attorney General called the program “completely bizarre,” and he said: “It’s an incredibly poorly thought-out policy.” He further noted our provincial government’s — that’s the previous government — response was to encourage people to take on more debt and subsidize the debt. “It’s bizarre,” he said.
I agree, and so does Evan Siddall, the president and CEO of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who said this: “Programs that support demand in supply-constrained markets, like Vancouver, serve primarily to increase prices and make the affordability problem worse.” In reference to the stated goal of the program and making houses more affordable, he stated this: “I am joined by a loud chorus of economists in insisting that it will do the exact opposite.”
My question is this. When will this government eliminate the program, which does nothing more than incentivize British Columbians to take on more debt than they can afford — a reckless incentive, particularly when interest rates are rising, as they have twice already this year?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think, as the member pointed out, after 16 years of ignoring the housing crisis in British Columbia, there’s a lot of work that has to be done.
I’m very proud of the first steps we took in less than two months after being sworn in, in government, in our budget update by announcing funding for 1,700 affordable housing units and 2,000 modular housing units. We’ve also added resources to the residential tenancy branch to support good landlords and good tenants in the work that they do. We’ve also improved information-sharing with the homeowner grant and the Income Tax Act to look at speculation and how we address the speculation.
On the member’s specific question around the B.C. partnership program. It is being looked at as part of the budget. The member will know from the budget update that the amount of money has been reduced in that program, because the previous government predicted about $700 million over three years as usage. We have reduced that by $500 million. The program has been underutilized because of the concerns the member has raised. So this is being looked at as part of the budget process.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.
REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE
INDUSTRY AND LAND
SPECULATION
A. Weaver: The members opposite seem to think that if I don’t hurl a character assassination at government, it’s a softball question, as opposed to a question dealing with real issues facing British Columbians.
Yesterday Global News noted New Zealand’s approach to tackle their housing crisis and clamp down on offshore ownership and speculation. The story included a very disturbing comment attributed to government: “Foreign ownership of homes is not being considered as part of the budget 2018 planning.”
There’s a lot of foreign capital out there looking for a safe place to park money in these tumultuous times. Foreign investors have turned to our real estate sector, thereby turning our houses and land into commodities for investing in speculation, not living in or working on. Our residents are paying a social cost, as they can’t afford to live in the places that they work.
Yesterday I also received an email from a rural farm and ranch realtor who had been approached on behalf of a limited company based in Hong Kong looking to purchase 35,000 acres of farmland in British Columbia. The stories are never ending.
This government continues to focus on the supply side of housing. When will this government step in to clamp down on foreign money flooding into our real estate sector and agricultural markets like other jurisdictions have done internationally?
Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the questions and the ideas and the solutions to take a look at speculation and closing loopholes. Stay tuned for more information this afternoon around one piece of that.
I’m working with the Minister of Housing. We’re working together on both the demand and supply sides. It is critical, as the member has pointed out, that we look at both pieces.
The member will know that tax measures are not talked about before the budget comes out so that we ensure that people don’t utilize tax information to their own personal benefit. That will come out as part of the February budget.
I can assure the member that speculative issues are being looked at — how we close the loopholes. It’s all part of a comprehensive housing strategy that we are going to be proud to table and proud to implement in this province.
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION
APPLICATIONS AND ROLE OF
AGRICULTURE MINISTER
S. Gibson: Recently the Agricultural Land Commission received an application to remove land from the ALR. Instead of leaving the decision to the independent ALC, the Minister of Agriculture chose to politically interfere.
In specific reference to an application in Abbotsford that is before the commission, the minister made her opposition clear by saying: “It does not fit within the mandate.” This is akin to the Attorney General openly musing that a judge should rule one way or another.
To the minister: will she commit today that she will not continue to interfere in ALC applications?
Hon. L. Popham: First of all, I’d like to say to this chamber that I couldn’t be more proud to be the Minister of Agriculture for the province of B.C. And I am very proud to be working under a Premier who has the very best interests of B.C. at heart.
I will say to the member, in response to his question, that I have not interfered with ALC applications.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford-Mission on a supplemental.
S. Gibson: The minister is compromised yet again. She broke commission rules against political interference, and now the minister is speaking out on applications before decisions are even rendered.
Early this week the minister claimed her attempts to influence the commission is acceptable practice. I’ll remind her of what she said herself in 2014: “We see members bullying the chair to get their way to get applications pushed through the commission.”
My question, again, to the minister: will she commit today that in fact she knows that her political interference is wrong and that she should not overrule ALC decisions in this or any other ALR applications?
Hon. L. Popham: I have never overruled an ALC decision. But I would like to say that when I was sworn in as minister, part of my mandate was to revitalize the agricultural land reserve, and that’s what we’ll be doing. We’ll be making it stronger than ever. Under the last government, they eroded the mandate of the agricultural land reserve to the point where it has become a land bank for property speculation and not a land bank for food security, as it should be.
This official opposition has a horrible track record on the agricultural land reserve, and we’re going to fix that. When I was sworn in as Agriculture Minister, I reminded the Agricultural Land Commission of their mandate, which is to protect agricultural land and to encourage farming. And that’s what I will be encouraging as the Minister of Agriculture.
N. Letnick: Well, clearly, the minister only recognizes the results of the Agricultural Land Commission and their work if it’s not in her own riding. Clearly, the member, when she was in opposition, would stand up and say to her people in her riding: “It’s okay. I’m sorry I’m saying this, but I think that land in my particular riding should go into construction of houses instead of staying in the ALR.” And not too long ago she interfered with the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission once again by sending an email to the chair, saying that she wanted her particular application in her riding to be accelerated, clearly against the policy of the ALC.
Here she is, once again, taking a public position on an application in front of the independent Agricultural Land Commission to look at land in Abbotsford. Will the minister please stop interfering with the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission, calling into question her ability to be in charge of the ALC altogether?
Hon. L. Popham: I’m sure glad it’s Thursday, because the official opposition is getting more and more convoluted. I have never interfered with the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.
N. Letnick: The policy of the ALC is clear, and I’ll read it right here. The policy says: “Communication should be neutral in tone and avoid any reasonable perception that it is an attempt to influence either the outcome or the timing of a decision.” It’s clear, on the record, that when she sent her note to the chair of the ALC, she was trying to interfere with the timing of the decision.
It’s very, very puzzling. She knows, as well as everyone in this House, that the only person that’s ever been accused, who’s in here today, about interfering with a decision of the ALC is the minister herself.
When will this minister stop trying to interfere with decisions of the ALC so that she can get on with the work of looking at whatever she’s planning for the ALC without being compromised and held to account?
Hon. L. Popham: I have never interfered with any applications at the Agricultural Land Commission. But I can tell you one thing that this opposition did. They fired the chair when he tried to hold up the mandate of the ALR, which is to protect land and to encourage farming.
REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
BY AGRICULTURE
MINISTRY
P. Milobar: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture was unable, or perhaps more accurately, not allowed, to answer a single question posed to her. She has a lot to answer for regarding the agenda that she is pursuing through threats and intimidation. She’s deliberately leaving false impressions that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been asking for and demanding a review.
She has sent threatening letters to law-abiding businesses, intimidating them around their tenure. We have businesses with land-based tenures…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member, we shall hear the question, please.
P. Milobar: …that are extremely concerned what that means for them moving forward.
To the minister of intimidation, her bias is quite obvious, and she hasn’t attempted to hide it. Will she do the responsible thing and recuse herself from the aquaculture file, given her obvious conflict of interest — or, as we saw yesterday, has the Premier already removed her from the aquaculture file because he’s lacking confidence in the minister?
Hon. L. Popham: We’ve been going through this now for seven days, and what is lost….
Interjections.
Hon. L. Popham: The members can try and spin whatever story they’d like to spin, but I can tell you that the priority of our government is to protect wild salmon. I wonder why it’s not a priority of the official opposition.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report of the B.C. Ferries Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
I also have the honour to present the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for the year ending December 31, 2016.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports — Representative for Children and Youth, Room for Improvement: Toward Better Education Outcomes for Children in Care; and the report, Office of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of the Regional Transportation Management Centre’s Cybersecurity Controls.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Jobs, Trades and Technology.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: The Chair will recognize the minister for an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. Trevena: There is someone who has just left the gallery, unfortunately, but I did want to recognize that Paul Barnett was observing question period. I know that he is a good friend to the Minister of Finance. I hope that he would regard himself as a good friend to myself. He’s a very diligent and hard-working person, and I know that I would not be in this House if it were not for Paul Barnett.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT,
2017
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
On section 1.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister and her staff. We are going to walk through the various sections. Obviously, some of the bill…. This is the bill that basically breathes life into the September Budget Update, and there are some things that the minister and my colleague and I have had some discussion about. So there will be some review of a couple of these sections.
Perhaps we’ll start with a question about the investment that is being made in the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust. Can the minister confirm that it is a $10 million, one-time allocation?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, and thank you for the opportunity to be able to walk through, as the member has said, the various specific measures in the budget. Yes, this is $10 million that was in the February budget. But just to speak specifically to the amendment, there is a need to increase the cap that was in place for the North Island–Coast Development Trust from $50 million to $60 million, to enable this additional $10 million to be spent.
S. Bond: Could the minister describe for us the model of spending that this trust has used?
Hon. C. James: As the member probably knows, there are various models for the various trusts in the province. Some models use the endowment model. This trust uses an infrastructure model, where they specifically fund projects to create economic stimulus. So the projects are received, and the money goes out based on those projects.
S. Bond: Could the minister remind all of us what the intent of the trusts was when the trusts were created, and the mandate that the trusts have?
Hon. C. James: The three trusts operate independently from government, as the member probably knows, and each has enabling legislation. Those trusts, just for the record, are the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act and the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust Act.
The trusts were put in place in 2005-2006 to support regional economic growth by funding regional development activities and priorities. So specifically, the trusts are tasked with driving economic development in key sectors. Those include, just for the member’s information, forestry, transportation, tourism, mining, Olympics opportunities at the time, small business, economic development, energy and agriculture. The two trusts other than the Island trust are also tasked with assisting in the pine beetle recovery.
S. Bond: Does the minister believe that the infrastructure spending model that has been utilized by this trust, which has now resulted in, essentially, the trust having no funding left….? This is a top-up, an addition to the cap that was put in place. Does the minister believe that the infrastructure spending model meets the expectation that was laid out in the mandate of the trusts?
Hon. C. James: The trusts, as I outlined, run independently of government, so it is up to the board of directors of the trust to determine the models that meet the needs within the guidelines that I outlined earlier — to look at economic development. The board of directors for the North Island–Coast Development determined that the model of funding that we’ve talked about — providing infrastructure and providing support — was the right model at the time and for that trust.
S. Bond: Section 1 also clarifies powers and duties of the directors. That clarification is in relation to the receipt, deposit, investment and use of the money paid by the government to the trust. Could the minister explain for us whether that includes changes in the governance model and whether there will be any discussion with the trust about the specific use of the money?
Hon. C. James: No changes to governance or the structure of the board. This change basically requires the current directors of the trust to use the money paid by the government in the same way as the $50 million — so to ensure that they receive it, deposit it, invest it and use the money based on the structure that is in place with the new $10 million as they did with the $50 million.
S. Bond: Does the minister anticipate providing additional funding to this trust or either of the other trusts in future budgets?
Hon. C. James: No changes in this current budget, as the member knows, other than this one trust. But we’re going through the budget process, so if requests come forward, everything would be considered in the same process as other requests during the budget.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
T. Redies: Could the minister explain the impact of this section specifically to the board?
Hon. C. James: Sections 2 and 3 both speak to the elimination of tolls and some administrative pieces that need to occur because of the elimination of tolls. The Transportation Investment Act is amended to update the definition of a director and to authorize transferring ownership of the share of the Transportation Investment Corporation from government to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. As I said, this is related to the removal of tolls and an administrative piece to ensure that’s taken care of.
T. Redies: Does this now mean that references to the board within the act refer to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority?
Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
T. Redies: Could I ask the minister to explain a little bit more about this transfer of authority that is occurring here and what necessitated the decision?
Hon. C. James: As I mentioned earlier, this is related to the removal of the toll revenue, which meant that when tolls were removed, the Transportation Investment Corporation simply held the bridge and not the revenue. What this provides for is to consolidate the financial information for roads and bridges — so our reporting that we do to consolidate it within the Transportation Financing Authority. This occurs because of the removal of the tolls. This consolidates the reporting so it will be a clear reporting in the financial picture.
T. Redies: Under the Transportation Investment Corporation, the cost of building the Port Mann Bridge — which was, I think, estimated to be about $3.3 billion plus interest — would have been paid off by 2050 using a user-pay arrangement or the tolls the minister was referring to. This section, therefore, effectively transfers a self-sustaining debt over to taxpayer-supported debt.
So I’d like to know what analysis was performed to assess the impact on British Columbia’s triple-A credit ratingof sharply increasing the public debt, before this decision was made.
Hon. C. James: I know we had some of this discussion, as well, in estimates. Certainly, the impact of debt-to-GDP is important to us, as we talked about. It’s certainly important for us to pay attention to. So when the decision was made to remove tolls, obviously, the impact on the provincial debt was taken a look at as well.
I think it’s important to point out that debt-to-revenue at the end of the three-year plan is actually a half a point lower than it would have been in the February budget. So we believe that taking in this one-time payment of debt is manageable, provides affordability to families and provides fairness, most importantly.
When it comes to tolling of bridges, the fact that those who live south of the Fraser were the ones who were facing the tolls, and not other new bridges — for example, Kelowna — where there was no toll on the new bridge. We feel that this was an issue of fairness, and we believe that the debt is manageable. I think the budget shows that.
T. Redies: Given the change, how will this debt now be paid off?
Hon. C. James: As the member knows, when there are surpluses, that goes to operating debt. Capital debt, we believe, is a smart investment, a wise investment when it comes to building infrastructure in British Columbia, when it comes to providing jobs, when it comes to ensuring our communities and supports and services are there. So we believe this capital spend is an important contribution to British Columbia and is manageable.
T. Redies: Moody’s called the government’s decision to eliminate tolls “credit negative, as it will increases taxpayer-supported debt and remove a dedicated line of revenue for debt repayment.” They, and this is also in quotes, “assume this action will be taken … to other actions to be announced.” Could the minister outline what mitigation measures have been taken?
Hon. C. James: This isn’t specific, obviously, to the specific bill that we’re talking about right now, but I’ll answer the question for the member.
As we do with all decisions, and as we talked about yesterday in estimates, we take a look at the choices. We take a look at the fiscal room. We look at our debt-to-GDP, debt-to-revenue. We ensure it’s manageable and that it is reasonable for taxpayers, and that’s what happened in this case as well.
T. Redies: The $2 billion in incremental taxes associated with this bill — with respect to carbon tax, corporate tax and the higher rate for income earners over $150,000…. Would that be indicative of a mitigation measure from the minister’s perspective?
Hon. C. James: Again, I know that we had an opportunity in a number of hours in estimates to go through this piece, and it’s not specific to this section of the bill.
As I said, and I’ll say again, we believe that the budget is balanced, provides a fiscally responsible plan for British Columbia that encourages competitiveness, and continues to provide the supports and services so needed for the people of British Columbia.
T. Redies: Since the minister doesn’t seem to want to answer anything with respect to the credit rating agencies, I’ll move on.
Could the minister please clarify the new responsibilities that this transfers to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority? For example, would one of those new responsibilities be maintenance?
Hon. C. James: Yes, it does include maintenance.
T. Redies: Could the minister also provide or elaborate on what occurs to the assets of the TI Corp after this? Will they be used in another capacity?
Hon. C. James: The asset of the TI Corp is the bridge.
T. Redies: How many employees were affected by shutting down this Crown corporation? If the minister could elaborate on that, please.
Hon. C. James: The transition is still occurring with the tolling company, so those numbers will come out later. But those are being worked on right now. The transition is being worked on right now.
T. Redies: To the minister, how does this impact the new consultations and the timeline for the George Massey Tunnel replacement project? Previously, TI was to be responsible for supporting the ministry on the implementation of this project, so how is that going to be done from here?
Hon. C. James: I would encourage the member to take questions around transportation specifically to the estimates of the Minister of Transportation. Today we’re talking about the specifics on the bill.
T. Redies: Well, I think I know what the answer is going to be on this, but I’m going to take another crack at it. Does this mean that the actions that the government has taken…? Does this mean that there will be no tolling on any future transportation projects within the Lower Mainland by this government?
Hon. C. James: That’s a future policy question that I’m sure we’ll debate in estimates as future budgets come forward. We’re talking about the decision that was made on these bridges and these tolls today.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
T. Redies: Section 4. Similarly, this change is affecting governance. Could the minister briefly describe the changes here, please?
Hon. C. James: Again, this is a housekeeping item to enable the transfer, as I mentioned earlier. This section, this proposed amendment in section 4, provides for the directors of the Transportation Investment Corporation to be appointed by the board of directors of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and removes the requirement that the board elect a vice-chair. That’s the change that has occurred.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
T. Redies: This section, as per the explanatory note, repeals a section respecting meetings of the board. Can the minister explain when the board will be officially dissolved?
Hon. C. James: This section does not dissolve the board or make the decision to dissolve the board. It basically creates the same practice that is used by other organizations, which is that their meetings are included in their own bylaw and constitution, rather than legislation. This creates the usual practice of organizations.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
S. Bond: This obviously refers to the transfer of share in TI Corp. Can the minister explain the mechanics of the provision for us and what it does in detail?
Hon. C. James: Again, a consequence of the elimination of the tolls…. This is the reason that this section is coming forward. Specifically, the transitional provision ensures that appropriation room would be available for the value of the share transfer from government to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority if that was needed. This is making sure that if that situation ever occurred, there would be appropriation room available.
There are two pieces to this section. The second piece ensures the continuation of existing agreements under the new ownership structure, as things are transferred over, to make sure that those existing agreements are transferred over as well.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
S. Bond: This is the section that actually is repealing the definition of “scheduled rate change.” It signals and puts in place what amounts to a 66 percent increase in the carbon tax. Can the minister outline for us the kind of analysis that was undertaken on the overall economic impact of the rate changes that are going to be expedited?
Hon. C. James: Just to talk a little bit about the decision around the carbon tax, as this section talks about the changes to the carbon tax coming in on April 1, 2018.
The member asked about the impact of the increase in the carbon tax. Certainly B.C. has the opportunity, because of the experience of having a carbon tax before other jurisdictions, and has the experience to be able to take a look at the impact on which industries, the impact on the economy. In fact, if you take a look at economic growth in British Columbia, there are, of course, a number of factors that you have to take into account, including the increases in the carbon tax. We saw, in fact, positive growth there as well.
The experience that B.C. has gives us the opportunity, then, to take a look at providing the kinds of support programs that I talked about in estimates, where we’re looking at mitigation for those industries who are energy-intensive, carbon-intensive and trade-exposed. It gives us the track record to be able to take a look at those industries that may be impacted, and those will be discussions that will be happening through the Ministry of Environment.
T. Redies: Just a follow-up question on the minister’s response. I’m curious as to how the past experience of B.C. can be used to analyze what’s going to happen going forward, because in previous years this was a revenue-neutral tax, and it’s now no longer revenue-neutral.
What analysis did the ministry do to assess the impact of this now not revenue-neutral tax?
Hon. C. James: B.C. does have experience in increasing the carbon tax on sectors. That’s certainly information that is looked at, and we analyzed that when it came to revenue neutrality, as well, and getting rid of revenue neutrality.
As the member knows, part of the carbon tax approach that we are taking, from this side of the House, is to ensure that low-income families, modest-income families, will be better off, will be supported through additional credits, and that there will also be support for industries — as I mentioned, through the mitigation — through the energy-intensive challenges that they may face.
Again, we’ll see when the carbon tax comes into place. We certainly hope that some of that will be addressed through the pan-Canadian agreement — that at least the competition and the competitive issues between the provinces will be addressed, because you will see the provinces reaching the same carbon number. I think that certainly will assist.
The idea of encouraging industries to transition, in fact, has been shown to be successful. I mentioned yesterday, and I’ll mention again today, the issue of the cement industry, where that was an industry that has been challenged by carbon.
They are a very energy-intensive industry. They were provided support. They have, in fact, made changes and are an example of exactly the kind of approach that we’re going to take with the carbon tax and with the carbon tax revenue, where industries are encouraged and supported to transition to be able to save their resources and to be able to do their part for climate action, which is something we know they want to do as well.
T. Redies: Does that mean that industry can expect some substantial rebates, similar to the low-income — those who are energy intensive?
Hon. C. James: As I said to the member yesterday and will say again today, the Minister of Environment will be developing programs. They’ll work with industry to ensure that the supports are there. We have programs in place. Those will be discussions that will occur through the Ministry of Environment.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
T. Redies: Part 2 of the Carbon Tax Act is being repealed. This removes the requirement to prepare an annual carbon tax report and plan. How will the public know how carbon tax revenues will be specifically spent — I believe we talked about it yesterday — on green initiatives, on transportation and other green transit initiatives if there’s no longer any reporting requirement?
Hon. C. James: Again, as we discussed yesterday, transparency is critical. Transparency is important to us as government, and certainly reporting out on climate action is very important to us. It is a priority of our government, and we look forward to that reporting out.
As every budget does, it will be included in the budget. It will be transparent. I’m sure that the new Climate Action Team that is implemented in the Ministry of Environment will be looking at ways to be able to get that message out, because it’s a message that we’ll be proud of in our province.
T. Redies: Just again to clarify, the reporting out is going to be done through the budget process. Or is there going to be a specific report? How often would we see that? How detailed would it be? I’d just like to get some elaboration on that.
Hon. C. James: Specific numbers will be in the budget, and then discussions will happen with the Ministry of Environment and the Climate Action Team.
S. Bond: I am very curious. If the minister and her government are so…. I’m certainly not questioning that there is an interest in transparency. Why on earth would we be removing a requirement to report? It seems fairly innocuous to me. That means that there would be a report provided on a regular basis, made public. There’s also a follow-up report, which was required. So it’s interesting that when there’s an intent — and I’m not at all questioning that — to be transparent, why remove this particular requirement?
Hon. C. James: Well, this change in this section of the bill takes away the requirement for a revenue-neutral report to come out. It makes no sense. We are not continuing on with revenue-neutral, so you wouldn’t include a report around revenue neutrality. That doesn’t make sense. We certainly don’t include every report that government ever issues in a piece of legislation.
Those discussions are occurring right now, and I expect, as I said, that we will be proud to report out on where the resources are going and how the supports are being put in place for green initiatives. That’s the intent of spending the carbon tax revenue, and of course we’ll be reporting to the public on that.
S. Bond: Certainly, this side of the House has expressed their concerns about what was an award-winning carbon tax model. Today we’re not actually debating the carbon tax and the existence of one, because it was actually our government that put it in place. What we are looking at…. These are the sections that talk about the pace of implementation, the quantum of increase and also reporting requirements.
To the minister’s point. If the report in this section is related to revenue neutrality, why would the minister not build in a new legislated requirement for some form of reporting so that British Columbians….? I’m not doubting that the minister will want to tell British Columbians, but when there is a legislated requirement, it brings a weight and a responsibility to bring that information regularly and in a particular format.
Understandably, revenue neutrality is gone. Why is this not then being amended or revised to include a legislated requirement to report out on the spending of what will be millions of dollars of both industry and taxpayer dollars?
Hon. C. James: The new climate action team was put in place last week. The Ministry of Environment is take a taking a look and discussing what kinds of options they will utilize. I can assure the member that all the information will be included in the budget, and I will guarantee there will be reporting out on how the resources are spent.
S. Bond: I don’t doubt the minister’s guarantee. In fact, she’s demonstrated for many years in this House her abilities and the integrity that she has. It’s not about that. It’s not about promising British Columbians and guaranteeing. This is the place where we create laws that require governments to follow through. I think that that gives weight and substance to the whole issue of the carbon tax.
Certainly, we led the country by putting the carbon tax in place. While we might disagree on the issue of revenue neutrality, I don’t think we agree on reporting out and how important it is. I think it’s important that the minister contemplate whether or not there will be a legislated requirement to report out.
Hon. C. James: This is being eliminated because it speaks to a revenue-neutral carbon plan. A plan will be developed, as I said, with the Ministry of Environment.
Sections 10 and 11 approved.
On section 12.
A. Weaver: I am on the Finance Committee, and we had a very compelling presentation made by representations from the cruise ship industry who have noted that bunker fuels, as per international standards, are exempt from carbon pricing because of the fact that you’re essentially moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they’re historically exempt. However, modern cruise ships don’t actually use the traditional fuels that are exempt, and they’re under a competitive disadvantage against Seattle, which does not, of course, have a carbon pricing.
My question is: is there consideration for exempting cruise ships that will be using fuels now subject to the carbon tax, although under international reporting regulations or rules, typically multi-jurisdictional travel is not charged with carbon tax — international airfare, for example, international cruise ships, and so forth?
Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member points out, quite rightly, there are already exemptions for interjurisdictional travel that are in place for the carbon tax. But as we’re going through the budget process for February, we know a request and information has come in. The member sits on the Finance Committee, so it may come forward through that route as well. But we’ll take a look at all that information as we develop the February budget.
A. Weaver: The Finance Committee has a very broad set of recommendations. I’m not sure something as specific as interjurisdictional travel and fuels with the cruise ships will be in the report. It may, but I’m not convinced. I just bring this to the attention of the minister, if she might consider having a look at this with her staff as we move forward. We wouldn’t want to put our cruise ship industry in a competitive disadvantage against docks in Seattle versus docks in Vancouver.
Hon. C. James: Happy to take a look at it.
S. Bond: I appreciate the member’s intervention. There are a number of questions about that. This table is really the meat of the discussion around the carbon tax. It lists types of fuel, and there are a lot of them. In fact, 20 of them are listed here. It does lay out the rate of the tax for years going up until April 1, 2021.
I want to talk a little bit about the families and the consumer and the impacts of the taxes. When consideration was given to the increases that are listed in this chart, what consideration was given to regionality? Obviously, if you live in Fort St. John, which yesterday or the day before received 55 cm of snow, there is going to be quite a significant difference in terms of the impact of increases of fuel that are listed in this chart, for example.
Can the minister explain for us what type of regional analysis was done before the decision to make these changes to the carbon tax?
Hon. C. James: Certainly, when we take a look at the impact on consumers, it’s part of the reason that we’re utilizing the carbon tax revenue to support low-income families. Just as the previous government had a credit in, that credit doesn’t differentiate between whether you’re a rural or an urban family, but it provides a credit for those families so that they receive resources.
There have been analyses done on both rural and urban, and there are differences in both areas. For example, the idling in vehicles in the Lower Mainland in fact increases the use of fuel, which is comparative to some of the distances that are travelled in the north. That’s one example — and better-insulated homes because of a requirement in the north when it comes to winters and people having to look at further insulation.
We’ll continue to take a look at that. It’s part of the reason that we talk about utilizing the carbon resources as well, to provide both the carrots and the sticks. In the Lower Mainland, you may be looking at transit. In the north, you may be looking at other mitigation to try and address the carbon increases. It’s part of the reason we’re ensuring that the revenue is used for both.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I know that the minister has referenced numerous times, both in this House in estimates and publicly…. I apologize if I have somehow missed the threshold. She has talked about one of the ways of compensating for the changes here is the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit. Can the minister describe for me the definition of “low income”? Is there a threshold that’s in place?
Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I’ll answer quickly to the member. I know we’ll come back to this discussion after lunch.
Just to give an example, a family of four…. Again, this is based on family size, so we can’t give the exact definition. Just as with the GST credit, it depends on the number of children and the number of adults in a family. Just a rough estimate: a family of four making $50,000 will get the full credit, and then it tapers down, based on $50,000.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to meet again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 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. C. James moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TRADE AND
TECHNOLOGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 33: ministry operations, $120,323,000 (continued).
The Chair: Minister, I understand you have a short statement.
Hon. B. Ralston: Just a note to correct, for the record, the number of clients served by Small Business B.C. Yesterday I was advised that 1,032,902 clients were served by Small Business B.C. The actual number is slightly higher. Small Business B.C. served 1,047,732 clients in 2016-17, as reported on page 3 of the Small Business B.C. Annual Report. This report can be found on the Small Business B.C. website.
Then, finally, I’m joined this morning by staff preparing for the questions that we anticipate will come in this section of the ministry’s work: Chris Gilmore, Angelo Cocco and Christine Little. They are from the division of technology, innovation and economic development.
J. Johal: Good to be here today and to take part in my first estimates. Before we begin, some information in regards to yesterday. I just wanted to clarify. I know that the last couple of questions, late in the day, I think were going to be written responses. Were they going to be handed to us to give to the minister, or were they just going to be emailed to our colleague?
Hon. B. Ralston: Ordinarily, the questions are replied to in written form to the member who asked those questions. But if the members wish, we can distribute them to other members as well.
J. Johal: Thank you so much. We’ll take them, for sure.
I’ll start with my first question. When did the minister order a review into the work undertaken and completed by the former LNG advocate, Gordon Wilson?
Hon. B. Ralston: As the member knows, this matter is before the courts.
J. Johal: I understand his actions are before the court, but my line of questioning is specifically about the review that was apparently ordered by him, as minister, and completed by the ministry staff. I would like to restate that question again. When did the minister order a review into the work undertaken and completed by the former LNG advocate, Gordon Wilson?
Hon. B. Ralston: The matter is before the courts.
J. Johal: I have a few questions on this topic. I’m just wondering, maybe for the record, if I’d at least be able to ask them, and that it be on the record that we have asked.
The Chair: The Chair has heard the minister’s answer. Looking at the standing orders, as the matter is before the courts…. Normally, debate on a matter before the courts is not something that takes place in the estimates or the main House. If the member has questions, of course, he is able to put them on the notice paper or use a number of ways in public to make those questions.
This is about the estimates particular to the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology, and as this matter is before the courts, I will not hear further questions on this matter.
J. Johal: I want to focus a little bit, talk a little bit, about the major investments office, if we can. Can the minister describe what he thinks is the role of the major investments office?
Hon. B. Ralston: The major investments office works with proponents, communities, First Nations and government agencies to facilitate significant investment projects. It strives to make it easier for major investors to create jobs in B.C., while ensuring that all permitting and consultative requirements are met.
J. Johal: Is the minister’s intention to maintain the major investments office?
Hon. B. Ralston: The answer is yes.
J. Johal: How many FTEs currently work in the MIO, and is that consistent with the number of the past few years?
Hon. B. Ralston: There are nine positions, of which two are currently vacant.
J. Johal: I just didn’t hear you at the end there, Minister.
Hon. B. Ralston: There are nine positions, of which two are currently vacant.
J. Johal: To my understanding, the budget from the MIO dropped from $1.7 million to $1.1 million. Why did the budget for the MIO drop? I think the budget was dropped from $1.7 million in the budget this spring and just under $1.1 million in this budget.
Hon. B. Ralston: The operational budget is the same. The estimates were restated because of the change in the ministry structure. The restated estimates for 2016-17 are $1.092 million and for 2017-18, $1.092 million.
J. Johal: When the minister restructured the ministry, why did he put the MIO into workforce development and not economic development or international business development? Those both seem like better homes for the office.
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you for the question. The major investments office is now housed with workforce development and immigration. The thinking in making that change was that a key aspect of the success of any major investment would be its ability to attract employees, a workforce, and that would be critical for the success. Given that group of skills, it was felt that it was best housed there.
J. Johal: Will the major investments office be included in the minister’s budget next year?
Hon. B. Ralston: The focus of these estimates is the budget for this year, so I’m not really able to answer a question about a future budget.
J. Johal: What are the major projects currently identified as priorities by the MIO?
Hon. B. Ralston: The office is a very busy one. There’s a lot of investor interest in British Columbia, as the member might expect. There is a limitation on some of what can be disclosed, because some negotiations and the inquiries are subject to non-disclosure agreements, which of course, have to be respected.
There are a number that I can tell the member about: Blue Fuel Energy, a methanol, low-carbon gasoline project proposed for Chetwynd; Canfor Pulp, a bio-oil project proposed for Prince George; Garibaldi at Squamish, an all-season resort; Graymont, a lime quarry with a kiln, Prince George; and Molson Coors, a new brewery in Chilliwack.
J. Johal: I just want to confirm the previous answer that you had given me in regards to the MIO being included in the budget next year. I just want to clarify: it will be, or it won’t be? I misheard there.
Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps I can answer it this way. The office is in the three-year plan for the ministry, but the budget for next year, obviously, has not yet been passed.
J. Johal: This is a question of just confirming the budget. But as you have stated, there are a lot of priority files here. There’s a lot of activity that seems to be planned. You, most likely, assume that this budget will be approved, that this office will be there in regards to attracting investment to British Columbia?
Hon. B. Ralston: Clearly, as the member will have noted from the description of the office and only some of the projects that are underway, this is a high priority for the government — attracting new investment into the province.
This is in the three-year plan, but as I’ve said, the budget for next year has not yet been passed. The minister can draw his own conclusions based on the strength and importance of the office, which is evident from the work it does now, as to whether it will be in the budget in the following year.
J. Johal: Could the minister describe how some of these projects are prioritized in regards to their importance?
Hon. B. Ralston: The office fields inquiries and treats them on an individual basis with a process which usually involves discussion about what the needs of the proponent are and how the province might help the proponent to satisfy those needs.
Through the process of discussion with the proponent, projects that are more likely to succeed or go forward organically emerge. Therefore, it’s not a question of a priority list; it’s a process which proponents drive, based on the answers that they receive and the support that they get. Obviously not every lead that’s followed up comes to fruition, but all are given careful attention, given the priorities of the government and the wish to attract new investment to the province to create jobs.
G. Kyllo: The minister shared with us that obviously he’s unable to commit to the budget for next year, but he clearly is a champion for business and for economic growth in our province. What I’m hoping that we can maybe hear from the minister is what his thoughts are about the importance and the priority of the work of this particular office.
Although the budget itself may be outside of his control, what I think British Columbians would like to hear is that as the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, he would be the champion for business and would share with the House his intent to stand up and to fight to ensure that funding is there so that the major investments office can continue to do the good work that they have done for the last number of years.
Hon. B. Ralston: The major investments office is part of the broader mandate that I’ve been given by the Premier to attract investment. That’s an important priority for the government, to attract investment and see that investment come to fruition in new jobs and economic activity here in the province. Yes, definitely, I regard that as a high priority for myself and for the ministry. That’s the consistent direction that’s been given by the Premier.
Not every proponent requires the assistance of the major investments office. There are others who proceed through the process on their own. But where help is needed, the major investments office provides that assistance. I strongly support that process. Indeed, the results are there to show, given the effort, that support that’s provided by the office.
G. Kyllo: I heard the minister say that the office was responsible for attraction. I just wonder if he could share with us what some of those attraction activities are of the office.
Hon. B. Ralston: The investment attraction is a part of the office in the sense that when a referral or a lead or an inquiry comes in — whether it comes in to an individual member of the Legislature, through a business network — part of the process of attracting that business to consider British Columbia is to offer them that assistance.
That’s the job of the major investments office, and it’s one that they do very well. I think the results are there to show for that effort that they’ve made.
G. Kyllo: Could the minister share with us what some of those activities might be in providing those ever-important supports for industry and businesses that might be looking to relocate or to expand within British Columbia?
Hon. B. Ralston: The office supports proponents, governments and communities and First Nations by — there’s a list here — facilitating solutions to complex, cross-government problems facing proponents and navigating those problems; fostering community outreach and First Nations engagement with major investors; acting as a neutral broker within government where differences arise related to major investors; ensuring strong communication among clients, communities and government; and providing strategic advice to proponents.
It’s quite a sweeping range of services that are provided to not only proponents. Where there are individual governments or communities who seek to attract investment as well, that service is available to them.
G. Kyllo: Does the minister see his role as being active within the major investments office? If there were projects or proponents that are moving forward, does he see himself acting as a champion and helping to make arrangements with other ministries in order to advance these projects in B.C.?
Hon. B. Ralston: I suppose the short answer is — I gather the member has some familiarity with this office, based on his time in government: yes, intervention, where appropriate. Obviously, I meet with proponents, if requested. I would refer those proponents to the ministry for support. I’m always available, should the ministry think that it’s appropriate for me to reach out to meet with someone to encourage that investment to come forward.
There are statutory processes where it would be completely inappropriate for a minister to involve him- or herself, and I respect that.
G. Kyllo: I think it’s comforting to hear that the minister sees the importance of and is willing to make that commitment to help to champion these projects forward.
Two questions. What is the number of projects that are currently active within the MIO, and what would be the total investment dollar figure of those projects, should they actually move forward?
Hon. B. Ralston: There are 15 active projects, with an estimated value of $18.824 billion, with an estimated — and I stress the estimated — jobs at completion of active businesses of 15,208 and with an estimated 34,507 construction jobs during the process of building these projects out.
G. Kyllo: Are you able to share with us what the anticipation is as far as the dollar value of projects that might actually come to fruition by the end of 2018?
Hon. B. Ralston: I wish I was able to be more certain about this, but obviously, these kinds of decisions are subject to decisions by investors, by company boards. We are optimistic about the process, but I’m not able to give a more definitive answer.
J. Johal: A question to the minister: what specific outreach activity does the MIO have planned for next year?
Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, the staff do regular outreach. They attend a number of industry conferences here in British Columbia each year. There’s regular outreach…. I think, most recently, I’m advised they met with the mining association.
In addition, through the trade and investment network, which I expect we’ll get questions about later…. There are regular referrals from the trade and investment network. There’s a steady flow which come into the major investments office. Those are dealt with, sometimes, when the proponents come to British Columbia, or there’s assistance that’s given to them through the overseas office.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada