Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 3 to be followed by second reading on Bill 2. If that is completed, then we will get to second reading of Bill 4. If that gets completed, then it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. In Committee A, the little House, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Solicitor General.

[2:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. Does the minister wish to introduce his staff?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, Madame Chair. We’re beginning proceedings now at committee stage. I do not see the critic here. We may just be going through this…. This is not a controversial bill. There was clear support from all members of the House at second reading, so I believe we can just proceed through Bill 3.

The Chair: If you would like to just take a moment, Minister, to introduce your staff, we will verify their presence.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m sorry. My name is Scott Fraser. I’m the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. To my left is Dave Pilling, the director. To my right is my assistant deputy minister, Laurel Nash. To the right of Laurel is Mark Timmis, of legal services.

On section 1.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the bill affecting a First Nation in Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Tla’amin Nation. I raise my hands to all those who’ve worked hard on this issue, including Hegus Williams and the elders who provide him the support and the strength.

I’d like to ask the minister, first off, if he can explain the nature of this bill and what it’s attempting to address.

Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member. He’s been a strong advocate for the Tla’amin people and the progress made through treaty and before treaty.

This is largely a housekeeping issue, I’ll say. I’ll equate it with the Maa-nulth treaty amendment that was done on the foreshore. This is an enabling piece of legislation, or amendment, that only has an effect on section 15 of the Tla’amin Final Agreement Act. It provides for delegated authority in accordance with the foreshore agreement. The delegated law-making authority is comparable to that of a local government, in respect of identifying foreshore areas.

In accordance with the foreshore agreement, the proposed amendments to section 15 provide for the Provincial Court to make and enforce orders upon application by the Tla’amin Nation. These amendments are equivalent to those within the Community Charter, the Local Government Act and the Maa-nulth treaty, as I’ve mentioned before — the Maa-nulth Final Agreement Act.

[3:00 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Just a couple of questions, if I could, to the minister, through yourself, if you don’t mind.

Minister, thank you. I do apologize for my tardiness in being here.

On foreshore rights. I have the pleasure of living on the lake, and there’s a question that always comes up about egress and access. That’s a question that I’m sure may come up in the future in regards to the process that we are going through about the possibilities of egress along the foreshore by other than those involved with the band.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member opposite. I just want to assure him that this does not change access and egress. The current access and egress provisions that are in place are exactly how it is dealt with within the local government context, so access and egress are still available.

This amendment is dealing with allowing the Provincial Court to be able to make enforcement orders, upon application, should there be a breach on the foreshore, illegal activity — you know, any range of those things. But it has no effect on the current access and egress.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you very much for that. Again, just to reinforce this. I understand it allows the Provincial Court jurisdiction, but is there going to be any impediment of individuals — not band members, but individuals — having access along the foreshore now or into the future?

I’m not talking about setting up an incursion from the waterfront. I’m talking about people that may be in distress or something and have boats come up or having an opportunity to egress through this property that has traditionally not belonged to them.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The actual…. This is a very narrow amendment. It’s not changing anything. All it does is allow…. At this point, if there are breaches of local law or bylaws and such on the foreshore within the jurisdiction of the Tla’amin Nation that they have through treaty, currently, without this amendment, there is no remedy for that. That’s all it is.

This is completing, really, the existing legislation to allow the Provincial Court to actually be able to enforce the orders as they come out. It doesn’t change any existing orders at all. It’s just allowing that final stage so that a crime can be linked to a punishment, if you will. Right now the court does not have the ability to do that, and this amendment corrects that.

D. Ashton: So along with these changes for enforcement — and I’m thinking outside of the box for a little, tiny bit. RCMP, etc. — are there are any issues with additional enforcement on that particular land? There are some questions — just a bit of a heads-up — that we might be talking about a little bit later in another House. So is there any issue with having individuals representing the Crown, and especially the criminal sides of it, to have egress through to that property?

Hon. S. Fraser: I am informed that the answer is simple. It’s no.

D. Ashton: No further questions to the minister on this particular bill.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Fraser: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 3, Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018

(continued)

T. Redies: I’d like to pick up from where we left off last week on Bill 2, the budget implementation act.

Before I do, I would like to take note of the fact that during the delivery of my comments last week, some members of this House took great amusement in the fact that I was speaking about tax measures recently introduced in the government’s budget but not necessarily contained in this bill.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I was simply trying to make a very simple point by drawing attention to two of the government’s most controversial tax measures — the first being the highly contentious employer health tax that blindsided the business community when it was announced in the budget without warning or consultation with the private sector; and, two, the punitive speculation tax the government is introducing to deliberately drive down the equity that homeowners and British Columbians have worked hard to achieve.

I brought attention to these items for a specific reason. It’s not usually one policy that brings down an economy, maybe not even two, but it’s a steady accumulation of restrictive policies that combine to reduce the attractiveness of a business climate. This inevitably leads to job loss. All of these tax measures have to be taken into account for one simple reason: because this government is not done yet.

There are many more tax increases to come — more taxes to saddle B.C. taxpayers, B.C. homeowners, B.C. entrepreneurs and B.C. businesses. For example, just last week the Finance Minister appeared on the Voice of B.C., saying she is looking forward to a discussion on how to extract more money out of existing homeowners in British Columbia. This comes in addition to all the other taxes also already announced by the government. A 67 percent increase in the carbon tax. An increase in the corporate income tax, 12 percent. And the increase in taxation on income earners over $150,000 that this government introduced six months ago.

While it is the policy of this government to go after the highest income earners, once you’ve exhausted that avenue of taxation, who’s next? The answer to this is simple. The middle class in this province.

[3:10 p.m.]

Average British Columbians will be told, not asked, to fork over more money to government to pay for ambitious and unsustainable program spending. This has the potential to send the economy into a tailspin by dampening competitiveness, increasing costs and choking off private sector investment.

I fear what this massive increase in taxation — $5½ billion in new taxation — will do to our competitiveness, our economy and our families in this province. It’s not just this side of the House that is raising these concerns that the NDP are going back to their 1990 ways of taxing and spending.

As stated by Gordon Clark of the Province: “So again, the NDP has leaped to pass a slew of unprincipled new taxes to pilfer any income or wealth they decide is excessive, regardless of the damage they inflict on individuals or the economy.” Mr. Clark quite rightly points out that the new tax measures contained in Bill 2, and coming with the speculation tax, are taxes on capital and wealth. The NDP are now using the same principles of progressive income taxation on assets.

He says: “Having taxed income, government should not take a second run at people’s wealth by annually taxing their property, which they have usually acquired through hard work and sacrifice. Unless they want to help people pay their mortgages or cover their losses when there is a downturn in the housing market, the NDP should not stake a claim to homeowners’ equity.”

Mr. Clark goes on to say that the Minister of Finance’s actions “will actually hurt many British Columbians by lowering the value of their homes, especially those who recently bought into the market and may find themselves owing more than their properties are worth. There are words to describe people who would do that to others, but they are unprintable.”

I say again: the problem we have now is a government with an insatiable appetite to spend your tax dollars, whether it’s your income or your assets. Now, some members in this House also laughed when I used the word “insatiable” last week to describe government spending. Just so people don’t misunderstand, I would like to be very clear on why I used the term “insatiable.” For me, a government that manages to increase spending in eight months from $47 billion to $57 billion — $10 billion in 3½ years — demonstrates an insatiable appetite for spending. There’s no measured thinking in this. There’s no consideration as to whether or not this makes sense from a sustainability perspective. There’s definitely no prudence.

We are talking about a spending spree which is leading to an unprecedented amount of new taxation. It is a clear indication that this government believes it can spend your money better than you can. Essentially, they’re taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie in terms of the tax revenues and wealth, rather than creating a climate that continues to produce a bigger and bigger pie.

That makes me worry for the future of this province, for the citizens of British Columbia, for my constituents in Surrey and White Rock and for my family. Government spending should always be undertaken with the mindset that this is the people’s money, not government’s money. This is a government that has its hand in a cookie jar that, it thinks, is a bottomless pit from which to draw money. This is a reckless approach.

As I indicated last week, we could be at the top, perhaps near the end, of an economic cycle. New housing starts in Vancouver are expected to drop significantly next year. If we are indeed nearing the end of a growth cycle in the province, then I really do worry about the prospects for young people who are just starting out.

My youngest daughter is 16, going on 30. She asked me this weekend how my workweek was. Now, we have a very honest relationship, and I had to tell her how honestly saddened and concerned I was with respect to what happened this week with the passing of the budget and what I think it means to the future for her and her siblings in this province.

Ultimately, what we have in this bill is a collection of measures that will start the decline of the B.C. economy — not today, maybe not six months from now. But with almost 100 percent assurance, it will result in an economic downturn and declining private sector investment and job growth. For those of my colleagues on the other side who were laughing last week, I doubt you’ll be laughing when this happens. I suspect you’ll be doing everything possible to distance yourself from this budget.

We will have a lot more to say about this misguided bill, and the budget behind it, in the coming weeks and months ahead. We, the official opposition, will be standing up for families, businesses, municipalities, school boards and non-profit organizations of this province, even when this government will not.

I return to the closing paragraph in this government’s throne speech, declaring: “Government can transform lives.” I don’t believe that’s true. Only people have the power to transform lives.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yet this government really believes it has a role in telling them what is best, that government knows how best to spend your money and that, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what people want; it’s only what the government wants that really matters.

That’s pure, unadulterated hogwash. Only people have the power to transform lives. At election time, they have the power to transform governments too. We’re talking about a minority government that believes it has the majority on its side. You don’t. You are facing the strongest official opposition in the history of this province, and it just got stronger with the election of the hon. member for Kelowna West. It will be the people of this province who transform the future of British Columbia. One of them, God willing, will be my daughter.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. James: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to close debate. I appreciate the input of the members across the way, but I have to say I could not more strongly disagree — particularly with the last member who spoke, about her references to the budget that has been tabled. “Reckless,” and reckless for the future, was exactly what happened over 16 years. It’s exactly why there was a change in government in this province.

Just the kinds of issues that we in fact are addressing in this budget are there for the people of British Columbia, as they asked. Things like the biggest investment in child care are coming forward because the public has asked for that kind of support.

Not only that; it is in fact an initiative that will not only support families and not only support our present and our future but will also support the economy of British Columbia. If you talk to employers, what the employers make very clear is that investments in child care and housing are investments that they have requested, that they have looked for and that they were interested in. They know how tough it is, in a hot labour market and in a strong economy, to look at recruitment and retention. Investing in housing and child care is a smart economic investment, and Quebec has proven that over and over.

This bill brings forward changes to 21 statutes to implement many of the tax measures in Budget 2018. I just want to speak about a couple of those, to correct the record.

The measures that we are bringing forward are balanced, and they focus on fairness for British Columbians. They focus on support for individuals, support for businesses and support for our growing economy. To begin with, we’ve got a mining flow-through share tax credit — extended. We have a farmers food donation credit — extended. Interactive digital media tax credit — extended. Book publishing tax credit — extended. An opportunity for the Film Incentive credit to expand to include B.C. writers. These are all measures that in fact support business and support a growing economy in British Columbia — completely contrary to everything the member across the way said.

There is a range of measures, as well, to address tax avoidance — a critical issue that I haven’t heard the members across the way talk about. But the public is talking about it, because the public expects that if you live in British Columbia, you will pay your fair share of taxes. We are tightening up the collection of information so that we can share it for audits and for enforcement to ensure that we have a fair tax system in British Columbia. It’s extraordinary that when we listened to the member across the way, we didn’t hear a lot of support for the direction of addressing the issue of loopholes, tax avoidance or making sure that people pay their fair share of taxes.

We are, in this bill and in this budget, asking those who can to pay a little bit more towards a number of initiatives — which, if you look at this budget, I don’t know how the member across the way could talk about as reckless spending: disability bus passes, more support for seniors, more support for child care, affordable housing for families. If that’s reckless, then I really question the member’s direction around support for British Columbians. British Columbians asked for action, and we are taking action in this budget.

Yes, we are increasing the luxury surtax rate on passenger vehicles that are worth more than $125,000. We believe that if people can afford those kinds of luxury vehicles, they can afford to spend a little bit more towards supporting the programs and services that matter.

[3:20 p.m.]

Yes, we are increasing the school tax on the assessed value above $3 million on a high-valued house. Again, we believe that people can afford to provide a little bit more towards the programs and services that matter.

There are some measures in there, as well, to simplify remittance on provincial sales tax and services, to make things easier for taxpayers, which we, again, believe is the right direction to go. Then, when it comes to health, we are increasing the tax rate on cigarettes and tobacco, again to give incentives for people to quit or, hopefully, incentives not to start.

I believe this bill provides the balance for the measures that are included in the budget. With that, I move second reading of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018.

[3:25 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018.

Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 4.

[3:30 p.m.]

BILL 4 — BRITISH COLUMBIA
INNOVATION COUNCIL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 4, the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, now be read a second time.

I’m delighted to be introducing this important piece of legislation that will provide broad support to the technology sector in British Columbia. This bill fulfils a key commitment under the confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. Green Party by establishing a new innovation commission. This new agency will be named Innovate B.C. Innovate B.C. is being created to further develop B.C.’s thriving technology and innovation sector, create more life-sustaining jobs and further strengthen economic opportunities for all citizens.

The bill in the House today renames the existing B.C. Innovation Council to Innovate B.C. and expands the Crown agency’s mandate to enable the delivery of new programs and initiatives that reflect government priorities. Our government and the B.C. Green caucus worked together collaboratively to develop the name, mandate and structure of Innovate B.C. By establishing Innovate B.C., this government will promote the continued growth and competitiveness of B.C.’s tech sector.

Technology and innovation supports in British Columbia are delivered by multiple ministries and several agencies, which can make navigating government programming challenging and administratively burdensome for small businesses. Innovate B.C. will provide a single point of contact for technology business support and help to streamline services for developing tech entrepreneurs and businesses.

Innovate B.C. will be responsible for the administration, operation and delivery of programs that support innovation, entrepreneurship and business development in the technology sector. Innovate B.C. will be B.C.’s primary agencies for initiatives that promote company growth, resulting in new jobs, increased revenue and economic development, ensuring that all regions of the province benefit from the opportunities of the emerging economy.

Innovate B.C. will absorb all the programs and services currently delivered by the B.C. Innovation Council and expand upon its mandate. Innovate B.C. will offer tools and expert guidance to entrepreneurs across all regions of the province. This will include providing support for building the capacity of B.C. companies to access new markets and attract investment. Innovate B.C. will also advise the government on the development of science, technology and innovation policy.

These changes will ensure that B.C. is more competitive nationally and globally and that we attract additional investment to scale up our technology ecosystem.

Specifically, the bill before you amends the act to change all instances of the word “council” to “agency” throughout, to align with the new organization’s name; to change the scope of the advice the agency provides to government from only “science” to “science, technology and innovation,” to reflect the expanded organizational mandate; to add a new objective for the agency, which is to offer tools, resources and expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies across the province, including support for building the capacity of B.C. companies to access new markets and attract investment.

This last amendment emphasizes that promoting company growth is a key element of Innovate B.C.’s mandate. The current agency’s objectives do not include a role in providing resources and guidance to companies from across B.C. or in helping them reach new markets or attract investment.

It’s clear that British Columbia’s high-technology sector is a vital part of our province’s economy, contributing significantly to British Columbia’s gross domestic product and providing competitive advantages to other industry sectors. Tech sector employment has grown to over 106,000 jobs across more than 10,200 companies. In 2016, the sector generated $28.9 billion in revenue and fully 7 percent of British Columbia’s GDP, and it had one of the fastest GDP and revenue growth rates in Canada.

[3:35 p.m.]

B.C.’s tech sector was the biggest it has ever been in 2016, according to those statistics, on par with major provincial industries such as manufacturing and health care. Nevertheless, it remains comparatively small in relation to many other North American jurisdictions, leaving ample room for growth.

Significant opportunities exist to continue expanding our tech sector through improved provincial programs and by working with the federal government to make sure B.C.’s interests are represented as the federal government implements its national innovation agenda. The government of Canada is investing significantly in Canadian innovation. I intend to ensure that our province is best positioned to lever those opportunities so that British Columbia gets a maximum share of federal funding.

The federal budget includes major investments for innovation programming across the country. It emphasizes simplifying access to innovation programs and focuses on growing high-potential firms. By broadening the focus to support tech companies at all stages of growth, Innovate B.C. will be better aligned with federal programming, helping to amplify the successes of B.C.’s tech and innovation ecosystem. The agency’s expanded mandate is also in line with that of counterparts in other Canadian jurisdictions, such as Ontario, Quebec and Alberta.

The full scope of Innovate B.C.’s responsibilities will now include delivering programs to help technology start-ups grow and create jobs across B.C., including a focus on helping these start-ups to access capital; offering a wide spectrum of business development and partnership opportunities that are responsive to industry needs; supporting B.C. entrepreneurs and companies at all stages of growth by offering tools, resources and expert guidance; building the capacity of B.C. companies to access global markets and attract new investment; facilitating strong relationships between the technology industry and British Columbia’s public post-secondary institutions; providing policy and program advice to government to foster innovation and commercialization of B.C.’s technologies; and working with regional partners to ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are felt around the province.

The work of Innovate B.C. will be in close alignment with other provincial priorities and activities as identified in ministers’ mandate letters. As a result, Innovate B.C. will play a role in advising on the provincial technology and innovation strategy as part of our government’s overall economic development strategy; working with my ministry’s trade and investment and venture capital teams to identify and take advantages of opportunities to sell products and services internationally and also attract new investment; establishing linkages with provincial task forces, such as the emerging economy task force, the small business task force and the B.C. Mining Jobs Task Force; assisting the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and creating a clear business focus for programming offered by the forthcoming new regional innovation centres; supporting the Ministry of Agriculture and industry representatives in establishing a new B.C. food innovation centre; and supporting the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in expanding B.C.’s innovative wood products sector.

Innovate B.C. will also support Indigenous entrepreneurship by continuing all BCIC programs and initiatives that support Indigenous technology entrepreneurs, including the venture acceleration program and tech works program, and working closely with the First Nations Technology Council — for example, on its highly successful digital skills development strategy, bridging to technology.

Innovate B.C. will be led by a new board of directors. Its membership will be composed of worthy candidates from throughout the province. All of the Innovate B.C. board candidates will be recognized leaders from their sub-sectors in B.C., nominated due to their expertise and their ability to represent a diverse range of innovation and technology sub-sectors. The board will also have regional representation and reflect gender diversity.

Once established, the incoming Innovate B.C. board will be charged with examining current provincial technology and innovation programs and making recommendations to me as the minister on future programs to be delivered by Innovate B.C. These recommendations will ensure that Innovate B.C. will be able to deliver upon its new and expanded mandate and better serve the technology sector in British Columbia.

To achieve this, I’ll ask the board to engage in consultations with regional tech sector leaders, organizations and industry associations over the coming months to gain a deeper understanding of the sector’s needs and help guide development of Innovate B.C.’s programs and initiatives.

[3:40 p.m.]

These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the B.C. Acceleration Network, post-secondary institutions, technology companies, Indigenous organizations and communities, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and tech and innovation industry groups, including the new digital supercluster consortium.

If I might just digress slightly on the new digital supercluster consortium, British Columbia’s bid in that process was successful. There is, at present, a process underway to establish an executive and a leadership team that will administer the funds that are provided by the federal program, and that will be up and running very shortly.

That’s a very good example of the need to align with a federal government program. Certainly, that’s a major investment on the innovation agenda by the federal government. That program was a $950 million program, and British Columbia’s bid, a very exciting bid that offers huge potential for jobs and prosperity in British Columbia, was successful. The digital supercluster executive will be formed shortly and will being leading that effort.

These consultations…. They will be, obviously, definitely part of the consultation, and in fact, this initiative will dovetail very closely with the digital supercluster consortium. These consultations will provide vital information to help our government better support this important sector, which benefits all industry sectors as an enabler of innovation and technological advances.

The government is committed to building a strong, sustainable and innovative economy that works for all British Columbians by creating good jobs in every corner of the province.

The creation of this agency, Innovate B.C., will help to expand opportunities for technology businesses and promote company growth, resulting in more jobs, increased revenue and economic development provincewide. It supports entrepreneurs, start-ups and innovative ways of doing business, which creates a competitive advantage for British Columbia.

This, in turn, will lead to more investment, attract skilled talent and open up opportunities to new markets, reinforcing a virtual circle of continuous economic development and prosperity for all citizens. It will help make British Columbia a true technology hub and ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are felt throughout the province.

I look forward to the support of all members in support of Bill 4, which will positively impact our province’s technology and innovation sector, helping to create more life-sustaining jobs and further strengthen our diverse economy.

G. Kyllo: I would say that the changes that are being proposed through this amendment are largely superficial in nature. I know that the previous B.C. Liberal government did a lot to support the tech sector. As parliamentary secretary, previously, to the B.C. jobs plan, I know that technology was front and centre of the B.C. jobs plan — and highlighted.

Technology exists in all areas of manufacturing and just about all sectors of the economy, whether we’re talking about forestry, mining or natural resource operations. When we look at even the agrifood sector, technology is that driving force that really allows our businesses in our province to innovate and increase productivity, introducing new products and services. So I fully support any initiative that the current government will undertake to continue to provide the support for the technology sector.

I just want to highlight, if I may, some of the great focuses and investments that have been made in support of the tech sector previously, including helping to create jobs and drive new growth with $87 million that was funnelled towards a B.C. tech strategy. As well, there was a commitment to creating 2,000 new STEM spaces, bringing coding into the school for grades 6 to 9 as well as introducing measures to ensure that B.C. tech companies were first in line for government contracts — and $10 million for new life sciences research chairs.

Technology certainly is a cornerstone of a large majority of the growth, and economic growth, in our province. As I’ve highlighted with some of the examples, it’s certainly something that I know that this side of the House is very supportive of.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, the minister mentioned something during his opening remarks about improving the competitiveness of the tech sector. I think it goes without saying that under the current government, there have been significant efforts undertaken to actually decrease and reduce the competitiveness of businesses in British Columbia, including the tech sector.

We’ll all recall back to September of this past year, with the mid-term budget update with a 1 percent increase in corporate taxation and, as well, a 2 percent increase in personal taxes for what I would like to call B.C.’s brightest and most productive workers. These types of tax measures do not help to improve the competitiveness of B.C. businesses.

In our current budget, we see again further focus on shifting taxation. What the members opposite will characterize as elimination of MSP actually is a transfer of MSP off of individuals and put squarely on the backs of B.C. businesses.

As has been canvassed in this House, the new employer health tax — it’s really a payroll tax — of 1.95 percent is adding significant additional expenses right onto the backs of businesses all across our province, including the tech sector. Tech sector wages are far in excess of the provincial average, with average wages around $85,000 annually.

I think this is something that members from both sides of the House are very happy to report on, in that the tech sector pays far in excess of the average wage in our province. But it is also these same employers paying these higher wages that are going to be negatively impacted. A 1.95 percent payroll tax on a base salary of $45,000 basically equates to about $900 a year, which is what the current MSP premium had been up until this year’s budget. Of course, for employees that are getting paid roughly double the $45,000 base, the actual cost of MSP premiums is double for these employers.

So although the minister speaks to competitiveness, what we have seen both in the mid-term budget last year as well as the current budget that has just been released and that we’re currently debating still within the House puts significant disadvantages to B.C. businesses.

The tech sector is very mobile. When we have a tech sector…. I had the privilege a number of years ago of touring Electronic Arts — about 1,400 employees, paying a significant amount of local government taxes, and an amazing employer. It’s one of the most amazing facilities I’ve ever been to. When we have a look at some of these tax impacts that the new government is proposing, it’s going to put significant pressure on businesses that are already competing in a very competitive market — and it is a global economy.

Largely, the changes proposed in this bill…. We have yet to actually have the opportunity to canvass in estimates some of the full details of where the programming dollars will be changing and shifting.

For the most part, I’m in support of anything that the current government will do to continue to support the thriving tech sector in British Columbia — but, again, with the caveat that when we talk to competitiveness, the members opposite and the current minister I think need to really look deep and hard into some of the tax implications that have been put onto the backs of businesses, again reducing the actual competitiveness of businesses across this province, including the tech sector.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 4, the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018. Much like my colleague from Shuswap who spoke just before me here, I too am happy to have an open mind and to support initiatives that are focused on spurring further growth within British Columbia’s technology sector.

[3:50 p.m.]

This is a sector that has been significantly punching above its weight and has been growing dramatically in recent years. In fact, it’s an industry that’s booming right across British Columbia. I think, at latest count, there are about 106,000 direct jobs in the sector, with many different industry projections that that could grow to 120,000 tech jobs by 2020. There are over 10,000 companies now actively engaged in the tech sector.

Tech is everywhere. It’s not this stand-alone silo that people used to point to. “Oh, that’s the tech division. Go and talk to the tech guys.” Often if you were the person in a company who — by accident, some would say — set up a printer and somebody saw you do that, you were anointed the tech guy or the tech gal in that company. So much understanding of what technology really is has advanced over recent years. The tech sector has an average wage that’s considerably higher than many other sectors in British Columbia. There are actually more tech jobs in the tech sector than there are in mining, forestry, and oil and gas combined. As I said, technology really is everywhere.

I remember touring West Fraser Mills in Quesnel recently. When you’re in the mill, you’re hard-pressed to actually see any human beings. What used to be done by people touching and moving the lumber as it was making its way through the mill has been replaced with technology. The good news, though, is that the building next door is full of people that are powering those machines, people that are experts at the hardware and the software that actually go into ensuring that that mill is one of the most efficient mills anywhere in the world.

When you consider the technology that is in play now in the mining sector, when you consider the technology that we see in the oil and gas sector, in pipelines, when you see the technology that’s in play now in British Columbia’s agriculture sector — when you tour a cherry farm in Kelowna and you see just how much additional yield they are able to achieve because of the technology that that farming operation or that farming family has invested in — it’s quite remarkable. Technology makes all of that possible.

My background is in technology as well. Prior to being elected in 2013, I was a proud CEO of a tech company that we had started and grown, up in Kamloops. Back in the day when we started our business, about 20 years ago, there were only four tech companies in the tech space in Kamloops.

Interjection.

T. Stone: That was actually in 1998, just because I know the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. There you go; there’s a trivia answer for you.

It was 1998 when I started my business, up in Kamloops. We were one of four companies back then. Today there are over 160 companies. Actually, it’s over 200 companies in Kamloops if you take those that have two or three or five…. Total employment now is somewhere around 1,500 tech employees in Kamloops. It’s a large part of the reason…. Kamloops used to be a community that often found itself in a boom-and-bust cycle of commodity prices going up and down. If mining and forestry were doing well, Kamloops would do well. If prices went down in those commodities, you really felt it in Kamloops. You really felt it, walking up and down the streets.

Kamloops’s economy is highly diversified now, in large part because of these hundreds of tech companies and these thousands of tech employees that are now in Kamloops. The same goes for Kelowna, Victoria, obviously, and Vancouver, but also in rural British Columbia. I touched on Quesnel a moment ago. There are incredibly innovative companies and entrepreneurs doing amazing things, innovating in the smallest of communities in British Columbia. Whether you’re in Sicamous or in Cumberland or in a company I know that’s done some incredible automation work in 100 Mile House, this is taking place in every corner of British Columbia. That’s one of, I think, the most exciting realities of the tech sector.

[3:55 p.m.]

In Kamloops, part of the success there — and we see this generally being the model that has been employed successfully in other communities around the province, whether it be Kelowna, Prince George or Victoria — is really pulling together, in a number of ways, the universities that exist in those communities with industry in those communities, with the government programs and the government agencies.

The B.C. Innovation Council, to this point, has done some exceptional work. There has been a lot of progress made in building linkages between the universities and between innovation centres and industry, which ends up being a win-win-win. In Kamloops, there are some tremendous linkages that are largely driven by the Kamloops Innovation Centre.

I would be remiss if I didn’t throw a shout-out to Lincoln Smith and his team at KIC, who have done just a fabulous job of building durable relationships with Thompson Rivers University, with industry, with the B.C. Innovation Council. It’s KIC that’s responsible for the entrepreneurs-in-residence that have come, through the Innovation Council, to mentor and coach young students at TRU who are entrepreneurs and who have an idea and want to pursue that idea, but they need just a little bit of help.

I find that all terribly, terribly exciting. Again, anything that we can do as provincially elected officials to assist the technology sector to expand even further I think warrants very serious attention.

The changes provided in this bill are largely window dressing, in my view. I do not mean to cast any aspersions on the intent here. Changing the name, which this bill provides for, from the B.C. Innovation Council to Innovate B.C. — I certainly don’t have any issue with that. Perhaps that’s a nice modernization, an easier way to refer to the B.C. Innovation Council.

There are some slight expansions in the mandate, from an initial glance here, that are provided for through this bill — an expanded mandate that will help guide entrepreneurs and companies to build capacity to better access markets, not just here in British Columbia but across the world. There’s a tremendous amount of effort I think already being made, some good momentum, on that front.

The bill provides for some slight expansions in the mandate insofar as adding technology and innovation policy to the council’s mandate, which previously only referred to science — I think that is a relatively minor expansion of the mandate, but I understand why it’s included there — as well as making recommendations in a more formal and structured way, I assume, to government on how to best create science, technology and innovation policy that promotes the commercialization of B.C. technologies.

I did see mention in the news release that went out when this bill was first introduced that the important work that has been underway for some time now with the First Nations Technology Council will continue. I think that’s a good thing. I think we need to continue to work together to support not just entrepreneurship, generally, in this province but also to support Indigenous entrepreneurship as well.

I do want to flag for government that members of the opposition will certainly be looking for representation from rural British Columbia on the board of directors when the Innovate B.C. board of directors is appointed, I understand, later this year. Again, back to my comments earlier, a tremendous amount of innovation is taking place in communities large and small all around this province, so we want to make sure that that board has as broad a representation as it possibly can.

That all being said, I do want to provide a few additional comments just generally, in the context of this bill, on a number of moves the government has made that I really believe will seriously hinder the ability of technology entrepreneurs and technology businesses to really thrive and compete in British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

In fact, I’m pretty sure that I can save the government and the innovation commissioner and Innovate B.C. lots of time and effort on how to promote B.C.’s tech sector by starting with one piece of advice, and that is: don’t raise taxes. Don’t impose new taxes on the technology sector.

Nothing will slow the growth of the technology sector and drive tech jobs out of B.C. faster and devastate this sector more fully and completely than adding tremendous additional burden to the bottom line of tech companies. Again, I say that as someone who’s actually started a tech company, who’s actually grown a tech company, who’s actually been actively involved in the tech sector for almost two decades.

Tech companies are very mobile. To succeed in the tech sector, you really just need power and high-speed Internet access and ideas. You need to be able to tap into some talent as well. You don’t need to make really significant capital investments. You don’t need to put up a building, per se. You can take your ideas, your intellectual property…. They’re highly portable. You can move these ideas very quickly to other jurisdictions. We certainly have seen that in the past when the cost of doing business gets to a point where it just doesn’t make sense to add those additional employees in British Columbia.

Now, tech companies are often some of the higher-growth companies that you will find out there as well. For most tech businesses that are focused on an end game, it’s usually a lot about rapid growth — significantly growing that organization and either continuing to get bigger through acquisitions of smaller and mid-sized players later in life or, indeed, positioning your company for an exit at some opportunity.

To facilitate that growth, as is the case with most businesses in other sectors…. Certainly, in the tech sector, that growth is financed through a combination of debt and equity and also cash flow. Cash flow is very, very important in a growth-company situation. So when you increase the costs on the bottom line for a tech company, with additional taxes, you attack that company’s ability to grow. That’s exactly what this government has done in the eight months that they have been in office.

We’ve heard much about the $5½ billion of taxes that have been provided for in this budget that will be implemented over the next three years. We’ve heard about the total, the cumulative, tax increase under the NDP’s watch of $8 billion in eight months, including all of the tax increases up to this budget and then the tax increases that are provided for in this budget that will take place over the next three years.

We know that corporate taxes are up. We know that personal income taxes are up. We know that the carbon tax is up and is no longer revenue-neutral. There’s the speculation tax, or as I prefer to refer to it, the personal capital tax. That’s being imposed.

Then there’s the employer health tax, which we have spent a great deal of time canvassing here in the Legislature, and we will continue to do so. This is, frankly…. I’ve said this a few times now. This, in my mind, is the doozy of all the tax increases. It represents a massive assault on job creators, including in the technology sector. It will raise $4.2 billion over three years.

As we have tried to understand what the implications of this tax are going to be on organizations, businesses in particular, we have learned a number of things that we’ve found — I think British Columbians and the opposition — quite disturbing.

First, while MSP is being cut by half this year — which was provided for in our last budget, in February of 2017, and we’re happy that the government’s proceeding with that — the government will double-dip next year.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Finance Minister not once, in any question that she has been asked in the three weeks of this session…. And we’ve asked many about this tax. Not once has she acknowledged, and just looked into the camera and into the eyes of British Columbians, and said: “Yes. For 2019, British Columbia businesses, non-profits, public sector organizations, tech companies….” On and on the list goes. “Yes, in 2019, you will pay half of your MSP and you will pay this new employer health tax.” Not once has she been willing to say that. She doesn’t want to acknowledge the double-dipping that that represents in this budget.

Then, of course, yes, the other half of MSP comes off in 2020, but the new employer health tax remains in place. For most of these organizations — I would argue virtually all of them — their tax bill, their overall burden, will continue to be higher at that point than it is today.

We’ve highlighted a number of examples of this, lots of small businesses. As a start, Interior Plumbing and Heating in Kamloops — 69 years in business, several hundred employees and $185,000 net new costs to their bottom line. The NDP is taking an additional $185,000 from that business.

Lots of family-run businesses — whether it be restaurants or contractors, hair salons, you name it. Family farms won’t be beyond this tax grab. They too will be forced to cough up this additional tax.

The tech sector — we’ll come back to that now. As the member for Shuswap mentioned moments ago, the average wage in the tech sector is $85,000, which means that the new employer health tax will hit companies with as few as six employees. Just six employees at $85,000 — you’re over that half-million-dollar threshold. You’re subject to the employer health tax. The average tech company, I would also point out….

Interjection.

T. Stone: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, if you listen…. You might learn something, if you listen for a moment.

The average tech company in British Columbia with 20 employees is going to have a hit to their bottom line of over $62,000.

Again, these are rapid-growth companies that plow cash flow back into the growth of their operations. I understand that the members opposite don’t understand that, because none of them have ever started a business. None of them have ever met a payroll. None of them have ever had to sign the front side of a paycheque. None of them know what it takes to be an entrepreneur and to take those kinds of risks.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s not have any personal comments on people. Stick with the….

T. Stone: I’m not going to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has the floor.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite don’t understand the risk that is taken by entrepreneurs. They don’t understand what it takes to create and grow businesses. They don’t understand this. That’s why there is such a disconnect here with all of these new taxes that they’re imposing.

As I’ve been trying to say here, the average tech company in British Columbia employing 20 people is going to be hit to the tune of $62,000 every single year. We spoke about one of those tech companies here in the chamber today in question period, iTel Networks. It’s a growing tech company. They have a couple hundred employees. That’s a big deal in Kamloops, by the way. Those are really good-paying, family-supporting jobs in Kamloops. It’s really helped to diversify the Kamloops economy.

This company does provide extended health and dental benefits to its employees. However, the new employer health tax will represent an additional $95,000 hit to their bottom line — $95,000 of tax, additional tax that the NDP are going to take from iTel Networks in Kamloops.

Now iTel — like the thousands of other businesses, tech or otherwise, around the province — has to figure out how they’re going to make up this additional burden. What are they going to have to do to absorb that cost? Are they going to scale back on some of their export marketing activities? That certainly wouldn’t be conducive to staying on the high-growth track that they’re on.

Are they going to scale back on the number of new hires that they’re planning on bringing into their company over the next number of years? That certainly wouldn’t be conducive to a high-growth company in the tech sector.

[4:10 p.m.]

They’re scratching their heads trying to understand why the government of British Columbia would impose such a significant added cost to their bottom line. At the end of the day, it probably will mean that they’re going to have to hire fewer new employees.

Now, what’s really sad about that is that most of the new hires that they have in mind will come out of TRU’s programs in Kamloops. These are millennials, young students, who are getting the training that they need and who preferably want to stay in their community. They want to stay in Kamloops.

To this point, there have been employers, like iTel, that have been only too happy to scoop them up and hire them and bring them into their company and provide them with that on-the-job work experience, give them that first opportunity. It’s those kinds of jobs that are also at stake here with this tax grab, this employer health tax of the NDP.

Of course, we have confirmed that the tax will apply to charities, to non-profits, to all kinds of arts organizations, to government-funded agencies that provide critical services to people.

There’s an organization in Kamloops that partners, all with government funding…. They deliver affordable housing projects for some of the most vulnerable in society — those with mental health challenges and addictions. They’re looking at, potentially, upwards of a $100,000 hit to their bottom line. They’re wondering what that means for their ability to continue to deliver the services that they provide to meet the needs of those vulnerable individuals in Kamloops.

The public sector itself is not immune. We’ve talked a fair bit about cities, school districts, universities, and so forth.

Again, I would ask this government, in the context of everyone in this chamber wanting to do everything that we can to encourage continued growth in the technology sector, to think twice about this employer health tax, to think twice about all of the different tax increases that have been imposed on British Columbians, that have been imposed on the technology sector.

As with anything, there will come a point where that balance will be out of whack. As I said earlier, it is far too easy for tech companies to decide: “You know what? The cost of doing business here in British Columbia is too high. The cost of doing business here in British Columbia is such that perhaps another jurisdiction should be looked at.” Those are the kinds of thought processes that are going through a lot of minds in the tech sector today. A lot of folks in the tech sector are wondering just how viable their future is here in British Columbia.

Now, I am proud to have served with the former government that understood the tech sector and developed a tech strategy that actually presided over the growth in employment from 80,000 jobs four years ago to about 100,000. We actually pledged an additional $87 million towards the B.C. tech strategy. Our actions were organized into three broad categories. This continues to be generally reflected in the current government’s approach, so I acknowledge that.

First is capital — the need to ensure that tech companies continue to have access to the capital that they need in order to grow. A $100 million venture capital fund, something I was very proud of, that we created. Enhancing tax credits to improve access to capital. Small business venture capital tax credits. The digital animation or visual effects credit.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, both sides. If members have the desire to heckle, do it from your own seat, please.

T. Stone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Enhancing those tax credits, which the minister mentioned in his speech, were initiatives that started with our former government. I’m pleased that the current government has seen fit to continue with those and continue to improve access to capital through those tax credit programs.

[4:15 p.m.]

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of work to do everything that we can as a province to pursue the federal funding, under the federal government’s clusters initiative. We certainly do not want British Columbia to be left out in the cold on that.

The second broad area would be in the area of talent. That’s doing everything that we can to better capitalize on ideas that are generated here in British Columbia and support the commercialization of those ideas. That starts by developing homegrown talent here in British Columbia.

I was so proud of our former government when we instituted coding in grade 6. I had a moment, as a father, when my daughter, who was in grade…. She actually was in a 5-6 split, so she got it when she was in grade 5. She came home on a Friday — the day I’m back at home, in Kamloops, when we’re in session — and her eyes were the size of saucers. She couldn’t wait to tell me that she had written her first line of code in her class that day.

I looked at, in that moment, a little girl — and there are thousands of them all across the province — whose imagination was sparked. And the development of an interest in technology started right then and there with that little girl, my little girl. I was very proud of that. I would like to see the coding expanded right through to include grades up to grade 9.

Continuing to invest in more seats for tech programs. Our former government committed funding for 2,000 additional STEM spaces — science, technology, engineering and math — including in my hometown of Kamloops, which will soon have a full-fledged engineering program in software management. Ensuring that there is more post-secondary technology co-op placements — increasing that. Let’s not ease up in continuing to press forward there.

Working with the federal government on the capital side or on the talent side is very important as well. We made a lot of progress, as a former government, with the Canada-B.C. jobs grant. There’s more work that needs to be done there. Of course, working with the federal government to attract skilled immigrants and be able to bring a larger number of skilled immigrants into the province is also an important component of a successful tech strategy.

The last piece would be markets. First, internal to British Columbia, it was always a frustration of mine, as a tech CEO, that often the most difficult customers to try and sell to, as a tech business in British Columbia, were British Columbia government organizations, whether they be provincial government or Crown corporations or local governments. It was always easier, when I was starting out, to sell into other jurisdictions — Washington state or Alberta.

I couldn’t understand that. I think some progress has been made on that front. I encourage the government to do everything it can to make sure that British Columbia companies, where some of the best innovation and the most creative ideas in the world are being developed and that we give those companies better opportunities to position those technologies and those solutions within government here in British Columbia.

And of course, fostering improved market access across the world is very important. It was our former government that made the commitment to expand our U.S. trade and investment offices in Seattle and the Silicon Valley. It was all about enticing tech companies to expand into B.C., while enabling B.C. companies to more easily connect with customers in those markets.

There’s so much more that needs to be done, that can be done. Obviously, I’m very passionate about the technology sector. I think that we’ll have lots more detailed questions to ask in estimates.

Again, I end on this note. I encourage the government to really look through the lens of competitiveness. When considering what it can do to spur more growth in the technology sector, look through that competitiveness lens.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure today to rise and speak about Bill 4, the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act. This important legislation is part of our government’s work to support tech entrepreneurs and businesses in communities across B.C.

First and foremost, there is a name change. The B.C. Innovation Council, established in 2004, will be renamed Innovate B.C. and will have an expanded mandate, enabling it to better help the tech sector in this province. This legislation will boost British Columbia’s tech sector by helping firms build capacity, access new markets and attract investment.

[4:20 p.m.]

This Crown agency will be instrumental in the areas of policy, administration, operation and delivery of programs that support innovation in British Columbia. A wide variety of supports will be available to help promote entrepreneurship and business developments in the tech sector.

Amongst its many responsibilities, Innovate B.C. will offer tools, resources and expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes in B.C.; help our tech business build capacity, access new markets and attract investment; deliver programs that help our start-ups grow and access capital to create jobs in every corner of B.C.; provide business development and partnership opportunities; gather knowledge and critical research to promote the advancement of technologies and grow our tech sector; advise government on policy and programming to help foster innovation and get B.C. products and ideas to market; work with regional partners to ensure the benefits of technology and innovation make their way to every corner of the province, including First Nations communities; and Innovate B.C. will work to strengthen ties the between our tech industry and British Columbia’s post-secondary institutions.

Our government is committed to supporting growth and innovation in the tech sector, because we know how important it is to B.C.’s economy. This support will help create good-paying jobs in the new digital economy, all across the province, keeping our traditional economic sectors globally competitive and leaving an important legacy for children and grandchildren. By empowering our tech companies and entrepreneurs to create good jobs of tomorrow, we will help ensure that young people can continue to afford to live and work in this province.

Innovate B.C. will be a single point of contact that provides our province’s tech entrepreneurs with tools and resources to innovate and grow. This broad support will be available to tech businesses at every stage of growth. Our tech entrepreneurs in B.C. are driven to create change and do things differently. They are developing innovative products and services that help make the world a better place.

Simon Fraser University has joined with the city of Surrey to incorporate innovation boulevard, a rapidly expanding centre for technology development based in Surrey that is linked to a growing network of innovation centres around the world — a partnership of health, business, higher education and government, all working together to create new health technologies to improve people’s lives. They’re putting research into practice and solving real-world problems.

The Surrey innovation hub has become hugely successful. They’ve improved health outcomes for patients and intelligent solutions for the health care economy. They’re attracting talented clinicians and researchers from all over the world, and they’re growing companies in the health care technology and services sector. That is happening in my own backyard.

Small start-ups with innovative ideas will find Innovate B.C. is there to support them, to help them succeed in British Columbia and abroad. But Innovate B.C. is also there for long-established tech firms, which play a leading role in the sector at large, generate thousands of good-paying jobs for the people of British Columbia and help keep our province on the cutting edge of technology — a leader in the industry.

For my ministry, innovation is always top of our mind. Each year the B.C. government invests billions of dollars to deliver the services that the people of British Columbia count on. Unlike under the B.C. Liberal government, we want to do everything we can to foster local entrepreneurs, encourage new ideas and help local companies to do business with government. Our government is working hard to ensure that, as much as possible, public dollars are spent to support local companies like those in B.C.’s tech industry.

The existing programs and services currently delivered by the existing B.C. Innovation Council will seamlessly transition to Innovate B.C., so there will be no interruption in service. Current capacity will also be maintained.

[4:25 p.m.]

Our tech workers and businesses will find that Innovation B.C. provides a much broader range of support to help them succeed. Entrepreneurs and businesses in very corner of the province will find they are better able to access provincial funding and support. Innovate B.C. will provide a single point of contact for our tech leaders, helping them attract global business and access start-up capital.

It is critical at this point in time that our government works to help our job creators, innovators and those that lay the foundation for B.C.’s future economic success. We have an opportunity to seize upon the growth in the digital economy and position B.C. as a leader in global tech and innovation, and our government is committed to making this happen.

We must recognize that a thriving tech sector cannot be confined to the urban centres. We need to help build the industry in communities all over our province. Just as, when Canada was founded, the railroad helped to connect Canada and to move services and goods, in the new age, today, the foundational piece is high-speed Internet. That’s why my ministry recently announced an initiative that will bring high-speed Internet to 154 rural and remote communities along B.C.’s coast — and this is the amazing thing — 56 of which are First Nations and Indigenous communities.

This is just the beginning. We will continue to work with our partners to bring high-speed Internet to our rural communities, because this is the foundational piece for developing our tech sector outside of the Lower Mainland and the south of Vancouver Island. A provincewide mandate for Innovate B.C. will also help ensure that our creative and innovative entrepreneurs are able to access programs and services no matter what part of British Columbia they call home.

Innovation is not just about the digital technology ecosystem. It’s also about keeping our traditional economic sectors, like mining, forestry and manufacturing, globally competitive. Growth in the B.C. tech sector represents an exciting generational opportunity to bring good-paying jobs and economic prosperity to rural communities across this province.

By ensuring that our rural communities can participate in the digital economy, we also make it easier for these communities to attract and retain residents. With the promise of family-supporting jobs and an opportunity to build a life in a vibrant community, it helps ensure that our young people, upon graduation, have the opportunity to seek employment in communities where they grew up.

It is also essential that we ensure our First Nations partners can benefit from the digital economy and the technology sectors. Innovate B.C. will work with the First Nations Technology Council to support Indigenous entrepreneurs and provide them with the tools and expert guidance they need to succeed.

Shifting to some of the technical details of this legislation, we expect that Innovate B.C. will provide government with recommendations for a leading-edge science, technology and innovation policy agenda. The goal of this effort will be to promote the commercialization of B.C. technologies, ensuring that our province is able to turn its best ideas into marketable products that create good-paying jobs and economic growth in this province.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

To reflect our commitment to serve British Columbians in every corner of the province, Innovate B.C.’s board of directors will have regional representation. The board will collaborate with government and industry stakeholders to review programs and ensure our tech sector can help to guide programming and offer industries the support they need. We expect to learn more about the composition of the board in the spring.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is also important to note Dr. Alan Winter’s recent appointment as British Columbia’s first innovation commissioner. The innovation commissioner is separate from Innovate B.C., but the two will work closely together to support B.C. tech and innovation. Dr. Winter’s mandate will help strengthen relationships across borders and give our tech industry better access to its fair share of federal funding.

In conclusion, the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act is an important piece of legislation that will support our tech entrepreneurs across B.C. These changes are being brought forward as part our government’s commitment to create good-paying jobs for B.C. in communities across the province. This legislation will help ensure that future generations, as well as private, benefit from economic opportunities, and that the communities which make this province such a wonderful place to live and work benefit from the growing digital economy.

Deputy Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast seeks the floor to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: Madame Speaker, I just wanted to ask the House to welcome a constituent who has made his way down from Texada Island, either on two ferries or four. I’m not sure how he got here. Tom Reid is a farmer, and he and his wife are often seen at the farmers market on Texada Island. It’s a pleasure to have him in the House, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Debate Continued

C. Oakes: On behalf of my constituents of Cariboo North, I am pleased to provide my comments on Bill 4, the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act. There is no doubt of the importance of technology development across British Columbia, so I appreciate that the member has brought this forward.

I will make some initial comments before I go into the depths of my comments. Perhaps it’s in reflection of what the Minister of Citizens’ Services has just said. It brought to light some things that I think are really important to discuss in reflection of this piece of legislation. The first is that the two top things the Minister of Citizens’ Services talked about were bringing forward a comprehensive lens around policy and administration. Of course, anytime that legislation is brought forward in this House….

Especially considering that Wednesday is a considerably important day about how we are looking at the regulatory and administrative burden of citizens in British Columbia, one of the top two things mentioned by the minister is how we are going to look at policy and administration. We always want to make sure that we’re accountable to our taxpayers in British Columbia and that, on any piece of legislation that comes forward in this House, we have that lens of taxpayer dollars, taxpayer complexity and taxpayer accountability — ensuring that on legislation that is being brought forward, we are respectful of the regulatory and administrative burden to citizens in British Columbia.

The second thing that I would like to comment is that I, too, of course, have a passion for ensuring that everything we bring forward in this House has equal access to all parts of this province and that rural communities are not forgotten in legislation that is being brought forward or in services that are being brought forward.

I appreciate that the Minister of Citizens’ Services talked about the recent announcement that was made around ensuring high-speed Internet in communities along the coast. But again, I challenge the government, and I challenge the minister, that there have been long-term negotiations and conversations that have been happening with the federal government and the provincial government before this government that talked about the need for Internet services in rural British Columbia.

Just to the members opposite, that means not just the coast but the rural interior, northern British Columbia. We have letters. We have been working closely with providers such as ABC Communications to ensure that all parts of the province of British Columbia have access to Internet service. It’s incredibly important, if you talk about technology and you talk about business growth, that we talk about ensuring that there’s equal access to every part of British Columbia.

[4:35 p.m.]

The member also talked about innovation top of mind and services that foster local entrepreneurs who help job creators and innovators. Well, the member also mentioned about seizing growth of these innovators. I am not sure, but I’m pretty sure that seizing growth of these innovators was not by including an additional tax. I’m pretty sure that seizing opportunities wasn’t by how we can access more taxes from these innovators and these developers of growth.

I’m sure that’s not what the Minister of Citizens’ Services meant by her comments, but I can tell you that from across British Columbia, the new employer health care tax certainly feels a little bit like the seizing of the opportunity, the seizing of additional taxes from very strong innovators in the tech sector, who drive so much change in British Columbia.

Again, I talked a little bit about the administration, the regulatory burden. That has concerns. I think it’s also important that we discuss certainty. I know that small businesses across the province of British Columbia want to ensure that for bills that are brought forward, that legislation has certainty. That’s critically important.

The B.C. Innovation Council was, of course, established under the previous Liberal government to encourage the development and application of advanced or innovative technologies to meet the needs of industry in British Columbia. This includes — and will continue, I hope — partnering with industry to deliver programs and initiatives that promote company and job growth.

The goal, of course, for all of us in this House, is to spark growth, to increase revenues and economic development throughout the province of British Columbia. One example of the more valuable programs of the BCIC programs is the venture acceleration program. We hope that that will continue. The venture acceleration program is designed to guide and coach and grow ambitious, early-stage technology entrepreneurs and effectively grow their technology ventures. The venture acceleration program also helps entrepreneurs to accelerate the process of developing a successful business model. Its goal, of course, is to develop a set of best practices for growing technology companies in British Columbia.

Another vital BCIC program is Ignite. Ignite provides funding to accelerate new technologies and innovations in the natural resources and applied science sectors in British Columbia. I can tell you — coming from the Interior, where the pine beetle has absolutely ravaged much of the Interior and has, in fact, had impacts across the province — that having innovation and technology companies is critically important to the economy of British Columbia and the natural resource sectors. This program provides awards of up to $300,000 to consortia that are conducting research projects that address significantly demonstrated problems faced by industry.

Another issue that I’m hoping may be looked at: we are in the middle of a significant spruce beetle epidemic in the Interior and northern British Columbia — no different. Beetle epidemics, of course, we’ve seen in the past. But with climate change and the different things that are happening currently in the Interior, we are seeing new beetles and new developments. I think innovation and research are critically important to be supporting our resource sectors. So this is another program that is important.

I think it’s important that we put on record, in Hansard, the programs that the council did initiate, as we are changing to a new agency where they have recognized that programs and policies will be changing. I would like to ensure that the people watching out there or at home or on Hansard know the programs that this important council has ensured were brought forward by citizens.

Another one is to support a program for…. It’s the B.C. innovator skills initiative, which helps to cultivate future technology leaders by bridging the innovation and entrepreneurial gap. It enables students to rebuild desired skills for future career opportunities and inspires them to start their own companies, thereby creating quality jobs for British Columbians. Students gain valuable skills while developing technical and innovative skills that meet industry needs in British Columbia. With exposure to regional industry needs and challenges, students also gain the entrepreneurial training and skills required to run a successful business.

[4:40 p.m.]

BCIC is also home to the leading-edge endowment fund, LEEF for short. Using a cost-sharing partnership with the private sector, LEEF helped to establish 20 permanent leadership research chairs at public post-secondary institutions across the province in the areas of medical, social, environmental and technological research. The fund has also established nine regional innovation chairs to create opportunities in communities throughout B.C.’s colleges, universities and institutes.

BCIC also runs the highly successful B.C. InnovEX program. B.C. InnovEX is an advisory service that helps companies and organizations across all sectors and throughout the province identify their innovation needs and speed up their growth. Delivered by a team of technology experts and innovative advisers, B.C. InnovEX helps to identify and analyze management or growth problems and connect companies to innovative solutions.

Being from the Cariboo, it’s only right that I mention a few of our experts and how the program has really helped us grow in the Cariboo. The BCIC AVAP program, also known as the agriculture venture acceleration program, is designed to guide, coach and grow ambitious early-stage technology entrepreneurs and effectively grow their technology ventures. AVAP helps agritech and agrifood entrepreneurs accelerate the process of defining a proven business model based on a set of best practices for growing technology companies. It’s great to have an individual in the House today that comes from the agricultural sector — incredibly important. Thank you for coming to the House today.

The goal of the program is to drive economic development and job creation in the province of B.C. by accelerating the commercialization of agricultural technology, resulting in the rapid growth of technology ventures.

With that overview of programs offered by the B.C. Innovation Council, I would like to provide a bit of context in what we are discussing.

Our technology sector is booming right now in British Columbia, and it has become a major economic engine of growth in British Columbia. The tech sector is one where innovation flourishes. It offers enormous potential and is an industry where British Columbian companies are thriving.

This sector is a crucial job creator across the province, and this sector supports innovation and productivity across all industries. The tech sector provides $23 billion in annual revenue, and there are more than 86,000 jobs currently in British Columbia. Wages are 60 percent higher than the B.C. average.

Naturally, young people are attracted to work in this industry, and we, therefore, want to make sure that B.C. students have the skills to succeed in this industry. As part of the B.C. tech strategy launched by the previous Liberal government, we introduced coding to be part of our provincial school curriculum.

I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson talked about how proud his daughter was to come home and talk about the coding that she had learned in school. I know that that is shared by young people across British Columbia, and it’s something that we should be very proud of. Talented development will start early in our schools, where children will have the opportunity to learn the basics of coding.

Currently we have many large companies that are moving to British Columbia and hiring local talent, including Microsoft, Sony and Amazon. As well, there are many homegrown success stories of B.C.’s businesses that are thriving, some in my riding. I think of ABC Communications. I mentioned that to the Minister of Citizens’ Services earlier.

ABC Communications started as a supplier of office phone systems in 1989. ABC was one of the first companies to offer Internet service in British Columbia. With the head office in Quesnel, this family-owned business has now grown into B.C.’s largest privately held telecommunications solutions provider. They’re a very important business in our community and the province of British Columbia.

Another one. The member, again, for Kamloops–South Thompson talked about West Fraser Mills. West Fraser Mills was founded in 1955 by the Ketcham brothers, Sam, Pete and Bill. The sweat and the hard work of three young men, together with a founding group of pioneering employees, has laid the foundation for a West Fraser that thrives today.

[4:45 p.m.]

Six decades later the 12-person crew, many of them who I know and are still in our community, grew to become the largest lumber producer in North America. In our community alone, it provides over 1,000 good-paying jobs.

The tech division through West Fraser Mills actually operates, for their sales division, out of Quesnel. Who would have thought that the sales division for one of the largest lumber producers in North America is in a community such as Quesnel? We have 75 highly professional technology engineers that work and live and spend their money in our community, and we’re incredibly proud to have West Fraser’s corporate or operating office in Quesnel with their tech department.

Again, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson talked a little bit about West Fraser Mills, but maybe I’ll talk a little bit about a company in his neck of the woods. As a matter of fact, Kamloops-born Joel Whist was nominated for an Oscar under the special effects supervisory category. Joel is known for his work on Godzilla, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Man of Steel and War for the Planet of the Apes.

B.C. is also home to a strong and international recognized gaming cluster featuring a high concentration of really specialized talent. This sector has seen strong growth in B.C. — currently over 1,100 companies that generate $3 billion in revenue annually.

As you can tell, I too am passionate about technology. I’m passionate about rural British Columbia and making sure that we have a seat at this new advisory board that this piece of legislation introduces — the new programs and initiatives. I do want to ensure that, operationally, we’re not seeing an increase in bureaucracy and costs to taxpayers in British Columbia.

I want to make sure that the ministry has run this legislation through the regulatory reform branch to ensure that it’s being brought forward, the programs and policies that support a small business lens, and ensure that we are remaining our commitment to a net zero on regulations supporting the modernization of British Columbia’s regulatory environment.

Providing transparency and regulatory reform accountability through public tracking and annual reporting is critically important, and I would like to ask how this program plans to streamline and be more efficient with interactions with government. I’m also concerned about duplications of agencies and Crowns.

With that, thank you for the opportunity.

A. Weaver: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 4, British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act. As speakers before me have articulated, this act has two major changes. One, of course, is changing the name of the British Columbia Innovation Council Act to Innovate BC Act. This is important, and I’ll come to that in a second.

The second major change, which I think is very important to emphasize, is that the mandate of Innovate BC, the new organization, will be expanded. In particular, the details as outlined in the previous act, the specific objectives of the council per se in the previous act — that section 3 of the act that’s being modified — is going to have an addition now which says that Innovate B.C. will also “offer tools, resources and expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies in British Columbia, including in respect of building capacity to access new markets and attract investment.”

Now this is important because, while not specifically stated there, what this is recognizing is the recent appointment of Alan Winter as British Columbia’s innovation commissioner. The innovation commissioner, of course, is going to be the advocate for B.C.’s new Innovate B.C. agency.

Why is it important to change the name? There’s a couple of reasons. When a new organization comes in, it’s often the time to switch the directors of a new organization, to give it a sense of new purpose and new vision and new direction. We’re quite inspired by Mr. Winter and all that he has done for British Columbia, both in his capacity as CEO of Genome B.C. as a small business, of a large business — just a wealth of experience in innovation across a diversity of areas.

[4:50 p.m.]

The creation of an innovation commission and the position of innovation commissioner is something that was embedded in our confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP, and we’re grateful to be able to work with them to move this forward. In fact, the so-called CASA agreement states that one of our goals, collectively, is: “Establish an innovation commission to support innovation and business development in the technology sector and appoint an innovation commissioner with a mandate to be an advocate ambassador on behalf of the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad. The mandate and funding of the innovation commission will be jointly established by representatives of both the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democratic government. And the innovation commission will be created in the first provincial budget tabled by the New Democratic government.”

That, indeed, has been met. What’s important here is that when one looks at the establishment of the innovation commission, one recognizes that it’s actually at an opportune time. The focus here in British Columbia is moving to mirror exactly what is happening in Ottawa, recognizing that we can compete in innovation like no one else. So the emergence of innovate B.C. and the commissioner comes at a time when Ottawa is putting money into these very same programs.

It is critical that we have one single point of contact in terms of melding these programs together, because historically, in British Columbia, innovation has been spread across six different and separate ministries — much like fish farms are, as we’ve discussed in question period.

Technology is exciting here in British Columbia. In 2015, where we have the best data, there were over 100,000 jobs in more than 9,900 companies in B.C. — with wages that, on average, were 75 percent higher than the B.C. industrial average, with average weekly earnings of almost $1,600 a week. It had the fifth consecutive year of growth in 2015, and about 5 percent of British Columbia’s workforce was in the tech sector. That’s more than mining, oil and gas, and forestry combined.

I’ll say that again for those riveted at home. There was 5 percent of British Columbia’s workforce in the tech sector in 2015. That is more than mining, oil, gas and forestry combined.

Now, it’s very odd that somehow, in British Columbia, we continue to perpetuate the notion that we are but hewers of wood and drawers of water and that our economy is based on oil and gas or our economy is based on the extraction of raw materials and shipping of those raw materials elsewhere. In fact, a full 7 percent of our GDP comes from the tech sector. We know that the overwhelming component of our GDP comes from the real estate sector, a very high fraction of it, but 7 percent is from the tech sector. Again, I’ll come back to that in a second.

We know that in 2016, more than 106,000 people were working in the tech sector. By 2020, it’s projected to be more than 120,000. I would suggest that that will be an underestimate. We know that investment in B.C. tech will be increased by up to $100 million by 2020 and that recently — and I give both sides of the House credit here — there’s been an increase in talent pool and an increase in funding of actual post-secondary institution places to actually promote continued growth of training of highly-qualified personnel in this area. That was an initiative started by B.C. Liberals, continued by B.C. NDP, and one that we support all the way through.

We recognize as a caucus, as a small caucus here, that playing a key role in the tech sector is absolutely central to our economy. We will never, ever, ever compete with a jurisdiction like Angola or Namibia or Indonesia in terms of extracting raw resources straight from the ground. We internalize social and environmental costs into the cost of doing business in B.C. that may not be internalized in other jurisdictions that don’t have the same social programs that we have and demand that we have here in B.C. or the same standard of environmental protection that we have and demand that we have in B.C.

[4:55 p.m.]

For us to compete, we can compete by racing to the bottom. The journey into LNG tells us what that leads to — goose egg. Or we can compete by being smarter and by building on our strategic advantages.

Today in the Legislature, we had a number of interns visiting from Washington state, and in talking with these interns from Washington state, the idea of building on strategic strengths came up. What was interesting is that I was reminded of a story. When I was at the University of Washington, there was a fella there whose name was Ed Serrichuk. He was my post-doctoral adviser.

We were working in some climate modelling area, and Ed said to me: “Andrew, we’re at the University of Washington. We’ve got an IBM 3090 here.” That dates me. It was a vector-based machine. It’s pretty old now. That was in the late 1980s. “We’re never going to compete with NCAR, Princeton or MIT in terms of the powerful computing that they have access to. But we can be smarter and more efficient and more clever, and we can win through efficiency and being smarter.”

He was right that by focusing strategically on things that we could do well, rather than the brute-force, race-to-the-bottom approach, we were able do some neat stuff. That’s exactly the same with the tech sector. We can’t compete through digging dirt out of the ground when we’re internalizing these costs. But we can be more efficient. We can be cleaner, and we can export in a more efficient and cleaner way the resources that have historically been a key component of British Columbia’s economy.

Now, one of my favourite companies is a company called MineSense in British Columbia. Now, one of my favourite companies is a company called MineSense in British Columbia. I didn’t realize until the mining delegation, when a bunch of my former students ended up lobbying me about mining…. It turned out that one of the key founders of MineSense was another former student from UVic. This kind of blew me way.

I’m sure as a former teacher, hon. Speaker, you know that you see these former students popping up everywhere, and you wonder how they got from where they were to where they are now.

I’m blown away by that company. It’s a company that’s developed technology to actually assess up front the quality of minerals to determine whether or not it is cost-effective to truck it a long distance to the crusher and process all of that grade, or just push it to the side to be used as fill later.

That’s innovation. That’s efficiency. That allows us to compete by actually mining our high-grade minerals without wasting the time of digging up all of the stuff that’s not economical. We can export the minerals and compete through efficiency. But we can also export the technology and compete through technology.

This is why it’s so critical to have Innovate B.C. and the innovation commissioner. In B.C., we have a disparate bunch of programs out there, many of which don’t match with programs that exist federally. In talking to CEOs of a diversity of small start-up companies…. They’re frustrated. They’re frustrated by the fact that they’ll go through a process to apply for grants federally, and then they’ll have to go through the same process in a slightly different way to apply for grants provincially.

I was excited in speaking recently with the innovation commissioner, Alan Winter, who recognizes that there’s some duplication there that’s not necessary. By streamlining programs, not only do we let innovators be innovative, as opposed to writing the same thing twice, but we actually are able more efficiently to tap into federal money, which is good for our economy here in British Columbia.

Now, I have some experience in this regard, with something British Columbia has known as the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund, an exceptional fund that’s used to lever money from Ottawa through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which provides funding for large pieces of equipment for universities. I don’t know what the process is like now. But I do know that when I applied and got a supercomputer a number of years back, again, it was a duplication of a process.

The CFI process was rigorous and onerous and took an enormous amount of work to bring together stakeholders from a diversity of groups and organizations. Then we had to just rematch that process with the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund. It seemed to me that if we follow the Quebec model…. There’s some duplication there, and we recognize that one process could satisfy everything.

I’m hoping that the innovation commissioner will see, as we move forward, opportunities here. It’s clear to me that we are so very lucky to have Alan Winter as the innovation commissioner. He recognizes, as members opposite have raised, the importance of actually thinking beyond roads as just being things to take people from A to B, but in terms of broadband, it’s critical to getting information from A to B.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s clear to me that he recognizes that our rural communities will be empowered upon receiving access to broadband — not only singular broadband but redundancy, as some bigger communities will get.

This is how we’ll compete. When we bring our tech sector…. Tech doesn’t just mean coding apps for the smartphone. Tech means biomedical sciences. Tech means revised forestry handling tools. Tech means thinking of new engineered wood products. Tech means bringing the forestry sector together with innovators in technology who see that you can make new things like insulation from wood products, or roofing beams from wood products.

Tech is about innovation, and innovation goes far beyond what, often, people think it only is, which is the smartphone app. Our biomedical industry, as I mentioned, is one. In the automotive industry, we should be having innovation in that here in British Columbia. We should be leaders in the adoption of EVs. Quantum computing. In British Columbia, we have, in D-Wave, one of the world’s leading companies in quantum computing. This is tech. This is a way for the future. We’ve got fuel cell technology. That’s another form of tech.

Let’s not think that tech is just about smart people with lab coats who have engineering degrees. Tech also requires people to construct and build, and highly trained people in a diversity of trades, whether it be electrical, whether it be mechanical, whether it be construction, using carpentry. You need all skills working together to actually take the idea from the lab bench to fruition.

We look at the issue of clean energy, something that I’m desperately hoping this government will pick up. There is so much potential for innovation in British Columbia. Rocky Mountain Solar is a project that I hope to get the member for Kootenay East excited about shortly. Rocky Mountain Solar is a solar company that has private land. The transmission lines go right through the private land. They’ve passed the standing offer program. They’ve gone through the standing offer program, but they can’t actually get going. They’ve got a partnership with UBC to actually have a research facility there. They could scale up to 45, 50, 75 megatonnes of capacity.

But again, if we’re stuck thinking the old way, the 20th-century way, companies like Rocky Mountain Solar, who want to invest their capital…. They want to construct and build, which requires carpenters and tradespeople, to build capacity for a solar field there — British Columbia’s first and only grid-scale solar facility. It needs innovation, and it needs a champion, and a commission that actually can do that within government, by bringing together the various diverse groups there.

I’m excited by the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. In particular….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s a mouthful for a poor, humble soul like me — Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I thought I’d wake a few up there over that. Not allowed to speak if you’re not in your seat there, Member.

I’m excited because in meeting with the civil service who are working in this area, you can see the passion, and you can see the desire to make this work. I’m thrilled with the calibre of the civil service who are getting behind this Innovate B.C. initiative. I’m thrilled about what’s coming up in terms of the Tech Summit that’s going to be happening in the coming months.

We have a very exciting time, but we’ve got to get a handle on a couple of things. The innovation commission, or Innovate B.C., the innovation commissioner, can’t do everything. Government is required to set a culture. Government is required to set an environment that allows them to innovate.

What does that mean? That means we’ve got to get a grip on the affordability crisis facing British Columbians. You can be the best, innovative person in the world and have the most wonderful idea in the world, but if you can’t get anyone to work with you because they can’t afford to live here, it ain’t going to take off. It’s going to move to New Brunswick or somewhere else.

We also have to ensure that we have a competitive environment in terms of the tax and the education framework. I have some sympathy with members of the opposition who are raising concerns about the employers health tax. It’s not clear to me that the details have been expanded upon fully yet, but this needs to be explored a little more, for a number of reasons.

We have a very odd taxation system in British Columbia, where we have this magical barrier of $500,000, above which you start paying, now, an employers health tax, and you also start paying corporate tax.

[5:05 p.m.]

Now, the problem with that is there’s a natural ceiling which stops innovation and growth. Why would I, if I’m a company making $450,000 a year, want to move up to be a company that’s now making $550,000 a year? I cross that $500,000 threshold. It’s an artificial threshold, but now I’m paying corporate tax, and I’m paying the employers health tax.

We need to take a hard look at how we have our taxation system. Step functions are not as conducive to growth as perhaps small, linear changes. Again, that will be the role of the government — to explore that more fully.

This is a short bill. It may seem like a minor change, but the implications are profound, because the implications are sending a signal to the market in British Columbia that we’re here for the 21st century. Innovation is going to be the engine and power of our economy, and we want to send a signal to British Columbia that there is an agency and there is a champion to actually ensure that innovation is able to emerge at the lab bench and move through to production down the road.

Let’s ensure that that happens in British Columbia. Let’s ensure that the stories that we hear, time and time again, of a company building it to $1 million a year and then selling out to a Silicon Valley company…. Let’s create an environment here in British Columbia, not only in Vancouver but across B.C.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson talks about the tech sector in Kamloops. He’s right. Really exciting things are going on in Kamloops. We’ve got the tech sector in Kelowna — happening there as well. Some concerns about Kelowna in light of some changes to the distance and digital tax credits that were done, dismissed and retroactively applied. Nevertheless, there’s some excitement happening there. But it doesn’t have to stop in Kelowna and Kamloops.

Prince George. If we put broadband redundancy in there, it should be a capital of tech innovation, particularly with the forest and mining sectors. If we go to Terrace or we go to Prince Rupert, all across British Columbia, if we’re able to bring broadband and broadband redundancy in, we’re able to give the innovators in that community a way to actually access high-speed information. I tell you, it’s a lot easier to buy a house in Fort Nelson than it is to buy a house in Richmond.

The beauty and quality of what we offer here in British Columbia is second to none, whether it be in the north, in the east or the south as well.

I’m thrilled to see this emerge, Bill 4. It’s a small change but a mighty change. I stand in strong support and thank you for your attention on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank all of the members who participated in the debate. I think it was almost unanimously enthusiastic but with a few qualifications, as there often are in this kind of debate. I think this new commission, Innovate B.C., will become a key component of the government’s work to ensure the benefits of our tech and innovation sector are felt by people in all regions of the province.

The Leader of the Third Party has alluded to the dynamism of Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, and of course Victoria and Nanaimo — not to forget, of course, the Lower Mainland. That growth and that dynamism is not confined to the Lower Mainland, as people sometimes mistakenly think.

This new agency will ensure that all technology entrepreneurs and businesses are better able to access provincial funding, tools and support. It will provide the expert guidance needed to create jobs and expand the economy, and it will support innovative ways of doing business, making B.C. companies more competitive, attracting more investment and skilled talent and opening up the opportunities for new markets.

With those remarks, I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s my understanding — because I was listening so carefully to the Government House Leader earlier today when he laid out an extensive business for the House — that we’ve made such extraordinary progress to date that I call the estimates here in the main House for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, this House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:11 p.m. to 5:14 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:15 p.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $890,092,000.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to take the opportunity, just before we get into this, to make a few introductory remarks, with the indulgence of my critic, the shadow minister over there.

I am honoured to be here as the Minister of Transportation, to deal with the estimates of the ministry. It is a fabulous ministry. I think that the former minister and any former ministers who are now in opposition would attest to the fact that it is a ministry where the staff are extraordinarily dedicated right across this province. Whether it is the headquarters here or whether it is regional or the local offices, they are absolutely committed.

Working on our bridges, our highways, our buses, our ferries…. Right across the board, it really is a dedicated team. A dedicated team that is at times feeling pressured. The previous government, when they had the core review, did take away a lot of the front-line staff. I know that they are still trying to make things work. When you go to a regional office, it is one of the things that the staff will say. “What’s the problem?” “Well, we don’t have many more people than we have here.” That being said, those who are there are first-rate, hard-working — working on behalf of the whole province. I think that everyone would accept that.

Here in the House today, we have a number of the executives: Grant Main, the deputy minister; Nancy Bain, the assistant deputy minister for finance and management; Kevin Richter, who is the ADM for the highways department; Paula Cousins, the deputy director from the southern Interior; and Norm Parkes, executive director for the highways department.

I’ve got to say I’ve travelled somewhat as the Minister of Transportation, and I’ve seen people at work, in the field, and seen their dedication to the projects that they are working on and to the communities that they are working in. I think it’s important at the moment to just acknowledge the fact that it is a big province. I mean, these are staff who are dealing with 46,000 kilometres of highway, 3,000 kilometres of rumble strips, 4,500 kilometres of centre-line rumble strips, 2,900 bridges, 200 weather stations, 24 coastal and 14 interior ferry routes, 51 border crossings, 131 airports and 82 transit systems over 130 communities across the province. It indicates the breadth that they are dealing with.

I’m very proud to say, in this budget, Budget 2018, that there is a significant investment in the budget for transportation. An absolute…. It’s a milestone, I think, and it’s going to help to make sure that we can deliver our budget, which is to make life more affordable for people, to deliver the services people count on and to build the economy up.

We have a $632 million increase over the Budget 2017 update. And as I say, that is significant. It’s the highest level investment in a service plan for a number of years. I think that we’ll be discussing a number of the areas in the coming day. I believe we have about a day here. To highlight some of the ones that we’re obviously working on….

The Pattullo Bridge — we just announced a couple of weeks ago a significant investment there. Accelerating the expansion and the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway to the Alberta border. This is, again, significant for the communities and for the whole province. And an increase of $448 million to the service plan for transit. Again, a commitment to ensuring that people have that opportunity to access transit — both in the Lower Mainland, where we have the density of the population, but all around in the more than 82 transit systems that we have around our province. I think it’s really important.

Obviously, we’re also investing in the trade network and other areas — the classic ones that people see and there’s been quite some contention about this year. I’m sure that the members opposite will have some discussion about it, which is the highway maintenance and so on.

[5:20 p.m.]

There is a breadth of issues and a lot of investment, a significant increase in investment in this budget over the last budget, which will have an impact right across this province.

With that, I will take my seat. I look forward to the questions from the members opposite as we go through this day of estimates.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that introduction. I certainly would concur that it is a very diverse portfolio and province. It’s remarkable what the staff does do — not the least of which is actually preparing for these estimates, which I understand and know to be a very complex and time-consuming process.

Thank you for that, and to ministry staff at all levels, be it at a regional operations level, regional managers, the operations personnel, the avalanche personnel — I have a personal knowledge of some of them, the work that they do and the difficulty — the engineers, the technicians, the contractors and, as mentioned, the executive directors, assistant deputy ministers and deputies. I thank you all for being here. I appreciate the complexity of delivering, in this province, on the range of responsibilities that the ministry has.

I think the minister did mention 47,000, I thought — it’s the number I recall — in terms of roadways serving communities large and small right around this province. It is interesting, though, that in that list of things she mentioned, she didn’t mention any tunnels. I thought that was an interesting oversight there.

Certainly, in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, in my riding, I have virtually everything that we’re talking about, and it affects the communities that I have. If I might, if the minister will indulge me just for a second, in terms of what we have in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, I think it actually is quite interesting, andI like to highlight it. Certainly, an internationally recognized highway that we’re all very proud of, in the Sea to Sky Highway; one of three rail lines that connect Metro Vancouver and Port Metro to the rest of Canada, one of the three leaving the coast. I guess there are four, I suppose — two out of Metro, and then the Sea to Sky and Rupert. A major piece of infrastructure.

I have urban British Columbia, TransLink and all the complexities of that. I think it’s one of the things that I, unfortunately, won’t have a chance to talk about with the minister. Then, of course, rural B.C. and B.C. Transit and small transit services. One thing that we are lacking — and we’ll perhaps have a chance to dive into it a little bit — is a regional transit service that does connect the Sea to Sky with the rest of Metro. This is, again, a sort of a representation or reflection of some of the issues that we’re facing around the province.

I have, as I said, urban and rural. I have island communities, certainly in the way of Bowen Island, so ferry-dependent communities, and one of the major ferry terminals in the province of British Columbia in the way of Horseshoe Bay. I mentioned TransLink, B.C. Transit.

There are huge growth pressures in all parts of the riding, with some of the taxes that we have been debating being in place in parts of the riding and not in others. That, again, will create an additional complexity to growth in the region. Certainly, 25 percent of the export revenue from the province of British Columbia, in terms of tourism, is generated just in one community. I think that number is a little bit higher when you think about the whole region.

I mentioned the sophistication of the avalanche control systems in the areas that I represent in the Sea to Sky, where we have remote systems, hand-bombing systems and helicopter systems. I understand that additional technology will be going in there shortly — or at least we hope it will.

Then, of course, there’s the only port in British Columbia in terms of Squamish Terminals. It’s actually a port owned by the province of British Columbia. All the rest of the major ports with a highway and rail connection are actually federal. So I guess I have a particular insight into the range of responsibilities of the minister and the ministry.

[5:25 p.m.]

I suppose the minister is somewhat thankful to be relieved of some of the responsibilities, in terms of PavCo and emergency management. Then, of course, it’s unfortunate that we don’t get to talk about ICBC here, I guess, isn’t it?

I expect a broad range of discussions over the course of the next day, covering a whole range of issues. I will try and bring the issues together to some degree, because I recognize the complexity of bringing people in and out and trying to cover as much as we can.

With that, I wonder if I might start just by asking the minister if…. I know that she is familiar with the ten-year transportation plan, which was published, I believe, in 2015. We’re, I guess, three years into that ten-year transportation plan. It has 12 major priorities for British Columbia.

I wondered if the minister might give us a sense of what the status of that ten-year transportation plan is, if she expects to see significant changes to the plan, where there may be additions or subtractions. Is it going to be revisited? Maybe just give us a bit of an overview in terms of where the transportation plan stands and where we intend to be going.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question.

Obviously, the transportation plan was a ten-year plan brought in by the previous government. The thing about transportation is that there is investment going on. It rolls forward, and there are many things that you carry on doing, whether it is one government or another, because you are investing in our infrastructure.

I think that’s one of the most important things we’ve got to remember when we’re having this discussion — that we are talking about infrastructure expenditures, infrastructure investment, that are going to improve the province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We have actually exceeded the targets on a number of the areas that came up in the ten-year plan already. For instance, resurfacing highways. Last year $166 million was invested, bringing the total to $427 million, which is above the target. Likewise for bridges, $68 million was invested last year, bringing it above the target, which was $180 million. It’s now higher than the target.

Similarly, side roads. I’m sure the member, like myself, representing an area that has quite a rural flavour about it, is very well aware of the need to invest in side roads. That is $96 million over the last year. Similarly, investment in rest areas. Another $5 million went into rest areas. The Loon Lake rest area on the Coquihalla Highway opened, and it has the first electric-car-charging station there.

There will obviously be movements, as we are moving forward, with our government, with priorities. I think that is reflected in our service plan. Our priorities are not necessarily aligned completely with the previous government’s priorities — I don’t think that’s much of a surprise — but the investment in our infrastructure continues. And I think the fact that we have now, in last year’s investment since we formed government, actually exceeded some of the investment targets for the ten-year plan shows that.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that. I’m glad she mentioned resurfacing. I think one of the objectives for resurfacing was 1,000 kilometres of highway annually versus a dollar value.

Perhaps the minister can let us know what the targets are for kilometres. I think the previous transportation plan said 1,000 kilometres of provincial highway resurfaced every year. Could the minister let us know what that means now?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: We obviously assess pavement conditions very, very regularly. Naturally, it’s a question of, as I say, good asset management. We want to make sure that our roads are maintained well, because the better they’re maintained, the longer they’ll last and the better it will be for individual travelling safety, commercial use, and so on. So it is absolutely necessary to make sure that we are looking after our highways.

The $136 million investment translates in the last year…. We can go further into it if you would like, because it’s actually pretty interesting.

We’ve done about 1,000 kilometres. Of that, there’s about one million tonnes of asphalt and 1.2 million squares of hot-in-place, combined to make the more than 1,000 kilometres. It is well over 1,000 kilometres of road maintenance. It’s a mixture of both the tonnes of asphalt as well as the squares, which are about 2-inch squares, of hot-in-place. That expands to make the approximately 1,000-plus kilometres, at a cost of about $136 million.

J. Sturdy: That’s an interesting statistic. A little bit of clarification. I take it that’s lane-kilometres as opposed to…. No, that’s road-kilometres? I see the staff shaking their heads. Anyway, maybe we could get some clarity on that. That’s interesting.

I think that one of the other…. Is there an anticipation that that 1,000-kilometre-a-year target is one of the forecasts going forward? Will we expect to see a similar type of target?

There was also a target for 30 projects to improve 500 kilometres of side roads on an annual basis. Is that still something that’s within the ministry’s objectives? Will that be the same going forward?

[5:40 p.m.]

Then, in terms of budget, there’s also an improved budget or increased budget for bridge rehabilitation. If we pull the Pattullo out of that and we’re just dealing with the rest of the bridges in British Columbia, what would we expect to see happening with bridge rehabilitation around the province?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, there’s so much that the ministry is doing. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have 2,900 structures, which definitely include bridges, and they are all inspected annually. So there is a huge amount of work to make sure that these structures are safe. The bridges…. Every year they have a snooper truck going around to make sure that the structure is safe, to check out any of the problems. I haven’t actually gone out in one yet because it means being up in a cradle under a bridge, and I get a bit of vertigo. I haven’t taken up the offer of the snoop truck yet. I’m sure I will.

Just to carry on with bridges…. I know the member had a number of other questions. But we are spending about $60 million on bridge rehabilitation and repair, and that’s excluding Pattullo. Pattullo is a major capital infrastructure. These are maintenance repairs, working on them.

[5:45 p.m.]

For instance, there’s one near Chemainus, where there is seismic upgrading, where we are working with the Halalt First Nations, to ensure that these bridges are seismically safe. Obviously, we want to make sure that we have safe structures, hence the decision to move ahead with the Pattullo Bridge. It’s a major investment and a lot of work so that all our bridges are inspected every year. It is a separate budget line from the side roads line.

On the side roads, I echo some of the member’s questions. When I took over as minister and representing a rural constituency…. For me, it’s huge. Every road you go on, it seems to me, there are dips. There are potholes. It’s lots of former logging roads. They’re paved, but they feel like they’re being absolutely neglected. So I did come into the ministry and say: “We need to fix our roads.”

There is an absolute focus on ensuring that there is money going into side-road maintenance and that, right across the province, we are investing in the side roads. While our numbered highways get many times the focus, it is absolutely clear that we do need to be investing in the side roads.

Again, it’s safety. It’s what people expect. You may not choose to live in a city. You maybe have been growing up and working and living in a rural community. That’s the place where the industry also is. You also expect the side roads to be kept up. So that is a complete investment…. It’s an investment and a commitment that I have made.

The member also asked about whether it was lane kilometres or straight kilometres. It is lane kilometres, the 1,000 lane kilometres. So two lanes would be 500 kilometres.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, I suspected that was the case. Thanks to the minister for that answer.

Just to follow up. Two questions. The 500-kilometre objective on 30 projects — is that still in place in terms of side roads? It looks to me, in the budget, like there’s a small bump this year in the side-road budget, but it’s essentially flat or down the next two years after this. I wonder what will be accomplished with that budget. Is that 500 kilometres still an objective?

Then, that’s an interesting statistic around the 2,900 structures. I wasn’t aware of that. That’s an impressive number. In terms of the inspections, is that done by ministerial staff, or is there a qualified professional or a contracting component to that major goal to inspect every year?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Let me start on the bridges. Oh, and side roads. The budget looks like it’s going down. It actually is…. What the bump for this year is, is work that was deferred from last year, investment that we wanted to do but couldn’t because of the forest fires that were burning. You, obviously, don’t want to be repaving when you’ve got fires burning. You don’t want to take the risk, and there’s absolutely no point in doing it.

There was a significant amount of money that was carried forward to this year. After that, it’s flat for the next three years. But as I mentioned to the member, it is a commitment of mine, coming from a rural area, to make sure that we are actually investing in our side roads because they are a network for regular people to be using. So I’m committed to making sure that that does happen.

Our 2,900 structures are not all bridges, I’m sorry to say. They could be the large culverts, the size that you can walk through or drive through. They can be retaining walls and also bridges. They are all inspected every year, and they are inspected, I’m very pleased to say, by ministry staff. One of the things that I’m hoping to see, in my term as minister…. As I mentioned earlier, there was a loss of staff after the core review and a loss of, really, the knowledge base and expertise. So I’m very pleased to see when our staff can actually do the work and when we’ve got the skills in-house to do the work.

There are inspections annually on all our structures. Sometimes experts are retained if there is something that is a serious problem that our in-house people can’t work out what the next stage would be or might need extra work. If there’s some severe rust on a bridge that we just thought: “How are we going to deal with that?” It may be bringing in the experts.

Most times we do try and do this all in-house. For instance, there’s a bridge that’s being repaired in Kamloops at the moment. The joints are going. All that work, including the design work of the joints, has been done in-house by ministry staff. So I’m very pleased to say that there is the expertise, and that expertise is building.

[5:55 p.m.]

We’ve got a very interesting program, which I don’t know whether the member is aware of, training young engineers. The young engineers, straight out of university, can participate in what’s known as the TELP program. They come in…. Really, it’s getting young people involved. It’s also getting almost a successorship. We have, like everywhere, an aging workforce. This is getting the young people in, working on the ground, sometimes doing project management, doing other areas. You get to see these people who are very engaged, can be living sometimes in different areas of the province and working in different areas of the province.

I think it’s a superb opportunity that the ministry offers. It really does deal with a problem that I think that all of government, so much of B.C. and I think much of the West is facing — that people are getting old and retiring, and how are we going to bring in our new skilled workers? That’s a great program that the ministry does, and you’ll see them out working on projects, too.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that, although I still will pursue the side-road kilometre objective. I wondered if there was some clarity there in terms of what those ministerial goals are.

Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. I was just getting told that I got it wrong. Engineer-in-training is the engineers, and the other is the technology entry level program. They’re both great programs. When I was getting the acronym explained to me again, I missed the member’s question. If the member would be so kind as to repeat his question. Apologies.

J. Sturdy: The question was the ministerial objective in terms of side-road rehabilitation or improvements on an annual basis. The objective has been 30 projects that amount to 500 kilometres a year. Is that objective still in place in terms of the total number of road kilometres that is the objective of improving each year?

Hon. C. Trevena: The previous government had a target of 30 in its transportation document. We are not going to be working on those sorts of targets. We’re working on an as-needs basis, because there are huge needs around the province, huge needs of our infrastructure. We’re working on up to 90 projects at the moment. To limit it to 30, I think, is problematic.

I think we need to be investing where we need to be investing, and that is not going to be limited to a specific number. We’ve got the budget level there, and we will use the available funds to do the work that is needed. If something needs to be put over to the following year because our budget has been expended for one year, we’ll do so, but we’re doing it very much on an as-needs basis.

I’m sure the member knows, as an MLA who represents a rural area like I do, there are a lot of areas that really need the roads improved and side roads improved, so that’s what we’re working on.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, I don’t believe that this was a limit of 30 projects a year. It was at least 30 projects a year, and it was 500 kilometres a year.

[6:00 p.m.]

Will the ministry be tracking that number? Will we be able to check back with her in the future and see each year how many kilometres of side roads are rehabilitated or upgraded, or will that target just not really be something that is a focus in the future?

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s always going to be possible to track how much has been done. We keep an eye on how we’re spending public money. That is part of good government.

The investment hasn’t changed. I think you can see from the budget figures that there is a slight decline, year to year, because that first year is carrying forward money that came from work that was supposed to be done, which we couldn’t do because of the forest fires. It really depends on how we do it. We don’t want to be prescriptive on how we do it.

We’re just getting into spring. It’s been a harsh winter in some areas and not a harsh winter in other areas. Some areas will need a certain amount of work. In other areas, can we leave it till next year? Because certain areas have had a really bad freeze-thaw cycle through the winter, are we going to be looking at a package of projects in one certain area? Or are we going to be looking at the whole, right across the province?

I think there are different things that we will be looking at. As I say, spring is starting in Victoria and on the southern coast. In much of B.C., it still feels like winter. So we’re still at the early stage of our cycle.

As to the member’s question of will he be able to track it, of course he’ll be able to track it, because as a responsible government, we track how we’re spending a public investment.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I think it’s fair to say that we will be back, so the minister might want to remember that we’ll be asking these same questions and looking for some of those deliverables.

I take it the member from Saanich North has a question germane to where we are right now.

A. Olsen: Just along the lines of the member’s question, Minister, I’m just wanting to know: how is it that the ministry prioritizes? You say it’s on as-needed basis. I can tell you that I’ve got a lot of examples of as-needed — needed months ago, years ago or even, in some cases, decades ago, if you listen to the people on the southern Gulf Islands, which I do.

I’m just wondering. How is it that the ministry is prioritizing, as we go on an as-needed basis, what roads get done now? I mean, our roads are clear, so we could start on those projects now, and then, maybe later in the year, get to the member from Fort St. John’s roads.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: thank you for the question. As somebody who also represents Island communities, I know the clamours and demands. I’ve seen the roads, I live the roads, and I drive the roads quite a lot. It’s always: “Why isn’t my road being done?” I’m sure the member…. I live on an island. “Why has this road not been fixed? Why has that road not been fixed?” You can feel it. Sometimes they feel like they’re in lousy condition.

However, we do have a ministry that is committed to trying to maintain its assets. There’s no point in letting it all fall apart, because rebuilding completely is going to cost everybody a lot of money. It is done on asset management.

There are a number of ways that roads are assessed. One is that ministry staff do get out and travel around. I know that in my own constituency, ministry staff come over to the islands regularly. They know the roads intimately. They know the roads in the region intimately. When you are saying, “X road has got 70 potholes,” they’ll say, “Yes, but Y road has X number of potholes, and this is a problem.” They know the roads very well.

In addition to the work by ministry staff, there is also a special vehicle that can drive along the roads and collect data. It just literally is a vehicle. That adds to the database for making decisions.

Part of it is that they’re looking at it to say whether it’s the level of potholes or it’s rough. Is there a sinkhole? Are we talking about a former logging road which is just starting to sink? What is the reason for it in making the decision? It’s also making the decision of what work needs doing. Do we need to pull up the whole road and rebuild it? Do we need to be just filling a couple of places where there are some potholes, knowing that the rest of the road will last a few more years, maybe five to eight more years, if you fill those potholes and make sure that you’re smoothing it out as much as possible?

You don’t want to, say, be necessarily tearing up a whole road when you can effectively patch it. I know that there are big questions about patching of roads. People are always unhappy. I myself, as a driver, am equally unhappy if somebody is getting onto…. Particularly when you’re in a rural community, it feels like you are being neglected. You’re sure that there are much better roads everywhere else.

[6:10 p.m.]

There is that sense, though — or rather, it’s the reality — that we have to be working to fix what we can, without having to tear up the whole road. It’s an example just given to me, and it seems to be a good one to keep in your head. If you’ve got a leak in your roof, you’re not necessarily going to replace the whole roof straight away. You’re going to fix the leak and replace the roof maybe three or four years down the road. It’s that sort of thing.

How we do it. How we prioritize. It is done by knowing what’s happening in the roads all over the province. It’s each region knowing what’s happening with the roads in their region, in their area, and knowing where the best place to be investing public funds is in their region. It does come down to a lot of local knowledge.

I’m sure you’ve talked to your ministry staff in your region. They really do know those roads. I know that my ministry staff…. I will talk to them about one road in a constituency as a constituency MLA, and they will know every piece of it and all the roads around it. They have a huge amount of knowledge. So they are using that, as well, in assessing — when we say an as-needs basis — where the needs are in their region before going ahead.

J. Sturdy: On the theme of rural roads, I think the next two questions we’ll do will go from Peace River South to Peace River North and continue on this theme for the next little bit.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the critic for allowing us some time. As the minister would know and as she commented, too, a big thanks, again, to the staff within the ministry.

The Ministry of Transportation is one of those interesting ones that I’m sure every MLA could stand up, as it really hits close to home, and could probably ask a hundred questions. But we’ll try to focus here a little bit. I’ve seen some of the answers that have been given. I know there’s a lot you can talk about, so I’ll try to focus it into one specific question.

I want to thank my colleague, also, in Peace River North, who’s going to ask a question. As the minister can appreciate, the issues that I face in Peace River South are not unique. In my area and Peace River North, the entire Peace region, whether it’s rural roads, the industry roads…. Both ridings share the same networks and the same issues.

I have about 5,000 kilometres, I believe, of rural, dirt road. I say dirt because over the last 40 years, there’s not a lot of gravel. We’ve been doing the best we can. I realize that. It’s good to hear that there’s a commitment, and we want to see that continue.

My main focus that I want to talk about is the Alaska Highway again. Last fall, I asked the minister about South Taylor Hill. I again want to thank her for the commitment she made at that time. It looks like — within this calendar year was the commitment — we might be moving to, hopefully, a tendering process, or at least costing on it, to move forward. So I won’t ask specifically on that. She’ll let me know, maybe at a later date, if that’s changed from her talk last year.

Yesterday was a real eye-opener for me. As I was driving to the airport in Fort St. John, I witnessed a head-on collision between a pickup truck and a semi on the Alaska Highway, just about half a kilometre away from the South Taylor Hill, which was a fatality.

It’s our fourth fatality in my region in the last eight weeks on our highways. Every single one of them has been somebody under the age of 25. You can appreciate this has been very difficult for my region. When I hear of a second fatality in Vancouver, my heart goes out to that family. I’m dealing with four of them, four youth, in the last eight weeks in our region.

We could debate the merits of the issues of each accident, which we’re not going to. But on most of these, I can say it’s that commitment that we need to see around the four-laning of the Alaska Highway. The amount of traffic, with every second vehicle being either a rig truck or a semi…. These accidents shouldn’t happen, but they are. They’re going to continue happening without the investment.

I asked the minister last fall, and the discussion was made that “yes, we will continue looking at this.”

[6:15 p.m.]

What I’m wanting to ask…. My specific question is: where is the focus, right now, on the continuing four-laning that the government talked about years ago and that we’ve seen progress on from the Alberta border to and through Fort St. John, because of the activity?

I’ve yet to hear in this budget or the plan going forward where that next stretch is going to take place. I know the minister will stand up and say that these fatalities are unfortunate and should never happen. I appreciate that you would do that. But where are we looking at the next stretch to try to make sure that we can try to avoid this?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: you’re quite right. It’s just horrible to think that four young people have died on the highways in such a short time. Any length of time is just horrible. I’m sure there are investigations into the cause of the crash, but it doesn’t make it any better for the families, friends and the community. So my thoughts go out to you and the community for that, for their loss.

My answer is obviously going to seem inadequate. Because when you are talking about the loss of life and to come back and say, “Well, we’re doing the business case study of a road….”

That’s what we’re doing. We’re on planning and looking at the planning — how we can work on stretches of the highway to see what we can do, both conceptually and to work out that business case. As the member knows, there is always a business case on a ratio of the cost and the benefits and everything else. I don’t want to put that against human life. I think that everybody is aware what should come first.

To assure the member, we are completing design on the South Taylor Hill as well, so that’s still underway. On the rest, we are looking at concepts and what we can do and working on business cases.

D. Davies: Thank you to the minister, as well, and all the ministry staff for the work that you are doing.

My question, I guess, is a bit of a continuation of my colleague from Peace River South. Of course, we do share lots of commonalities. The roads — a lot of the similar issues — are roads designed many, many years ago for lighter trucks, horse and wagon, and now we have much heavier vehicles that are impacting them. But I’m going to talk about that in my second question, if we get to it today.

My question that I’m going to ask about is, of course, the Taylor Bridge, which is certainly on the minds of everybody in my riding as well as my colleague from Peace River South. I want to thank him as well for also advocating for the bridge. Half of it is in Peace River South.

Looking at the entire Peace Valley corridor — as one of our good friends, the mayor of Taylor, Rob Fraser, often talks about — we have the South Taylor Hill. We’ve got the Taylor Bridge. We’ve got four-laning through the community of Taylor, the district of Taylor. And then we’ve got the North Taylor Hill. All of these, over the next number of years, are going to be becoming large pieces to be looked at and to be brought up to current standards.

But very specifically, the Taylor Bridge — of course, it’s in excess of 700 metres in length. It was built in the ’60s. There was a review done on this bridge — I think it was in 2015 — which basically puts the bridge at end of life, very close to end of life. I know that the ministry is aware of that and looking at a new study that I believe has just been completed on it.

My biggest question is on where the bridge is regarding the ten-year capital plan, if there is a commitment from the ministry to look at this bridge that has in excess of 5,000 people a day commuting back and forth — a major artery to our neighbours in the Yukon, Alaska, as well as all the northern communities that rely on this bridge to move goods and services and general people. So just wondering where the commitment is, where we’re looking at in regards to having this bridge on the capital plan.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll be very quick, because I’m noting the hour. The member will be pleased to know that their reports show that the bridge is in good condition. It’s got about 25 years of life left. The deck needs work. We’re doing work to see how that can be fixed, and hopefully have results from that by the end of summer. It is a commitment. We are very cognizant of that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (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 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.