Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 95
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. H. Bains: It is my honour and a privilege, actually, to stand up here to introduce good friends of this House and good friends of mine. Unifor B.C. provincial and local leadership is here today, led by Gavin McGarrigle, their B.C. area director, and Joie Warnock, western regional director.
This union represents workers in all sectors and all walks of life. They are, day in and day out, helping all workers to improve their quality of life. Once again, they are here to lobby us. What else? To improve workers’ lives on behalf of all workers in British Columbia. They are here to lobby us to improve workers’ health and safety and improve their working conditions.
I would ask all of you to please give them a good time. Listen. This is how we make this province a better place — when everyone is working together. They are here for us to change the laws, if necessary, to draft policies. At the end of the day, we are about the people that they represent. We are about British Columbians.
Please help me welcome all of those who are here to lobby and thank them for doing such fantastic work to continue to improve the lives of British Columbians.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House today Graeme Roberts and his wife, Kathryn Amisson. Mr. Roberts is the chair of the board of directors for the Vehicle Sales Authority of British Columbia. Mr. Roberts will be completing his maximum terms on the board at the end of this month. He was first appointed to the board as a director in 2009 and elected as board chair in 2010.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Roberts for his significant contributions to the Vehicle Sales Authority and his efforts to promote consumer protection and professionalism in the motor vehicle sales industry in British Columbia. On a personal note, he and I share a common interest. That is, besides the Vancouver Whitecaps, he also supports the world’s greatest soccer team, which is Liverpool FC.
Would the House please join me in welcoming Graeme Roberts and Kathryn, his wife, to the House and thank them for a job well done.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a remarkable group of young individuals who I had the distinct pleasure of meeting last Friday in my constituency office, a group representing Trans Tipping Point who are up there in the gallery. They are joined by Glynne Evans, honorary grandmother for the group, I understand, as well as their teacher, Lindsay. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
N. Simons: It gives me a certain degree of pleasure to introduce my friend and constituent, the chair of the political action committee for Unifor and the president of Local 1119. Don Rheaume is in the House, and I ask my colleagues here to welcome him.
R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege to recognize Harb Kular, who is a constituent of mine. He’s here with Unifor, but he’s also a great community advocate, always willing to help people in our community. He’s often bringing cases to my office to help other people. I want to recognize and welcome him to the House here today.
Hon. C. James: It’s been a very busy couple of weeks for the best high school in my riding. Once again, I am pleased to welcome Victoria High School to the Legislature. Sara Reside is the teacher with 23 grade 10 students.
On behalf of the Premier, I would also like to welcome two groups who are coming from Journey Middle School, both with teacher Liz Stannard. One has 37 grade 6s, and the other has 15 grade 6s coming as well.
Would the House please make all of these students very welcome.
T. Redies: Later today we have a group of grade 10 kids coming from Elgin secondary school in South Surrey. I hope the House can make them all welcome, and their teacher, Chris Ellett, welcome. Elgin is one of the top schools in the province, and I’m just delighted that they’re going to be visiting with us today.
R. Leonard: Today is the second day that I have the honour of introducing another constituent from Courtenay-Comox: Ed Lafleur, also with Unifor, a transit worker who works tirelessly on behalf of this community and on issues of health and safety. It’s my pleasure to introduce him to the House. Please make him feel welcome.
Hon. R. Fleming: I just want to echo the introduction by the leader of the Third Party and introduce the six youth we have here from the Trans Tipping Point Project, which represents 25 transgendered youth from every part of the province, including the Island and rural and urban school settings.
This group of remarkable young people is working with MLAs from all parties in the House. The Minister of Children and Family Development tells me that, having met with them last week, it was the best presentation she’s ever had from a visiting delegation. So adults, take note.
I’m certainly looking forward to meeting with them after question period. They’re writing a book right now on what it’s like to be a transgendered youth, which will be released in December 2018.
As my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned, Glen Evans is here with them, who acts as a grandma or mentor for this organization. But I’d like to introduce the students to the House now. We have Avery Williams, Danny Charles, Grayson Threlfall, Astrid Neilson-Miller, Alex Bradley and John Fitzsimmons. With them are a group of adults, including Dr. Lindsay Herriot; Rachel Calder; Mr. and Mrs. Fitzsimmons, John’s mother and father; and Emily Bennett.
Would the House once again make this delegation, this group of young people and their guardians, most welcome here in the House today.
B. Ma: I, too, would like to welcome our Unifor guests today and, in particular, acknowledge Unifor 111, which represents bus drivers in Metro Vancouver.
I’ve been travelling on public transit all my life. I remember my grandmother handing out quarters to all of her grandchildren and shuttling us all into the bus to head down to Chinatown together.
In fact, when I was 12 years old, I decided to take my eight-year-old sister down to Stanley Park on the bus on our own. We stayed out way too late and probably would have sat in the park long after dark waiting for a bus that was no longer running had a bus driver, just finishing his shift, not noticed us and taken us safely back to Vancouver Eastside where we lived. I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for those who keep our world-class public transportation system running.
Unifor 111 is led today by President Steve Sutherland and Vice-President Harb Kular. I’d also like to acknowledge Raj Janjua, who is a constituent of mine. Would the House please join me in thanking these bus drivers and making them feel very welcome.
J. Rice: What do you get when a law student walks into a fish plant in Prince Rupert in 1974? Out comes union leader Joy Thorkelson. Forty years later Joy is a tireless advocate for the poor, for workers’ rights, for shoreworkers and for the fishing industry in British Columbia.
Joy is a Prince Rupert city councillor and sits on the library board. She’s also instrumental in keeping the Unemployment Action Centre going in our hometown, which is an invaluable advocacy service. She is the new president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union–Unifor. I would like the House to please make her feel welcome. She’s a very special person.
Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to also welcome Krista Lee Munro from Unifor for being here today. She was very active in my community of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I know that the buses get our communities moving along, and that the infamous No. 20…. Thank you for your leadership, Unifor.
Also in the House — I’d like to echo the welcome from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill — is my sister-in-law, Sara Reside. Members might know that I got married on January 18 to Cassidy Kannemeyer. His sister’s here — she is now my sister — with her grade 10 class for social studies.
Will the House please join me in welcoming this delegation.
S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to wish a very, very happy birthday to the Minister of Housing, who is busy talking right now. It is her birthday, and I hope you can tell her when she is more attuned to birthday time.
Happy birthday, Minister.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT
ACT, 2018
Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, be introduced and read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Dix: The Community Care and Assisted Living Act regulates the licensing of community care facilities, both residential and child care, and the registration of assisted-living residences.
Currently there is no ability under the act to share with the public and post on line information about persons operating a community care facility, including child care, without a licence, in contravention of the statute, and assisted-living residences without a registration. There is also inconsistency in the type and level of information posted about licensed community care and assisted-living facilities.
The proposed legislation would amend the act to require the posting of information on line about community care facilities and assisted-living residences, including persons operating without a licence or registration, in contravention of the act.
The information will have to be posted on the websites of the health authorities with respect to community care facilities and on the website of the Ministry of Health with respect to assisted-living residences. This includes the following information: operator’s name, business name, address and summary report of inspections and investigations.
By increasing transparency and providing the public with access to more information, this legislation will assist families looking for care to make informed choices, discourage persons operating in violation of the act and better protect the health and safety of children and vulnerable adults in care.
I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 5, Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 8 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2018
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2018.
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 8 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first two months of the ’18-19 fiscal year while the House completes debate of appropriations presented in the 2018-19 estimates.
Bill 8 also provides interim supply for a portion of government financing requirements for the ’18-19 fiscal year, including one-third of the year’s capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements, and the full amount of the year’s disbursements for revenue collected on behalf of, and transferred to, specific programs and entities.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 8 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CEREBROSPINAL FLUID LEAK AWARENESS
M. Stilwell: Purple is my new favourite colour. When the sun sets tonight, the Legislature will be illuminated in purple in recognition of the Spinal CSF Leak Foundation’s second annual Spinal CSF Leak Awareness Week.
A cerebrospinal fluid leak is an invisible condition, often underdiagnosed, that causes a constant, disabling headache along with other neurological symptoms and complications. Cerebrospinal fluid, CSF, is a fluid that bathes and supports the brain and spinal cord. When the tough layer, called the dura mater, that holds this special fluid in and around the brain and spinal cord has a hole or a tear, it results in leaking of CSF fluid. More common than not, someone who has a CSF leak doesn’t even know it, or is misdiagnosed, and they spend years with unnecessary, debilitating pain.
This condition is treatable with proper diagnosis. The most common symptom is headache, which is often much worse after minutes of being upright, but sadly, many patients can be bedridden. Symptoms can also include ringing of the ears, vision disturbances, nausea, eye pain, neck pain, back pain, brain fog, fatigue. The list goes on.
A tear or a hole can happen to anyone at any time, although it’s more common in women. It can be out of the blue, especially if you have a weak or abnormal dura. Spurs along the spine can slice the dura mater. Medical procedures like a labour epidural, a spinal tap or spinal surgery, along with a laundry list of other types of injuries, can be responsible for a tear. In my case, I sneezed. But I’m one of the lucky ones. I was diagnosed and diagnosed early.
The goal of leak week is to raise awareness so that more patients might be correctly diagnosed and treated. I hope that all members will join me this week to help raise the awareness on social media, through conversations with friends and family and by wearing their wristbands.
Greenhill Park FREIGHTER
EXPLOSION AND
MEMORIAL
S. Chandra Herbert: Seventy-three years ago, on March 6, 1945, a merchant freighter, the Greenhill Park, exploded on the Vancouver waterfront. It was loading a mix of cargo that contained volatile sodium chlorate, signal flares and overproof whiskey. Four explosions tore through the vessel. Witnesses saw men blown 75 feet in the air. Unfortunately, six longshoremen and two seamen were killed, and 26 other workers were injured, including seven firemen.
The shock wave that rumbled through downtown Vancouver shattered thousands of windows, and debris rained onto the city. Within minutes, tugboats were on their way, as was the Vancouver fire department. Fearing more explosions, the Greenhill Park was towed out of the harbour under the Lions Gate Bridge and eventually beached itself near English Bay.
Lax shiploading, poor port management practices and a general lack of safety measures were found to be at the root of the disaster. The longshore workers and their unions, the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union and the Canadian Seaman’s Union, called for change.
This morning the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre and the Vancouver Longshore Pensioners organization dedicated a new interpretive panel in Coal Harbour along the promenade at Vancouver Convention Centre West in my riding. It reminds us to be ever vigilant for safe working conditions and a port that makes safe shipping and environmental practices a real priority. The new panel is one of over 60 along the outside and inside of the convention centre, and it’s a place for us to remember how important workers and their contributions are to our society.
Please join me in congratulating the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre, the Vancouver Longshore Pensioners and our Vancouver Convention Centre for making this a priority.
LENA JOHNSTON
G. Kyllo: I’m extremely proud to stand today and recognize a dynamic young lady in my riding of Shuswap who is celebrating a very special day today.
Ms. Lena Johnston has achieved a number of milestones that only continue to increase in both significance and stature with each passing year. You see, today, March 6, marks the 109th birthday of my dear friend Lena Johnston. Yes, you heard me correctly, Members. Lena is 109 years young today, and I want to wish her a very happy birthday on behalf of all members of the Legislature.
Lena Brooks Johnston was born on March 6, 1909 in Glen Ewan, Saskatchewan. As the oldest of 14 children, Lena worked hard helping her mom run the family home and had fond memories of helping her grandfather deliver the mail by horse and wagon and occasionally helping her aunt operate the community telephone switchboard.
Lena met and married Johnny Johnston in 1932. Being no stranger to hard work, she soon learned how to drive a team of horses and to help with work on the family farm. By 1937, it was time to move west in search of milder winters, purchasing a farm in Notch Hill, a small community just west of Salmon Arm.
Lena shared with me how they leased a rail car and loaded all of their worldly goods — including furniture, equipment, a Bennett buggy, four horses, a cow and a calf and crates of chickens and turkeys — and how she and husband Johnny and four-year-old Roy rode in the boxcar along with all their possessions. They travelled during the heat of the summer, arriving two days later in Notch Hill to start a new life in B.C.
Lena continued to live on the family homestead for 77 years before moving to Arbor Lodge in Salmon Arm just five years ago. Lena’s son, Roy, continues to live on the family farm to this day. Lena told me that she’s happy at Arbor Lodge. “Christina and all the staff treat us well and feed us good.”
When asked, as she is by many, “What is your secret to such a long life?” Lena was quick to say: “Hard work.” She then mused: “Greg, the true secret is to keep waking up every morning.”
Lena, you are truly an inspiration to us all, and I look forward to celebrating your 110th birthday with you next year.
GRAEME ROBERTS
L. Krog: In October 2017, the New Car Dealers of British Columbia honoured Graeme Roberts with their Lifetime Achievement Award, given out previously to only three people: Marnie Carter, the famous Jimmy Pattison and the late, great Tom Harris.
He was born in 1931 in Victoria, and I want to fill in a little between those events. He completed his education in the U.K. He served in management capacities for major automobile dealerships in Toronto and Vancouver and is a retired automobile dealer himself, having developed and owned two successful new-car dealerships, Toyota and Honda Nanaimo.
He is the former mayor of Nanaimo, and he served seven years as the chair of the B.C. Public Service Commission. He was a charter member of the board of directors of B.C. Ferry Corporation, past president of the B.C. Motor Dealers Association, past district governor at Gyro International, 20 years as a member of the board of directors of Jimmy Pattison’s Air B.C., subsequently Air Canada Jazz. He served for a number of years as the lay bench with the Law Society of British Columbia. Is everyone getting the picture here?
He currently serves as chair of the board of the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority of B.C. and, recently, vice-chair of the Victoria Airport Authority. Since 1988, he’s been a dedicated and enthusiastic supporter of amateur sports in British Columbia. In this role, he has attended 38 communities — 60 games throughout the province — that have hosted the B.C. Summer and Winter Games, Northern Games, Seniors Games and B.C. Games for the Disabled. For his efforts, time and commitment, he was named as the honorary member of the board of directors of the B.C. Games Society.
Pleasantly settled now in beautiful Brentwood Bay with his exceptional artist wife, Kathryn Amisson, he demonstrates to all of us what it is to be an incredibly devoted, community-minded person — successful in business, successful in his private life, successful in his public life.
You can’t sing For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow in this place, but he is a jolly good fellow. He is, as I have titled these remarks, a gentleman of the old school and citizen extraordinaire. Let us raise our hands to Graeme Roberts of British Columbia, who is here with us today.
B.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS
WINTER GAMES
ATHLETES
S. Bond: I was honoured to be invited to attend the Special Olympics region 8 snowshoeing qualifiers on February 25 at the Otway Nordic Ski Centre in Prince George. This event represents one more step in the process of qualifications for the 2019 Special Olympics Winter Games that will be held next year in greater Vernon.
What a day it was. The weather, while chilly, was a perfect sunny winter Sunday. We are so grateful for the team at Otway, who helped set up and host the competition.
Dozens of athletes from across region 8 participated in a variety of distances. These included the 100-, 200- and 1,600-metre and 5K races. Picture this: incredible athletes wearing snowshoes and running as fast as they can for up to five kilometres. It was impressive and inspiring.
One of the athletes who competed was Tegan Raines. Tegan is a Special Olympian who competes not only in snowshoeing but also in basketball and rhythmic gymnastics. She is a strong, independent and determined young woman. I was so proud of her efforts, and Bill and I very were excited to cheer her on. She had some excellent outcomes that demonstrated that her hard work and practice paid off. I’m also very proud that Tegan works in our constituency office and is an important part of our team.
What impressed us most that afternoon was the way that athletes cheered for one another and genuinely celebrated the accomplishments of each person that competed. One athlete told me: “Winning is nice, but what really matters is that we cheer for each other.”
Thank you to the coaches, volunteers, parents, guardians, caregivers and friends who support these very special athletes. I was thrilled to be able to present many ribbons and celebrate outstanding efforts, but I was most moved by the spirit of comradery and team that highlighted the entire day.
Thank you, region 8. You are all winners in my mind.
CANADIAN ATHLETES AT
PARALYMPICS IN
PYEONGCHANG
R. Kahlon: In two days from now, our Canadian athletes will be representing Canada at the Paralympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Canada is sending a record 55 athletes to the games. The team will be led by chef de mission Todd Nicholson, a three-time Paralympic medallist in para–ice hockey. In addition, 16 coaches and 26 sports staff will be joining the athletes.
B.C. athletes include: in para-alpine, Braden Luscombe from Duncan, Mel Pemble from Victoria, Molly Jepsen from West Vancouver; in para–ice hockey, James Gemmell from Quesnel; in para-Nordic, Ethan Hess from Pemberton, Natalie Wilkie from Salmon Arm, Emily Young from North Vancouver; in wheelchair curling, Ina Forrest from Armstrong; in para-snowboarding, Curt Minard from Vernon.
I recently read an article about Curt. I was so moved by his story and his perspective. On September 13, 2008, Curt was involved in an electrical accident while working in Invermere, B.C., and as a result, he lost his left hand at the wrist. He severely hurt his right hand and sustained many other life-threatening injuries.
After 12 major surgeries, Curt had to undergo extensive rehabilitation therapy and learn how to use his prosthetic hand. In 2012, he decided to take sport to another level. He says: “That’s where I decided to beat disability, to beat the stigma that I had about myself that I couldn’t achieve anything.”
I hope everyone takes some time out to watch Curt overcome such adversity and to cheer on all our Olympic athletes.
Oral Questions
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON MUNICIPAL
BUDGETS
J. Johal: There’s no doubt all British Columbians will pay for the new employer health tax. The NDP is not eliminating the MSP. They’re just replacing it with an even bigger tax. The new tax burden on municipalities will mean higher property taxes across the province. For the residents of Richmond, the estimated tax bill is over $2½ million.
Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs think it’s fair to force residents of Richmond and across the province to pay higher property taxes?
Hon. C. James: Perhaps the member was looking at the record on that side of the House where they doubled MSP premiums for businesses and for individuals in British Columbia.
I will say again that, in fact, we have reduced MSP premiums by 50 percent as of January this year. That will be a savings to businesses, to individuals, to groups and to organizations of $1.3 billion. And MSP premiums will be eliminated January 1, 2020.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: The Premier told British Columbians during the election campaign that the only taxes he would increase were contained in the NDP platform. But an unexpected $2.5 million is what the new tax will cost the residents of Richmond to replace the MSP.
Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will all British Columbians have to pay more in property taxes as a result of this broken promise?
Hon. C. James: I think the member, conveniently, is leaving out the fact that in eliminating MSP premiums, we are eliminating $5 billion in taxes. That is a cut in British Columbia for families and businesses.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.
J. Johal: We’ve been asking about the impacts of the employer health tax on family-owned businesses, charities and school boards for the last couple of weeks. The Finance Minister and the Premier have not given us any specifics in regards to this tax. Instead, the minister trots out the same tired lines or laughs or brushes off questions.
The question to the minister, again: will every British Columbian pay more in property taxes because of this new NDP tax, yes or no?
Hon. C. James: I know it’s hard for the members on the other side to listen to the facts, but I’ll repeat them again. We are going to eliminate MSP premiums January 1, 2020. There are savings of 50 percent this January that will be a $1.3 billion savings for businesses, for municipalities, for school districts and for individuals. That’s a savings that they are going to see. We are bringing in an employers health tax that 85 percent of small businesses will not pay.
S. Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has surely analyzed the impact of the employer health tax on the city of Vancouver.
My question is: how much more will homeowners in Vancouver have to pay in property tax as a result of the employer health tax?
Hon. C. James: I will say to the member again that I’m certain those municipalities are also taking a look at the savings of eliminating MSP premiums by January 1, 2020. I’m sure they’ll be taking that into account.
Mr. Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.
S. Sullivan: To that non-answer, let me see if I can help the minister. This year the city of Vancouver is paying $2.5 million in MSP premiums. The cost of the health tax for 2020 will be $13.1 million net of MSP premium savings.
My question again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: what is her answer to my constituents who will have to pay higher property taxes?
Hon. C. James: I would remind the member that, in fact, the citizens of Vancouver will benefit by $900 per year as individuals and $1,800 per year by the elimination of MSP premiums.
I would also remind the member that one of the biggest issues facing families in Vancouver is the issue of affordable housing. We have brought forward a 30-point plan. We are investing in housing in a way that has not occurred in this province for the last 16 years, and that will certainly help the people who live in the city of Vancouver.
EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AND
ROLE OF MSP TASK
FORCE
A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance why her government forged ahead with the employers health tax without waiting just a few more weeks for the final report to come in from her MSP Task Force. In response, the minister assured us that she took the task force interim report into account when making her decision.
Okay. Let’s take a look and see what the task force actually said in this interim report. They said this. “We are leaning towards a combination of a personal income tax surcharge, a small payroll tax” and additional ideas as the best way to replace the revenue. Instead, this government went in the exact opposite direction, putting the entire burden on employers through this payroll tax.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Given that the expert task force recommended against exactly what you’ve chosen to do with the employers health tax, how do you justify this decision?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for his question.
We did receive the interim report. We felt it was important to move ahead on the elimination of medical service premiums on behalf of British Columbians. Leaving the regressive tax in place did not make sense, and we were able to manage it in this budget.
We had increased personal income tax for the top 2 percent of income earners in September’s budget. I’m not sure what the member is asking, whether he’s committed to increasing personal income taxes. But we felt that because we’d already made the decision around the top 2 percent of income earners, this was a balanced approach.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Well, to enlighten the minister, what I’m asking is: why do you have a task force to do something if you’re not going to listen to what they’re doing and actually make decisions before they’ve done what they said they’re going to do?
In fact, the MSP Task Force had more to say. On the payroll tax, which is the direction this government has chosen to go, they said this: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.” This concern about business competitiveness is precisely why the task force was leaning towards a combination of measures to make up the revenues, not just by a payroll tax. They specifically stated this: “We feel that it is important that revenue be replaced by a combination of measures in order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.”
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Did the minister either (a) read the MSP Task Force interim report but choose to ignore its key recommendations or (b) render her decision to implement the employers health tax prior to the interim report actually being available? It has to be one. Is it (a) or (b)?
Hon. C. James: As I already said to the member, we received the interim report. We are ultimately accountable as government. It is our job to receive the report, make a decision based on the information that was there. We received the interim report. We made our decision. We believe it’s a balanced approach, as I said.
The member may have a difference of opinion. The member may be interested in looking at personal income tax, and that’s the member’s prerogative. We made a decision as government.
I would also remind the member that if we are looking at competitiveness when it comes to businesses here in British Columbia, two of the key issues that businesses have been calling for action on, over and over again, are the issue of child care and the issue of housing. We moved on both of those to address competitiveness and recruitment and retention of employees in British Columbia.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON MUNICIPAL
BUDGETS
J. Isaacs: The NDP employer health tax means a net increase of $600,000 per year for the city of Coquitlam to replace the MSP. In 2019, the city will pay both MSP and the employer health tax, which will cost the city an additional $1.1 million.
Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain why the residents of Coquitlam will have to pay more in property taxes to replace the MSP?
Hon. C. James: I would just remind the member again that they will be saving in this year because of a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums. That’s a saving for municipalities. That’s a saving for individuals. They will be saving the MSP costs in 2020 as well.
Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.
J. Isaacs: This new tax was unexpected and never mentioned by the NDP during the election. In fact, the Premier claimed that there would be no surprise tax increases. But to cover the cost of the new employer health tax, the city of Coquitlam will need to increase property taxes.
Why are Coquitlam residents being made to pay higher property taxes for this broken promise?
Hon. C. James: I will remind the member that the citizens of Coquitlam will be saving in MSP costs — $900 as individuals and $1,800 a year as families. That’s a huge cost. That is a huge affordability savings for those families. Those are dollars that will be circulated in our economy, that will be spent in small businesses and that will support continued growth in British Columbia.
P. Milobar: I think it’s apparent what the Minister of Finance got the Municipal Affairs Minister for a birthday present today — the ability not to have to answer a question.
Once the MSP premiums are fully replaced in 2020, the NDP payroll tax will leave the city of Kamloops with an annual net tax increase of $700,000 a year, a cost the city will be forced to pass on to property owners through increased property taxes.
To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: do you think forcing higher property taxes on Kamloops to replace the MSP is fair, yes or no?
Hon. C. James: What’s fair is making sure we’re getting rid of the most regressive tax left in this country here in British Columbia. What is fair is bringing in an employers health tax that is the lowest employers health tax rate in this country, compared to other provinces. What is fair is ensuring that small businesses are protected. If they have a payroll below $500,000, they do not pay the employers health tax.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: I’d like to make this really clear for the minister, because 100,000 people in Kamloops realize what this means. As a result of the employer health tax, the city of Kamloops will be stuck with an additional $700,000 tax burden every single year — $700,000 more than what the city currently pays for MSP, every year. This is a forced tax increase and another broken NDP promise.
Why do Kamloopsians have to pay higher property taxes as a result of this broken NDP promise?
Hon. C. James: Perhaps the member hasn’t taken a look at the additional investments that are in the budget that will benefit people in Kamloops and people around this province.
Let’s take a look at that: $1 billion over three years to support a universal child care system in British Columbia; a 30-point plan for housing — a comprehensive housing plan that will close loopholes and fight real estate speculation, that brings in support for affordable housing units around this province, including the Kamloops area; and $548 million over three years to improve seniors care. I could go on and on and on.
S. Cadieux: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost the city of Surrey an additional $3.3 million annually to replace, not eliminate, the MSP. So $3.3 million has to be downloaded on to families through increased property taxes.
Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs please explain to the residents of Surrey why they should pay the NDP’s new tax grab through higher property taxes?
Hon. C. James: I’m certain the people in Surrey were cheering when we removed tolls off the bridge. I’m certain the most recent announcement about the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge was also a success when it comes to the city of Surrey.
We are eliminating the MSP. We are bringing in an employers health tax. We are protecting health care and investing in health care and other programs and supports for the citizens of Surrey and the rest of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Well, this new tax comes despite the Premier’s statement that the only taxes he would increase were in the NDP platform. In 2019, the NDP’s double-dipping of both MSP and the health tax will cost Surrey families $4.7 million.
Why do people in Surrey have to pay higher property taxes because the government couldn’t keep a promise?
Hon. C. James: The people in Surrey, the municipality of Surrey and the businesses of Surrey that have been paying MSP are saving 50 percent in 2018-2019. They will be saving all of MSP costs in 2020. Businesses, again, who make a payroll of under $500,000 will not be paying the employers health tax.
M. Hunt: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost the city of Maple Ridge an extra $700,000 annually. The MSP is actually being replaced with a new, higher tax. I’m sorry. It is not a wash.
To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is it fair that the residents of Maple Ridge will have to pay higher property taxes to replace the MSP?
Hon. C. James: What was not fair to the residents of Maple Ridge was having no child care program in British Columbia. What was not fair to the members in the community of Maple Ridge was the lack of support for education in this province by the other side. We are going to continue to make investments that make a difference for the people in British Columbia, as we have done in this budget.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.
M. Hunt: The issue here is property taxes, and the employer health tax means higher property taxes in Maple Ridge. The NDP never told British Columbians that they would be forcing municipalities to increase property taxes, and the two NDP members for Maple Ridge have been totally silent on these facts.
Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, should the residents of Maple Ridge have to pay higher property taxes to replace this broken promise?
Hon. C. James: I’m sure the municipalities, as the school districts are, are taking a look at the 50 percent savings that they have this year for not paying MSP to determine what they will be doing with those resources.
As we are implementing this in 2019, we are continuing our conversations with school districts and with municipalities. As I said, we are ensuring that families will be able to have huge savings when it comes to 2020 and the elimination of MSP.
M. Polak: Next year the city of Langley is going to pay an additional $236,000 in the employer health tax. This will be on top of the $55,000 the city is already paying in MSP premiums.
To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is it fair to force Langley families to have to replace the MSP with their higher property taxes?
Hon. C. James: Again, I will remind the member that Langley families will be benefiting from Budget 2018. Langley families will be seeing support in the reduction of MSP premiums that happened January 1 by 50 percent. That’s a support for Langley families.
I certainly know that…. I’m sure the member has noticed the support for education for Langley families that came in the 2018 budget. We will continue those investments. We will continue to support families in our province.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: The net increase to the city of Langley is an additional $236,000. That is despite the fact that the Premier promised that the only taxes he planned to raise were those that were contained in the NDP platform.
The question is simple. Should Langley families have to bear the property tax brunt of this government not being able to keep its promise?
Hon. C. James: Once again, we are bringing in an employer health tax, the lowest employer health tax rate in this country when you take a look at the other provinces that have implemented this. We are the last province left with a regressive MSP tax, and we are getting rid of it, unlike the other side, who in fact doubled it over the time period — doubled it for school districts, doubled it for municipalities. We, in fact, are going to eliminate the MSP tax as of January 1, 2020.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON HEALTH
AUTHORITIES
N. Letnick: It’s not just family businesses, school boards and non-profits impacted by the new NDP employer health tax. Interior Health expects a $3.3 million shortfall, ongoing, after 2020.
My question is to the Minister of Health. Is there $3.3 million in his budget for Interior Health’s annual shortfall, yes or no?
Hon. C. James: As I’ve said, our discussions are going on with school districts, municipalities and health authorities about the transition. We set the implementation date a year away to ensure a smooth transition for all employers. We are continuing to have those conversations, and I am again reminding the member that health authorities as well as other organizations will be saving with the elimination of the MSP premiums. They will be saving 50 percent this year, and in two years — complete elimination.
Mr. Speaker: Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.
N. Letnick: I understand that the savings for one year is occurring. However, the $3.3 million shortfall is an ongoing shortfall year after year after year.
My question is quite simple, and it’s to the Minister of Health. Is there money in the budget to make up this $3.3 million annual shortfall?
Hon. C. James: I’m happy to continue to get up to answer questions in this Legislature. I am happy to talk about Budget ’18, a budget that makes a difference for people in British Columbia, and I can continue to respond with questions that come forward.
I would be very proud to talk about all of the investments we are making in the area of health care which, again, will support seniors and families and low-income individuals — PharmaCare support, seniors support, home care support. The list is endless. We are providing more resources to health authorities to support health care in British Columbia.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS
G. Kyllo: The impact of the new NDP employer health tax on Okanagan College is estimated to be approximately $889,000.
My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: is there $889,000 in your budget to cover the shortfall for Okanagan College, yes or no?
Hon. C. James: I haven’t had a chance to talk about the investments we’re making in post-secondary, so I thank the member for that opportunity. I thank the member for the opportunity to talk about the fact that year after year, as I sat on the Finance Committee in opposition, one of the requests that came forward was to provide support for universities and colleges to build affordable housing for students. The other side, when they were government, refused to allow that.
In this Budget 2018, we’re allowing affordable housing to be built by universities and colleges. And that’s not to mention the investments we are making in increasing engineering spaces across this province to ensure that employers have the support they need, as well as investments we are making for former youth in care to be able to attend universities and college tuition-free — a smart investment, a caring investment and an investment I’m very proud of.
BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS
A. Wilkinson: After a series of dubious budgets, this Legislature passed, in 2001, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This provided that our government must function under generally accepted accounting principles, now called international financial reporting standards.
Revenue projections are generally taken to be reliable in our budgets because they’re produced by finance officials underneath IFRS. Those are provided to the Finance Minister, who provides the credibility for those numbers to financial markets.
This is critically important for British Columbia’s credibility, and it’s one of the reasons why both the Attorney General and the Finance Minister face a higher level of scrutiny in the answering of questions in this chamber.
Over the past two weeks, it’s been rather disturbing to see the Finance Minister dismiss, evade and completely ignore questions on fundamental issues in her ministry. If we look at page 18 of the budget, the 2018 total this fiscal year for MSP premiums and the employer health tax is $1.824 billion. The 2019 total is $2.883 billion. This is an increase — a clear increase, irrefutable — of $1.059 billion.
To the Finance Minister, is that correct?
Hon. C. James: I find it incredible, coming from the Leader of the Opposition — when we take a look at the challenges that we are stuck with when it comes to ICBC — that the member across the way, the Leader of the Opposition, would talk about ensuring that there was transparency. What transparency was there when the prediction of an amount of money at ICBC ended up with a $1.3 billion hole that we are stuck with in our budget?
The Leader of the Opposition quotes the numbers from the budget. There is complete transparency. Those numbers are in the budget. We are ensuring that resources are coming in to protect health care, to eliminate MSP premiums and to support the people of this province.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Credibility takes a long time to build and is easily destroyed.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, quiet is good when someone has the floor.
A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Finance signed off on the financial statements at the end of the second quarter, in November of this year, which certified, according to her, according to the Finance Minister, a $300 million deficit at ICBC. Now we find a Finance Minister who’s not willing to acknowledge — to the world’s financial markets, to the businesses in British Columbia, to the people who are watching her behaviour — that she’s actually increasing the cost of MSP premiums and the employers health tax by $1.059 billion in the next fiscal year.
Will the minister tell this House the truth about what’s happening with these premiums, or will she continue to evade and ignore and completely dismiss legitimate questions? People are watching outside this House; it is not just theatre.
Hon. C. James: Well, yes, people are watching outside of this House. People are watching, and I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition would stand up with excuses to try and justify what happened at ICBC. There is no justification for what happened at ICBC — other than the fact that the other side, when they were government, completely ignored the issues and didn’t take on the challenge of fixing it. Now we are going to fix it on behalf of the taxpayers in British Columbia.
On the issue of the budget and credibility, I would say to the member across, to the Leader of the Opposition, that he is reading from the very budget documents that we tabled in this House, which provide all of the information that taxpayers and citizens in British Columbia need to know. We have put them first in this budget, and we will continue to do that.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In Committee A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Solicitor General.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $890,092,000 (continued).
Hon. C. Trevena: Before we start, if I might just introduce again the staff who are here to support this morning. I have my deputy minister, Grant Main; Nancy Bain, the assistant deputy minister for finance and management services; Kevin Richter, assistant deputy minister for highways; Paula Cousins, deputy director for the southern Interior; and Norm Parkes, executive director of the ministry.
With that, I look forward to the questions from members opposite.
D. Davies: A question to the minister. We kind of touched on it a little bit yesterday — my colleague Peace River South — talking rural roads. Of course, up in the entire northeast, there are many, many rural roads.
A lot of these roads in the region, of course built back in the days, were designed around much lighter vehicles than we’re seeing now in the northeast, ranging from just larger vehicles that are hauling grain, much more oil and gas activity, logging activity, and so forth. A number of these roads over the last few years — especially last year, where we had some really strange spring thaw, excessive amounts of snow — completely deteriorated. There are a number of those up there.
My question is to ask for a commitment from the ministry to give a bump for some long-term funding for rural roads in my region, in the northeast, Peace River North, to look at getting these roads back up to where school buses can continue to go down and pick up children. We had experiences where school buses couldn’t even go down the roads to pick up school children, or where emergency vehicles can’t access farming areas.
Is there a commitment, or can we get a commitment, to looking at some of the rural road problems?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. As we were talking about yesterday, the issue of rural roads is obviously a huge concern. A major part of the province relies on rural roads, and these roads were built under very different circumstances for very different volumes of traffic, as well as very different weights of the commercial and industrial vehicles.
Again, I use my own experience. In my own constituency, we have a network of off-highway logging roads that were designed to take the industrial traffic, and now they’re hammering our roads because they’re on pavement.
It’s a huge issue, and it does make it feel unsafe. That’s why we are committed to investing in our rural roads across the province. There is a significant amount of money going into the budget this year for our rural roads and our side roads. We’ve got an on line, year and year, $110 million. That is a significant increase, and our budget, overall, has increased significantly for the ministry.
As I say, when I took over as minister, I did voice this as one of my real concerns. Living in a rural community, representing a rural community, I’m very aware of the needs and the pressures that industry is putting on our infrastructure that wasn’t there before.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the response.
A final question that I have. Fort St. John is located on the Alaska Highway, part of the Highway 97 network. From the district of Taylor through to Fort Nelson, there’s one rest area that has toilets. Of course, there’s an incredible amount of traffic on that highway, it being the main artery up to Alaska, up to Yukon.
It’s something that I hear all the time from people using that highway, that there are no opportunities to pull over to rest and to use facilities. Now, I get that there’s a relationship between the province and the federal government, as part of the highway is under federal jurisdiction. But like I say, travelling 400 kilometres between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson…. To have just one rest area, 45 or 50 minutes out of Fort St. John, is not very good. I’m wondering if there’s a plan, in the very near future, with this ministry to reach out, partner with the federal government and come up with a plan to look at these facilities.
Just a bit of a plug here. I believe the North Peace Economic Development Commission, which is now part of the regional district, has done a study. I believe your office might have it. It’s called the Gotta Go project. I would encourage you…. There are some good recommendations there. The one thing that stood out to me was that there’s not another highway in the system in the province that has these huge gaps without facilities. I’m just getting back to the question of if there’s a plan to work with our federal partners and come up with a plan.
Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I recognize the need for rest areas. It’s something that, as the opposition critic, I would raise regularly in estimates — about the need to have better rest areas on our highways. Both for individuals driving and for commercial vehicles driving the highways, it really is important.
We do have a copy of Gotta Go, a great name, and we’ll obviously be looking at that. We’re regularly in touch with our federal counterparts about how we can work together. This will be on the list of things that we’ll be talking about. I understand that we have the one at Mile 80. Is that the one that you’re talking about, which is there? They’re heated, with flush toilets, which is good. But that’s our last one further north, as I say.
We have built one just at the south end of Taylor Hill, between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. That gets us up, as you say, into the federal area. We’ll happily talk with our federal counterparts about what we can do, because it’s good for individuals travelling. It’s good for commerce. It’s obviously good for tourism to make sure that people have places where they can safely pull over, get a rest, get a coffee.
I mean, you look at what our neighbours to the south can do with rest areas. You can do terrific things if you are thoughtful about them. Thank you very much to the member for raising this. I’ll follow up on it.
T. Stone: I am pleased to jump in at this point just to ask a few questions of the Minister of Transportation. I will take the opportunity, as well, to acknowledge all of the great staff that are wrapped around her. I had the pleasure of working with them for 4½ years. So you know you’re very well served, Minister.
I would like to ask a couple of questions — again, just for some clarification in the opposition here — with respect to road maintenance. I think we all can acknowledge that we’ve had a pretty tough winter. It has been worse in some areas of the province versus others, but certainly, on high mountain passes and in a lot of the Interior and the north, we’ve experienced some pretty severe winter driving conditions. As is par for the course in most British Columbia winters, there is always a lot of concern expressed, rightfully so, by the residents of Interior and northern communities, as well as local officials, law enforcement, first responders, and so forth.
Now, with respect to keeping our roads safe, obviously, there’s the whole infrastructure side of the equation and continuing to make safety enhancements, but good, reliable road maintenance is also very, very important. I believe there are 14 companies serving the 28 service areas. I think the budget, overall, is relatively stable for road maintenance across the province.
Back in 2017, our former government initiated a process with the road builders and the BCGEU in preparation for a tendering of contracts relating to road maintenance. As I’m sure the minister knows, this was precipitated upon the expiry of most of these contracts, which expire this coming September, September of 2018. It was made pretty clear to me as the former minister that we needed to get on with that tendering process, at least a year in advance, so as to ensure the sharpest pencils possible and the best value for taxpayers’ money.
Part of the arrangement that was arrived at a year ago was a very collaborative solution, I believe, wherein the road builders, the BCGEU and the Ministry of Transportation had come together. In exchange for keeping labour succession in the contracts moving forward, there would be about $180 million worth of savings that would be generated, every penny of which would be put back into enhanced road maintenance standards for all numbered highways and secondary highways around the province. That, I thought, was a good solution.
I’ve got just a couple of questions on this. The first one would be this. I’m wondering if the minister could provide the House with an update as to where exactly the province is at. Where is the ministry at with respect to the remaining service areas, recognizing the East Kootenay service area was tendered a while back? They’re a bit of an outlier in the overall mix. But with respect to all of the other service areas, where exactly are we in the tendering process?
Related to that, in light of the fact that it would seem that we’re somewhat behind in the tendering timelines — maybe she could clarify if we are or we aren’t — is it still the ministry’s expectation that $180 million or so of savings will be realized through the renewal of these contracts, to be then reinvested back into heightened, improved levels of road maintenance around the province?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for the question and for acknowledging we’ve got a fantastic team here. I’m sure that the member, when he was in this chair, found that the number one issue that kept coming back and back was highway maintenance, winter maintenance and what’s happening.
Let me assure the member that the $180 million is being reinvested. One of the things that I did say when I came in, as well as rural roads and what’s happening with our rural roads, was what’s happening with our maintenance. I think it’s the issue that we all — as elected representatives of our constituencies, particularly those of us who represent rural areas — hear very loud and clear from our constituents, that we need to be investing in maintenance.
Just to respond to the member’s specific questions. We are on track for doing the renewals within the time frame that was scheduled by the previous government. Three RFPs are out now. They are actually for my own area, the middle and north Island. So those areas are out now, as well as Buckley Lake area. They close in mid-March and will be awarded later this spring. There are five RFQs out, which should be back by the end of the March.
The bulk will be completed on schedule. The only outlying ones, because of historical agreements, are service 11 — they’re back in 2024, I believe — and McBride, which is back in 2022, I think it is. The rest are all as scheduled.
T. Stone: The second question would be this, really quickly. I’m wondering if she could confirm that labour succession is indeed still included in each contract moving forward.
Secondly, the certification process with the BCGEU locals. Has that been completed? Are those ratifications on track to take place across all service areas?
Thirdly, is the road maintenance contract still a ten-year deal with an option for a five-year renewal? And then, the collective agreements. Are they still eight-year contracts with a renewal for seven years?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, succession is there. The ratified agreements are coming. The ratification is following the same process as the contract renewal, so it’s the same timeline that we have there. And, yes, the time frame is the same, with a ten-year with a five-year option and agreement with the union, an eight-year collective agreement. That’s all as is.
T. Stone: My final question just relates to the enhanced road maintenance standards themselves that we’re all hopeful will be realized as a result of the savings that are provided for in these contracts on a go-forward basis. I’m pleased to hear the minister, in her previous answer, confirm that the savings are still in that range of about $180 million over the life of the contract and that it is still the government’s intention to devote every penny of those savings into enhanced maintenance standards.
For the record, I just want to read out the standards, as I understand they would change. If the minister can confirm that it is still the ministry’s intention to adhere to these higher standards.
First is a standard with respect to achieving bare pavement sooner after a weather event when minus 9 degrees Celsius or warmer. The current specification…. Actually, there’s no specific temperature to achieve bare pavement. That only happens after the end of the last measurable snowfall. The response time currently on class A highways is two days. Class B highways is three days. Class C highways is seven days.
The proposed new specification, as I understand it, would be 24 hours for class A highways, which would a significant improvement, I think highly, highly noticeable by motorists, which would be good. Class B highways would go from three days to 36 hours. Class C highways would go from seven days to 48 hours. That’s the first specification change as I understood it.
The second change would be to improve the management of compact snow below minus 9 degrees Celsius. At the moment, the current specification states that when compact exists, “the contractor must remedy unsafe conditions including but not limited to roughness and slippery surfaces.” A bit vague there.
The new classification provides for very specific performance time frames to manage compact. I won’t read them all into the record, but as one example, for class A highways, within 48 hours, we’d have to “maintain thickness of the compact surface no greater than 40 millimetres.” That’s a pretty significant improvement over the current standard.
“Potholes in compact, averaging more than one per 25 metres of road, exceeding 30 millimetres depth” on class A highways — that would be a requirement within 24 hours. “Rutting in compact in excess of 25 millimetres” would be a 72-hour requirement for class A highways. “Removal of compact when temperature is minus 9 degrees Celsius and warming” on class A highways would be a 24-hour requirement. There are very similar requirements specified in the new specifications for class B, C, D and E highways as well. I won’t read those into the record.
The third standard change would be to reduce winter abrasive size. The member represents a rural area of the province, so this is good news for her constituents too, as well as mine. The size of the aggregate, or the abrasive, would be reduced from a maximum size of 12.5 millimetres to a maximum size of 9.5 millimetres. Hopefully, she can confirm that’s still the intended change in that specification.
With respect to the improvement of highway patrols, there would be some very significant change there that would be, I’m fairly confident, highly noticeable. In terms of the winter response times on a class A highway for winter patrols during snowfall, we’d go from a four-hour requirement to a 90-minute requirement during a weather event in all travelled lanes and a three-hour requirement during a weather event in all other lanes.
Again that’s on class A highways. There are similar tightened specs for class B, C, D and E highways. I think this would be one that would be noticeable to motorists as well, particularly the introduction of a requirement that doesn’t exist right now in relation to snow patrols and snow removal in those second lands other than the lane furthest on the right.
Could the minister confirm that the specs as I’ve just mapped them out here, which I understood to be the new requirements that we were going to be able to implement across our numbered highways in this province as a result of the $180 million savings…? Could the minister confirm that these specifications are accurate?
Maybe, as part of her response, her officials, through her, could advise me and the official opposition if there are any changes to the specifications from those which were being contemplated a year ago. I would appreciate understanding what those change specifications look like as well.
Hon. C. Trevena: The information that the member read from his document is available on the public website. I will read it. For anybody else who is watching and wants to check highway maintenance standards, it’s www.gov.bc.ca/highwaymaintenancerenewal. It’s under the draft maintenance specifications. They are the ones that we’re working towards. They will be there when we’re looking at the renewal.
One of the things I have said to staff…. As I mentioned, my first response is that the issue of highway maintenance is the one that keeps coming back and coming back, both as a representative of a constituency as well as, obviously, a minister. We want to make sure that the work is being done.
There will be increased oversight from the ministry to make sure that the maintenance does happen, that people aren’t facing the problems that have been faced this year. I think that we need to do everything possible to ensure that the maintenance contractors are fulfilling the maintenance contract. I mean, we all know the maintenance contractors…. As I say, I know the ones who live…. It’s my neighbours, and they go out and do a good job of work. We need to make sure that they are being directed well and that the work they’re doing is what we are requesting to make our highways safe.
T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for allowing some time here. I want to continue on with highway maintenance here for a bit and more specific to my area. Thank you to the staff that’s in tow right now. I respect and look forward to some of the answers here.
Highway maintenance is important all over B.C., as we all know, but when it comes to winter maintenance, Kootenay East presents some of the most dangerous and challenging conditions you could probably get anywhere. In my riding alone, there are eight different weather zones that challenge not only the contractor but confuse travellers as well.
This winter we’ve had numerous fatalities, unfortunately. Some of these have been attributed to poor driving conditions. Now, I’ve heard that some of the standards may be changing, but unfortunately, region 11 has already done their tendering, and we’re not going to be changing until 2024. I’ll get to that in a second.
Specific to Kootenay East, can the minister tell me how satisfied she is with the operations in that area? Or maybe everything is fine, or maybe standards need to be increased there as well. Just an overview on, basically, the Mainroad contractor in Kootenay East.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. I know that this is a concern for him, and I look forward to meeting with him separately, later this week, to discuss this further.
We’ve heard a lot of complaints, obviously, about what has been happening in his neck of the woods, in service area 11. I know that ministry staff are diligent in following up, if there are complaints, to see what the complaints are, to see where the problems are, to work with the contractor and to monitor the contractor.
Again, I know that we are…. As we say, it’s winter, and we live in B.C. We live in Canada. But it’s been a particularly bad winter, which has added to some of the problems. I’m not going to diminish the people’s concerns, but it really has added to some of the problems.
I’ve also asked staff to look at other things that can be done that will alleviate…. We’ve got the service contract working at the moment. We’re doing more monitoring, but what other things we can do, we can do. So we’re looking at everything. Whether we’re looking at speed limits, whether we’re looking at better training for people for chaining up, whether we’re looking at information about, really, how you can be driving and should be driving in poor weather…. I think this goes across the province. There are still people who think: “It may be snowing, but I can still drive as I want.”
I think we’ve got to look at everything. I’ve asked staff to look at some specific areas. But we are really monitoring as much as we can, following up with the contractor to ensure that there is the best service provided, because public safety and the condition of our roads is something that, obviously, we’re all very concerned about.
T. Shypitka: Specifically to the Mainroad contract, I never really heard a clear answer on whether what the ministry is providing is oversight to that contract — if the minister is actually satisfied with the performance of the contractor, through the ministry’s oversight.
Hon. C. Trevena: The contractors…. When we do have issues, when it’s brought to our attention, they’re very responsive. We are, as they say, monitoring.
I think that both for the member’s maintenance area, area 11, or right across the province, we’re striving for the best. We’re always striving for improvement. There can always be improvement. I think that this winter has shown that there really needs to be improvement. There needs to be improvement both in that member’s service area and all the ones that we’re going out to tender.
We’re keeping a very close eye on everywhere that I’m hearing about and everywhere across the province because road maintenance, the work of the contractors and road safety are essential. We’ve got to ensure that the people of B.C. know that when they get on the highways — yes, you have to be aware of the weather conditions, and you have to drive accordingly — we are doing everything, and we’re making sure that our service providers are doing everything, that can be done. So I’d say we’re always striving for better.
T. Shypitka: I never really heard an answer, again. What I’ll do is, because we’re running out of time for myself….
The ministry has given Mainroad, our contractor, about a 93 to 95 percent performance rating, saying that 93 to 95 percent of the time they’re meeting or exceeding the contract, which, in my opinion, sounds pretty good. Now, that would be hotly contested in my area, given the fatalities and what we’ve seen this winter.
I’ve heard the minister just say that oversight needs to be improved. I think that was her actual quote: “needs to be improved.” Does that mean the standards are not high enough? If they need to be improved, then that means the contractor might not be doing the work that the oversight is trying to put on them. So is there a problem in oversight?
Has the minister ever addressed the issue of oversight being flawed? Would the minister accept or be responsive to an independent auditor coming in and checking on the oversight that the ministry provides?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are working, always…. When I say oversight, our ministry staff are on the roads a lot. They are watching what is happening. They’re making sure that what is happening is working up to specifications and, wherever possible, beyond.
We have a system of…. I’ve just called it oversight, but we have a system of auditing throughout the province where ministry staff and others come into different areas to look at what’s been happening. There’s a discussion with stakeholders. I’m sure that the member, as the MLA for the region, has been contacted by the ministry to put his thoughts to how the contract is working there.
It is, I think, a pretty good system in place at the moment. You can look around the province to get people moving around so you’re not getting people who are vested in the area. You’re getting that independence to check that.
As I say, it’s something that is important to me. I’ll continue to work, and continue to work with the member opposite, to find out the problems that his constituents are facing. We’re sitting down later this week to have that discussion on how we can best work together to ensure that his constituents are getting served and get what they feel they need and what we can provide as a ministry.
A. Olsen: I’m going to shift the attention in a little different direction here. In a recent letter, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development highlighted your ministry as having some role, responsibility, in the management of salmon and steelhead.
I’m just wondering if you could explain what role your ministry plays and what funding there is allocated to this. Your ministry came up as being identified as one of the six ministries managing and having a responsibility in this aspect.
Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just working out exactly the different areas that we work because we do quite a lot. We’re very conscious these days of the environmental impact of the ministry. Obviously, we’re involved in major projects that are going to have an environmental impact, so this is something that we’re very concerned about. But there’s both the large and the small scale that the ministry works on. When we are doing a project, we are obviously consulting widely and building environmental safeguards. Whether it is moving a snake habitat or doing something else, there are major things that the ministry will do.
When we’re talking about salmon and steelhead, I think that would come under our environmental enhancement section, where we have a budget of $2.6 million. That’s for things like where you may have had a culvert in the past that has worn down that the fish can’t get through it. We replace that to make sure the fish can get through it. We’re looking at building fish ladders and working in every way that we can to ensure that our infrastructure both protects and enhances the environment.
A. Olsen: I’m just wondering — the recent COSEWIC decision to put the steelhead on the endangered species list. I know that there are several pieces of important highway infrastructure within the Thompson and Fraser rivers and also in Chilcotin. Do you see that this endangered species listing will have any impact on your budgets or how you make decisions in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in the future?
Hon. C. Trevena: Whenever there are changes, we obviously work to ensure that we are working within changes and to accommodate the change as necessary, because we are, as I say, very aware of environmental issues. I’m happy if the member would like to have a separate conversation about this. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to my staff, right at the end of the morning. I’m happy to have a separate conversation with the member about that.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.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 resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m looking forward to the afternoon’s debates. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
On Vote 38: ministry operations, $755,457,000 (continued).
M. Morris: We’ve had a few great hours in here going through many of the different layers within the ministry. The last one I want to touch on before I make some final comments is just with respect to consumer protection.
I know there was some legislation that we had introduced when we were in government concerning interest rates around consumer loans. I’m just wondering how that went and whether there’s been a rigorous follow-up audit process in place to ensure that these loan companies haven’t found some way to circumvent the legislation that was put in place and if we’ve seen a reduction in the number of consumer loans in comparison to what we had before or an increase.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re one of the jurisdictions that requires all the information on the loans to be provided to the regulator. That work is currently underway. They’re not yet finished for the last calendar year, but when it is, then it will be out and provided and available.
In terms of the rate, we have noticed that there has been a decline from $23 per $100 borrowed to $17 per $100 borrowed. We are monitoring. They are inspected on a regular basis. We continue to monitor the industry. As you just identified in your question, when new regulations are put in place, this does seem to be an industry that is particularly adept at trying to find new ways to get around those regulations.
It’s something that my ministry does take as a priority in the consumer protection branch. We’re watching and monitoring what’s going on, and we’ll make changes, as needed.
M. Morris: Just a follow-up to the minister on that. Have there been any complaints? Have there been any issues that have surfaced to indicate that these payday loan companies or agencies are trying to navigate around the legislation? Do we know that yet?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. There have been some complaints on some practices that have come up. The regulator has taken action on them, in particular as it relates to insurance padding. So that is being dealt with.
We’re also watching what happens in other provinces. When we start to see new angles starting to emerge, then we watch them here in B.C. to see if we need to either look at changing our regulations or if it may be necessary for a legislative change. It is something that we monitor and watch and deal with on an ongoing basis.
M. Morris: Good to hear. Just like any person, I guess, or agency or government, when there’s a source of revenue that decreases, you have to look on the other side. Where are you going to increase that? Sometimes it could be a little nefarious. I’m glad there’s some monitoring going on with respect to that.
The other aspect of that was the participation of the financial institutions in providing loans for the types of clientele that are often using these payday loan services. If we could get right away from that and have financial institutions have some kind of a product available for these…. Could I get, maybe, an update on the steps that the ministry might be taking and how far along we are with trying to encourage that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a good question. We encourage the banks and the credit unions to try and provide products to do exactly what you’re saying. They don’t really do that, though, in terms of…. They don’t provide payday loans. They are looking at some short-term kinds of financial products. Vancity is one of them.
One of the challenges that we face is that when you talk to and do surveys of the people who go to and use the payday loan companies, they say they’re nicer than the banks and the credit unions. It’s basically because at the bank and the credit union, they want information. They want to know…. They base a lot of decisions on credit scores. Whereas the payday loan companies don’t base their decision on that. It’s basically, “You have a paycheque; we want your paycheque,” in essence. That’s one of the challenges.
One of the things the ministry is doing is to try and increase, and educate consumers around financial literacy, around loans and the costs of loans and what’s really happening. It is a challenge, and it’s something that, if we can find a way to work with banks and credit unions to try and address that or improve it, we certainly would be wanting to do. But it is not something that’s going to be solved in the short term.
M. Morris: One of the concerns we had when we were looking at the legislation and lowering the interest rates allowed to be charged was the impact of individuals that…. I guess, the loss of revenue that the companies relied on to compensate for those who didn’t pay, at the end of the day. I know that some of the other jurisdictions were looking at higher interest rates and the costs associated with that.
Have we seen any feedback or do we have any feedback from the payday loan companies, whether this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions, about the impact that the lowering of the interest rate has had on the amount of, I guess, foreclosures, or whatever you want to look at, for those kinds of loans?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. That is an issue that we’re concerned about. So when we brought in the interest rate changes here in B.C., we did look at what happened in other jurisdictions. For example, in Alberta, what they noticed is that when they lowered it down significantly, you saw people making payday loans exit the payday loan and instead go to other kinds of products — instalment loans, for example — or other ways of getting around the existing legislation. In a way, that was kind of self-defeating. So what we did in B.C. was we tried to find that balance between the rates that were being charged and lowering it enough so that you weren’t going to see that.
We continue to watch what’s happening in terms of: are those product models starting to shift so that they can go outside of the regulatory framework? If they are, then we are in a position where we are able to deal with those changes that may be required to rein those practices in, either by regulation or, if necessary, by legislation.
M. Morris: Probably just one last question on this as well. “Default” was the term that I meant to use before. Do we know what the percentage of defaults is on payday loans in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The data we have is for 2016. The 2017 isn’t ready yet. But in terms of what were defaulted on, it was 15 percent. For loans that were written off, it was 4 percent.
M. Morris: The concern that I’ve had for years about that industry…. I think it does serve a purpose, and I think it does provide a legitimate, genuine service for their clientele. But there are also people that probably, because of default or whatever reason they might have…. I think there’s still a black market out there somewhere with respect to loansharking and other avenues for people to get their money. So I think we need to be aware of that in order to make this as attractive as possible.
This is where I think the private sector can step up to the plate as well, some of the financial institutions. I know Central 1…. Some of the credit unions were looking at a concept, and I really hope they keep pursuing that, with the aid of government, to find a solution there.
I don’t have any more questions, per se, for this, but I want to make a couple of general comments and statements with respect to the overall budget and services provided by the ministry. There are some things on the horizon, some threats on the horizon that we face in British Columbia with regards to policing and police services, security.
The ones that we have before us right now…. The fact that we have 244.5 hard vacancies on the provincial policing line with a number of overworked detachments in the province where their caseloads are extremely high. We have a significant underfunding of federal policing right across this province, not only with the commitment that the federal government has made, but the underfunding and the lack of recognition of the responsibilities of the federal government when it comes to their fiduciary responsibilities and First Nations. That’s an issue that this ministry, I think, really has to push on.
The other aspect of that is the soft vacancies that we have that affect the day-to-day operations in the detachments with sick leave, maternity, paternity. There’s a number of different reasons why those vacancies are there, in addition to the attrition rate. On top of that, we have the abysmal performance in fulfilling the federal policing responsibilities. And a lot of those things end up being done piecemeal by provincial resources or municipal resources. So there are some impacts there.
Municipal policing, which is the bulk of policing in British Columbia. There are 64 separate RCMP municipal contracts with the federal government and the province that also maintain vacancies and have a great deal of difficulty in keeping up with the demands for resources within their units. There’s the specialized, provincially funded CFSEU, emergency response team units. What I’m getting to….
Here we have the RCMP reaching a critical crossroads not only when it comes to their nimbleness in meeting the resource demands, but there’s pressure on the RCMP to unionize. The RCMP’s payroll is significantly less per capita than probably every other independent force in British Columbia, but many right across Canada. I think that’s something that’s on the horizon that we should be very wary of. It’s going to have a significant impact on municipal policing budgets, on the provincial policing line and all of the other specialized units that we have in the province here.
That could happen overnight. I think there’s a perfect storm brewing out there. There needs to be a lot of work done in that direction. On top of that is our government’s own pressure that they’re putting on here now with the employers health tax that is looming in the background and is going to be impacting payroll budgets for provincial policing, for municipal policing, for federal policing to a significant degree, in the millions and millions of dollars.
If there is no adequate increase in resources to accommodate for those pressures — and believe me, I know from experience — we have to start taking it from within the operating budgets of the various police departments. The area I looked after was roughly 80 percent of the province. It had a significant provincial budget. There were 12 municipal contracts within my area of responsibility. When the costs went up and there was no increase in the budgets, police cars had to be parked, airplanes stayed on the ground, the boats stayed tied up at the harbour, and a lot of the investigations were triaged. Some of them we couldn’t get to because of that.
I think we have coming on to us here…. With all of the factors that I’ve just described, I think we’ve got a perfect storm brewing for some headaches for the minister a year or so down the road, perhaps. It might extend a little bit longer than that. But I think some very aggressive steps need to be taken immediately in order to prepare for those very costly things that are on the horizon.
The same applies with Corrections. It’s a pretty substantial payroll for B.C. Corrections as well. The recruiting efforts, some of the vacancies they have, services within our remote areas of the province, bringing in restorative justice…. There are a number of factors here that are going to have financial impacts on existing budgets as we see them today.
I’m going to be monitoring it very closely. I’m going to be watching the level of service that we have, particularly in rural B.C. As I said, the provincial cap is 2,602 FTEs, under the provincial agreement with the federal government. We’ve got 244.5 vacancies that are unfunded that we could be using desperately in rural British Columbia — places like Vanderhoof, places like Williams Lake provincial, places like Smithers provincial and probably just about every other provincial detachment we have in the province here, including our First Nations. I do hope the minister has a look at that.
I’ll just close by saying I do appreciate the hard work that everybody within your ministry…. All the staff, the deputy minister and all the assistant deputy ministers and directors and whatnot they have in there — great staff. I appreciated working when I was over in your chair. I know they’re working hard and diligently behind the scenes. But you’ve got this enormous beast rolling down the way, and these clouds are looming there. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done.
R. Sultan: On a rather impromptu basis, I’m here to support my colleague, the distinguished member from Prince George. Listening to the line of questioning, it prompted in my mind a question pertaining to a rather unusual advisory, I suppose it could be called, that was distributed perhaps two months ago, concerning the definition of “politically exposed persons” or PEP. You and I are both PEPs under that definition, because we are perhaps in a position to influence the disposition of significant sums of money.
This advisory was issued by FINTRAC, the federal agency concerned with tracking suspicious transactions. I suppose that is their mandate. They went to some effort to define the scope of the obligations that they felt politically exposed persons such as myself and yourself have. It was not confined to me and you but to our families, our spouses, our parents, our children, people we worked with closely day to day. Astonishingly for a federal advisory, it also said that I would also have to count my mistress, which I thought was an unusual insertion. I beg to say I haven’t got one — at the moment, at least.
Humour aside, the obligation to be aware of suspicions that might possibly be dubious in origin or disposition was imposed on all of us. It did not spell out to whom we should report our suspicions except somebody superior to us. It sort of left it at that. It was a rather open-ended, blanket obligation they imposed on all politically exposed persons in Canada.
I suspect you saw that same memorandum. If so, what was your reaction to it, and what has the government done to implement it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I would say is: that is what we have a Conflict of Interest Commissioner for, whose job it is to interpret the acts which we operate under in terms of the disclosure that’s required on assets. Spouses, for example, are required to list assets. That’s the legislation that governs us in British Columbia.
I’m happy to also take up with Finance if there’s a legal issue from this memorandum from FINTRAC, because it would strike me that a change like that would have to be something that is legislated as opposed to just a memorandum coming out from a federal agency. But we will find out, and we will get back to the member.
R. Sultan: I look forward with great interest to your interpretation of this memorandum.
The Chair: Hearing no further questions, Minister, I will now call Vote 38.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hang on. I was just going to say a few remarks before I….
The Chair: Please proceed, Minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: First off, I want to thank my staff for all the amazing work that they have done in supporting me. I want to thank my colleague across the way from Prince George–Mackenzie. I know he’s very knowledgable on these issues. He has a great particular interest, especially when it comes to policing in rural British Columbia. I appreciate the questions and him raising those issues because I do think that they are important.
I share his concern about policing in rural British Columbia. I share his concern, particularly when it comes to First Nations and the shortage that we have and the failure of the federal government to live up to its funding commitment. It is something I want him to know that we are and will continue to push on — that issue.
There are challenges facing us in terms of not just law enforcement as a whole but also in corrections in the province. Issues of recruitment and retention are important. We are working on those issues because we want to ensure that we’ve got the best people, who are doing amazing work in very difficult circumstances.
There’s a lot in this ministry. When you ask people what the Solicitor General is responsible for and when you start to tell them, they’re like: “Wow.” There are a lot of components to this ministry.
On top of that, we have the cannabis file. It takes up a lot of time and a lot of the ministry’s resources, but it’s a challenge I know, with my staff, we are more than capable of meeting. I think, over the coming year, we will have that framework in place. We will continue to push on the policing front to get additional resources.
As I said, I am particularly concerned about rural B.C. because, too often, the focus is on the Lower Mainland, which is important. It’s not just one community, for example, when it comes to organized crime. It is as much a provincial issue as it is a regional issue, as opposed to a problem faced by any one city alone.
The reality, I think it’s fair to say, is that too often rural B.C. does get forgotten in the media. That’s not a criticism of the media. That’s just the reality. I want you to know that we haven’t forgotten, and that’s very much part of our thinking in terms of the policies and the initiatives that we undertake.
We are looking at doing some additional work in consumer protection, for example, emergency management B.C., building on the lessons of last year. Hopefully, this year we will not see the same situations we saw last year, but we won’t know until the summer.
I want to thank the member for his questioning and the other members of the House who have asked questions.
Vote 38: ministry operations, $755,457,000 — approved.
Vote 39: Emergency Program Act, $14,728,000 — approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 39 and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:38 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada