Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 102
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
J. Thornthwaite: I am very happy to be able to introduce to the House someone that is very well known to pretty much everybody here — a colleague, a very good friend of mine and, in my opinion, the best MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam. I would like the House to welcome my friend, our colleague Linda Reimer.
Hon. S. Fraser: It seems to be the way of things. I’m missing an important occasion at home. I want to say happy birthday, Dolores. I love you.
Hon. G. Heyman: I hope the House will join me in welcoming three guests from Clean Energy B.C. who are joining us today and will be in the precinct throughout the day, meeting with members and hosting a lunch: Jae Mather, from Clean Energy B.C.; Bryan MacLeod; and Pamela Dawson. Please join me in making them very, very welcome.
T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of friends of mine that are in the gallery here today.
First, Mr. Brett Uphill. He’s a firefighter from Local 2827, from Fernie. An interesting factoid is that Brett’s great-grandfather is the famous, late, great Thomas Uphill, who was the longest-running MLA in the Legislature — for 40 years. Second of all, Gregory Green, who is from the Cranbrook local, 1253.
Now, the B.C. firefighters are in Victoria to discuss with government issues concerning operational mental health injuries and issues in regards to long-term exposure to toxins and chemicals due to modern fires, and to honour our fallen member, Clayton Murrell. We did a little bit of respect for him last night as well.
Would the House please welcome Gregory and Brett.
C. Oakes: I, too, would like to welcome the B.C. firefighters today and to say thank you on behalf of the colleagues from Cariboo and Fraser-Nicola. It’s great to live in a province that when something happens such as the 2017 wildfire season, we know that we have men and women from across this province to come to our aid and support. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased today to introduce students from the Garibaldi high school robotics club. They are competing in the first robotics competition this week. They’re all wearing red up in the gallery. The students are Anna Patti, Amy Ehlert, Jacob Huska, Trevor Fox, Greg Adams, Shannon Lebay, Jay Jang, Jacob Dusell and teacher Niko Skartvedt.
I just wanted to say there’s a number of those students that are also in the school band program, which is a great example of how our future creative economy will work between science and art. Thank you so much, and please make these students welcome.
L. Throness: I had the privilege today of meeting with three brave firefighters from Chilliwack. I’d like to thank them for coming. There’s Greg Zutter is a personal friend, and he’s lieutenant of training in Chilliwack; Ross Trout, who is president of Local 2826; and Dave Sawer, who’s secretary of Local 2826. Could we welcome them please.
T. Shypitka: I would be remiss…. I forgot Mr. Justin Bettcher, who’s also from Cranbrook Local 1253. Please welcome him to the House.
Sorry, Justin.
Hon. H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure…. I know that all of you, or most of you, were there last night. One of the best receptions that anybody could put on is by the B.C. Professional Firefighters. They were there yesterday. They are here today. They’re here to educate us about the dangers of their job and how they are going about protecting us when they are putting themselves in danger in many ways.
I just want to say to them, on behalf of the entire House here: thank you. Thank you for doing such a fantastic job, because you are the key people out there. That’s what British Columbia is all about: helping each other, even when we are putting our own lives on the line. Thank you very much, B.C. Professional Firefighters.
S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Ashley Louie, who’s in the gallery today. Ashley was a student of mine when I taught at Dwight. She was in my adviser group.
Every morning Ashley would arrive at school, and we’d gather in adviser group. She was always cheerful, always smiling and always laughing. She brought joy to school every day, and she arrived today with the same smile and bright cheer. She’s currently studying child and youth care at Vancouver Island University, and I’m absolutely delighted she’s here. Please make her feel welcome.
D. Davies: It gives me pleasure to welcome a couple of guests here today, both representing IAFF Local 2143 from Fort St. John — Chris Austin, who shares the same barber as I do; and Aaron Tjepkema. Please make them feel welcome.
M. Elmore: I am very pleased to be welcoming students and teachers from the high school Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington — a number of students, two classes. They’re led by the very able Bonnie Burnell, who teaches social studies, and Mr. Auton Lum. They’re accompanied also by Mr. Nick Akrap, retired teacher Gina Main and assistant teacher Shauna Mathieson.
Congratulations to…. They have a great sports program at Tupper, and the boys’ team placed fifth in the province. They’re just a terrific school that really embraces diversity. I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.
T. Redies: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Dylan Van Rooyen, who’s with the White Rock and Surrey fire associations. They do a great job for us in our riding. They have lots of charity events to raise money for great causes. It also gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the White Rock firefighters who went to fight the fires in the Interior of B.C. this summer and who showed great bravery and courage in doing that. Please welcome Mr. Dylan Van Rooyen to the House.
B. Stewart: I’d like to welcome to the precinct two of West Kelowna’s finest firefighters, Trevor Bredin and Nathan Pike, who joined us last night at the reception. They’re here today to talk more about firefighting in a community that has fought its fair share of forest fire interactions in the last ten years of its establishment. I appreciate them being here today to share that with me.
M. Dean: Today in the gallery, we have Brita Harrison Brooke. She’s with us from Junior Achievement B.C. Would the House please make her very welcome.
Hon. S. Fraser: There are two stellar firefighters from Port Alberni visiting us in the precinct today, Ben Halychuk and Jason Roberts. Would the House please make them feel very, very welcome.
B. Ma: I would be remiss if I did not note that we have several firefighters from North Vancouver with us today. I don’t know if they’re in the gallery, because I can’t see all the way behind me, but we have at least five firefighters from the district of North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver. They and their team keep us all very safe out there on the North Shore, and I’m very grateful to them. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.
A. Olsen: Today is a day that I feel very, very safe in the Legislature with all of the firefighters that have been introduced today. I would like to add two from the Salt Spring Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 4467, Mr. Warren Nuyens and Mitchell Sherrin. Please, would this House make them feel welcome.
R. Chouhan: It gives me pleasure to introduce our Burnaby firefighters. We met with them last night — Paul, Scott, Jeff and Miles. They’re all very hard-working people. Through their charity, Burnaby Fire Fighters Charitable Society, they have done such a wonderful job in the last many, many years helping people and helping kids in the schools. I want to say thank you so much for all the work they are doing in Burnaby. Please join me to welcome my Burnaby firefighters.
Hon. M. Mungall: We have a few guests in the House from Clean Energy B.C. We have Jae Mather, Bryan MacLeod and Pamela Dawson, who’s also the vice-president of SRE Hydro Canada. May the House please make them very welcome.
Hon. J. Sims: I’m delighted today to introduce two staff from my ministry, Ronda Richardson and Chris Hauff. Chris is the new MCIO, and Ronda is a senior business consultant, and both hail from our corporate services branch. May I ask that you all make them very welcome into this House.
I would also like to add my welcome to the amazing firefighters here from Surrey, B.C.
Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to welcome today two of the firefighters from Maple Ridge. We have Chris McKee and Dave Harcus in the House, and I ask that the members please make them feel very welcome.
L. Reid: I, too, would add my welcome to International Association of Fire Fighters 1286. Cory Parker and his colleagues do an outstanding job on behalf of the city of Richmond. We’re ever so delighted they’re here, and we appreciate the opportunity to meet with them later today.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M205 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2018.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill that, if enacted, would lower the voting age to 16 in British Columbia.
The voting age in British Columbia was not always 18. Federally it wasn’t until 1970 that the Canada Elections Act was amended to drop the voting age from 21 to 18. In British Columbia we made the jump in two steps. First, in 1952 we dropped the voting age from 21 to 19, but it wasn’t until 1992 that we made the subsequent change to lower the age to 18.
Around the world, more and more jurisdictions are openly discussing the notion of dropping the voting age to 16, and, in fact, a growing number have actually done so. Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Scotland are but a few of the jurisdictions that have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds. There’s ample evidence to suggest that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit throughout their lifetime.
Sadly, in the 2017 election, only 56 percent of youth aged 18 to 24 and only 46 percent of young adults aged 25 to 34 voted here in British Columbia. Compare that to the provincial average of 61 percent and to the 75 percent of seniors aged 65 to 74 who voted. It’s also a common misconception that 16-years-old are not as informed and engaged in political issues as older voters. The research, however, says otherwise.
Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are old enough to drive, pay taxes, get married and sign up for the military. They should have a say in the direction our province is heading as they ultimately inherit what we leave behind.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M205, Election 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.
D. Davies: I move that a bill intituled Electoral Districts Renaming Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.
Mr. Speaker: Member, it’s not on the order paper yet.
D. Davies: All right, hon. Speaker. We will get this sorted out. Thank you.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BARRITA DURWARD
AND WORK OF SWEET SMILES
SOCIETY
E. Foster: I rise today to talk about an individual in my riding and the society that she formed. The Sweet Smiles Society is a non-profit operating in Canada and Mexico that aims to relieve poverty by providing the basic necessities of life, including clean water, food, clothing and shelter to abused and needy children.
Barrita Durward, president of the Sweet Smiles Society, founded it nine years ago after she returned from a trip to a orphanage in Cozumel, Mexico. The society is composed of individuals who donate their time and skills to help children and families who are less fortunate. To date, our community has helped the Sweet Smiles Society raise approximately $215,000.
In Mexico, Sweet Smiles currently assists three orphanages, City of Angels in Cozumel as well as one in Puerto Vallarta and one in Bonneville. These orphanages provide a safe and healthy environment for children, many of whom have lived a life of abuse and abandonment.
Barrita travels to Mexico three times a year with groups of around 12 people at a time to help with construction projects at the orphanages. Construction trips have been attended by volunteers as old as 78 and as young as ten. They are currently working on a new project for family preservation — orphanage prevention — in Mexico. It aims to help rebuild self-worth and value within local families to keep them together.
Locals are entitled to land grants from the government. However, due to poverty for most of the residents, building a home on this land is not feasible. Countless volunteer hours and $29,000 later, Sweet Smiles Society has just finished building the second home for this new project.
It should also be noted that Barrita and her volunteers pay their own way on these trips. All funds raised go to the project. I want to say a very big thank you to Barrita Durward, who has given a tremendous amount of her own time and her own money to make this project a success.
JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT B.C.
M. Dean: Junior Achievement British Columbia provides youth in our province with the skills to make better financial decisions, start a company, develop a career plan and express their innovative spirit. This international, non-profit organization provides business training programs to schools, delivered by volunteers from local business groups.
In my constituency, grade 8 students at Rockheights Middle School have been participating in JABC’s Dollars with Sense program. The program provides students with personal money management skills and challenges them to apply these concepts in their own lives. At École Victor Brodeur, students in grade 8 are gaining a hands-on learning experience running their own retail stand.
The Business of Our Own program helps students identify the key success factors needed to turn personal and team performance into profit. Grade 10 and 11 students are participating in Economics for Success, which helps them to plan their own education and career path.
Over the last ten years, JABC has inspired and prepared thousands of B.C. youth. This forward-thinking organization is going to extend its program to serve Indigenous communities in partnership with First Nation leaders. JABC now has programs in 56 of the province’s 60 school districts and, for 12 years, has been working in cooperation with the B.C. government.
Please join me in recognizing and thanking all of those who contribute their time and energy to Junior Achievement British Columbia.
COWBOYS AND RANCHING HERITAGE
D. Barnett: When we think of cowboys, the Hollywood image tends to whitewash over their actual contribution to building our province. Cowboys are a true part of the historical landscape of British Columbia. Ever since the first herd of cattle was driven through the mountains, there have been cowboys.
I would therefore like to take a moment to bring attention and thanks to our cowboys. This week is B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week. They’re an important part of our history, and I work every day in this House to ensure they are part of our future.
They used to struggle against bandits, plagues and coyotes, but that has since been replaced with changing and uncertain economic and environmental conditions. While the challenges may seem more difficult, cowboys and ranchers are still a pretty resilient breed.
This year we are honouring two exceptional British Columbians into the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame. Lois Tucker Daling is being honoured in the category of working cowboy, and Ken Fawcett is being added in the category of ranching pioneer.
The history of cowboys in British Columbia is the story of collaboration, hard work and community. Early settlers worked alongside Indigenous horsemen, and it is said that early British Columbia cowboys were masters of three languages — English, Chinook and profanity. The first herd of cattle crossed into B.C. from Oregon in the mid-1800s and never left.
B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week is an opportunity to understand how the ranching community continues to provide our province with an important food source while continuing to take care of the land. That is why it is important to recognize cowboys as an important part of our future as well as our history.
FLOOD PREPAREDNESS
J. Rice: Spring flooding last year forced more than 2,500 British Columbians from their homes and threatened thousands more with evacuation alerts. Almost a year later some communities are still recovering. As we move out of what has been a long, wet and snowy winter, we once again need to pay heed to the potential perils of the coming spring season. This winter has brought high snowpack levels to parts of B.C., and while this does not necessarily foreshadow an active flood year, wildfire sites in the Cariboo, central and southeast regions of the province are being evaluated for potential hazards.
Wildfire-affected areas tend to be vulnerable to flooding, so we are installing culverts to protect roads and building berms to direct water away from homes and other valuable infrastructure. Emergency management B.C. is also investing in flood risk mitigation. In February, the governments of Canada and British Columbia announced funding for 30 flood-related projects through the natural disaster mitigation program. These risk assessments, flood-mapping projects and mitigation initiatives are valued at over $12 million.
We can, and I hope MLAs here will, take every opportunity to reinforce the importance of flood preparedness with our friends and neighbours, encouraging them to develop a household emergency plan, to put together emergency kits and to prepare their homes for the threat of flooding. If living near a waterway, it’s important to recognize the warning signs, and all British Columbians can stay safe by keeping their distance from the water when flooding does occur. Six inches of fast-moving water is enough to knock over an adult, and two feet can wash away most vehicles.
With the spring freshet soon upon us, join me in spreading the word about flood preparedness. There is a wealth of information online on the PreparedB.C. website. You can visit that site at gov.bc.ca/preparedbc.
ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS
R. Sultan: March is engineers and geoscientists month. I’m proud to be one. So are two other members of this Legislature. You can recognize us by our iron rings. Legend has it that the iron came from the remains of the Quebec Bridge. The longest cantilevered span in the world when it was built, it took three tries. It kept collapsing, but the engineers finally got it right.
That’s why, under the governing act of this Legislature, the first duty of the Association of Engineers and Geoscientists is protection of the public. This requires a massive job of admissions, continuing professional development, disciplining and even expulsion.
They do a good job. B.C.’s engineering competence is recognized all over the world.
B.C. geoscientists have also had their issues — Bre-X comes to mind — but our geologists are globally recognized as the most competent you will find anywhere. So let’s salute our engineers and geoscientists for being the world leaders they are.
My university engineering student buddy Keith Pople was laid to rest on Sunday. At church, in the guest log, opposite my name, I wrote our UBC chant: “We are, we are, we are the engineers.”
SAFETY IN AGRICULTURE
AND RANCHING
INDUSTRY
R. Leonard: Did you know that agricultural workers had a higher injury rate than the provincial average and double the average for serious injury? Work-related fatalities are a real risk too, especially around farm equipment. Farming can be a dangerous occupation for producers, workers and their families. I’m speaking of agriculture because this week is Canadian Agricultural Safety Week.
Consider ranching. A young worker enthused and full of that sense of invincibility that comes with youth or the 70-year-old head of the family ranch with so many years on the job he can do it in his sleep, working alone out on the back forty, miles in from the last dirt road, using farm equipment, driving tractors and other vehicles and handling livestock.
A disproportionate number of WorkSafe B.C. claims come from ranching. Working on a ranch or any of the nearly 30 sectors of farming doesn’t have to be so risky. There are ways to reduce the chances of injury and death. WorkSafe B.C. works with industry associations and other stakeholder groups. The focus for 2018 is on working in confined spaces, tractor safety, training for those new and young workers, use and storage of pesticides, mushroom composting and vehicle safety. They are on the ground with 15 prevention officers dedicated to agriculture.
The Canadian Agricultural Safety Association and Canadian Federation of Agriculture are highlighting seniors risk management this year, making physical changes to the working environment, like adding more lighting to workspaces, rollbars to tractors, practising planned communications with the farm team and modifying the work to match their body’s changing capacity.
These kinds of improvements help everyone. I feel better biting into my mushroom burger knowing that those who made it possible are working in the safest conditions possible.
Oral Questions
BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS
AND EMPLOYER HEALTH
TAX
A. Wilkinson: Three weeks ago today we had a budget, the first full budget from this new government, and of course, we saw a whole series of revenue projections in that budget. In the intervening three weeks, we’ve seen the Premier and the Finance Minister make up variations on that budget, on the fly, in the front of media scrums.
We have to ask at this point, given that British Columbia’s credibility as a financial jurisdiction is on the line: does the Premier stand by his revenue predictions on page 8 of the budget, given his tendency and that of his Finance Minister to fiddle with them on the fly?
Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the question today from the Leader of the Official Opposition. I, of course, do stand beside the Minister of Finance and the best budget that’s been delivered in this place in 16 years.
Although I’m not wont to refer to polls, I see that Insights West did a survey, and 81 percent of those surveyed supported the budget, so they’re in good company.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to hear that the Premier thinks that public opinion polls are going to convince our creditors that they should extend us the kind of credit we need to run this operation. He may be in for a rude surprise when he goes to visit the bankers and they give him a little lesson in economics.
On February 28, the Premier committed that the Finance Minister would “ensure that non-profits and the government agencies are kept whole as we go forward.” Now we’ve learned since then that the BCTF has come out and said there’s a $70 million hole in the budget to cover the employers health tax for teachers. There’ll be another $70 million hole in the budget from the university and college sector that the Minister of Advanced Education seems to be completely indifferent to.
Page 74 of the budget provides a detailed explanation of these projected revenues, but it says nowhere, anywhere in the document, that there’ll be exemptions on the scale that we’re hearing about. Will the Premier stand here today and say there will be exemptions for the non-profit sector, universities, colleges, hospitals and teachers or not?
Hon. J. Horgan: It is interesting — it’s, in fact, passing strange — that those on the other side of the House would talk about doing things on the fly. While they were fiddling, ICBC was burning in a dumpster.
After 16 years of doubling MSP premiums, we’re going to be getting rid of MSP premiums on this side of the House. After 16 years of downloading costs onto school boards, onto hospitals, onto just about everyone they could get their hands on except the top 2 percent, we’re going to turn that around.
We’re going to make sure that we’re investing in education. We’re going to invest in public services for people. That’s why 81 percent of those surveyed said this was a good budget, because it spoke to the issues that matter to the people, not to the people that that member represents.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: I think we see the colours of this government coming out.
Interjections.
A. Wilkinson: They giggle, but what we just heard from the Premier is the people I represent are somehow not legitimate British Columbians. Perhaps the people in Vancouver–Point Grey aren’t really in the calculus of the Premier because they’re well off and he doesn’t care about them. Perhaps that’s the plan of this government — to create divisions within our society by handing money to people and blaming others for the problems.
Let’s just think about this gallery of firefighters. Are they going to be exempt from the employers health tax? Or perhaps their organizations, representing thousands of brave men and women keeping us safe, will be told that they aren’t going to be exempt.
The Finance Minister has been saying that all of the necessary information is in the budget documents. Then she turned around yesterday and repeatedly told this House the details will come out as we go along. We have two great big looming holes in this budget with the exemptions to the employers health tax and the unknown status of the speculation tax.
Will this Premier stand here today and say that the projected revenue from the speculation tax will be $487 million, or is that subject to change?
Hon. J. Horgan: Had the members on the other side been paying attention on budget day — not in private, but in a room full of journalists and a room full of other individuals — the Minister of Finance said the details will follow with respect to a 30-point plan to address the housing crisis that that side of the House slept through between 2014 and 2017.
Now, I appreciate that those on the other side of the House would prefer to divide British Columbians. On this side of the House, we want to unite them, and there’s unity on this one question — that we need to get speculation out of the marketplace.
That’s the intention of this budget. That’s what we set out to do. The Minister of Finance is doing exactly what she said when she tabled the budget. We’re listening to British Columbians, and we’re going to bring forward solutions this fall — I hope the members will be here for that — to put them into law. That’s what we said we’re going to do. That’s what we’re going to do.
BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS
AND REAL ESTATE SPECULATION
TAX
S. Bond: Well, let’s take a look at page 8 of the budget. It includes projected revenue from the so-called speculation tax of $87 million for the current fiscal year, $200 million for each of the following two years. The minister’s own tax information sheet confirms that British Columbians will be captured by the tax.
To the Minister of Finance, how much will the government lose in revenue if they don’t tax the cabins of British Columbia families?
Hon. C. James: It is no surprise to me that we continue to hear from the members on the other side that they don’t support a speculation tax. They don’t support affordability in housing for British Columbians. They ignored the issue for 16 years, so no surprise to me that they would stand up against a speculation tax and against affordable housing.
I want to read from just a couple of people who have brought forward some ideas and have sent in letters. Beverly, for example, from Kelowna says: “The speculation tax is necessary because of the zero percent vacancy rate in B.C. If people rented out their second homes, then that would save money and we would be able to find a place to live. With the speculation tax, you’re looking after regular B.C. citizens who couldn’t even dream of owning one home and can’t afford current rents in Kelowna.”
We are supporting affordability. The details will be out on the speculation tax. We are going to make sure that we address the housing crisis that the other side completely ignored.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: We should be perfectly clear about what we don’t support, and that is taxing British Columbians who’ve had cabins in their families for generations. Let’s try it again, Minister.
Apparently, the minister doesn’t know the answer to that question, because she keeps making up details every single day. Recently she reassured her colleague the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan: “The tax introduced in the budget will be tweaked.”
Again, to the Minister of Finance: will her promised tweaks impact the revenue projections that are on page 8 of the budget she tabled?
Hon. C. James: I will go through, again, the details for the member. I announced on budget day a speculation tax as part of a 30-point, expansive, comprehensive housing strategy for British Columbia. There is no question. This is a bold move. This is a bold tax. It is a new tax.
We are, as I said on budget day, taking the time to make sure we implement it, taking the time to listen to British Columbians, making sure that we implement this well. Legislation will come in the fall. More details will come later in the spring. Stay tuned, Member.
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX
A. Olsen: We need to take strong action on tackling the housing crisis gripping Vancouver and spreading across other parts of our province as well. We need to protect the future of young people in our cities. We need to target what’s really driving this crisis.
I agree with the Premier: we need to get speculation out of the marketplace. But as we do this, the unintended consequences on the areas that we didn’t intend to target must be minimized. I’ve heard loud and clear that an unintended consequence of the speculation tax, as proposed by this government, could be to hit areas like the Gulf Islands very hard.
I’m very sympathetic to the complexity of the challenge that this government has inherited. But the British Columbians who own vacation homes are not speculators, and most importantly, they are not the primary cause of the housing crisis. Applying the tools to address the supply-and-demand aspects of the housing market on places like the Gulf Islands is going to be very tricky.
My question is to the Minister of Finance: will the implementation of this tax recognize the difference between Galiano, Mayne, Pender and Saltspring Islands and places like Vancouver?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. Thank you for the support of the speculation tax. I think it’s critical. I know that the housing plan for the Greens actually called for a speculators tax that would “take the form of an annual property tax surcharge targeted at absentee owners” and “cover domestic speculators, such as residents of other provinces who own property in B.C.”
I take the member’s point. We’ve been hearing, as I said, issues that have come forward. We have included those. They have been on our table as part of our implementation. We’ll be looking at all those issues, and I appreciate the feedback from the member.
Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: Yes, that’s right. We did put forward a comprehensive policy that included a flipping tax as well. I thank the minister for the answer, and I’m glad to hear that the feedback will be taken. I welcome it.
It’s crucial that we get the implementation of this right. The target of the speculation tax should not be the senior couple who owns a vacation home on Mayne Island and stays there for several months of the year. That’s been going on in the market for a very long time. The target should be on the speculator who views our real estate as a place to park capital and a place just for profit.
I’ve been hearing from individuals and from local governments with concerns on the details of this tax. The government has got to be able to create tools that recognize the diverse needs of different parts of this province and more effectively deal with the crux of the issue.
My question is to the Minister of Finance again. Being open to feedback, will you take this a step further and reach out to the local governments as you make changes to this policy, to ensure that their voices are also being heard, and the needs of communities?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. Yes, I’ve been hearing from local governments as well. So if there are others, I’m happy to do that outreach. We’ve been hearing from a number of individuals, and they’ve been providing their feedback around suggestions, around approaches. All of that, as I said, has been on our table as part of the implementation plan. So I appreciate it, and if there are other contacts that the member wants to pass along, please feel free. This is our opportunity — and details to come.
2026 FIFA WORLD CUP BID
J. Johal: Vancouver has been part of a united bid to have Canada, Mexico and the U.S. jointly host the men’s 2026 FIFA World Cup. Can the Minister of Tourism confirm the government has given direction that the bid be abandoned?
Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. This is a hugely exciting opportunity, obviously, with great potential benefits. But it also comes with great potential risks. So we, as a government, are taking the time to analyze those risks, and we will have more information shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: In 2015, the economic benefit for B.C. alone of hosting the FIFA Women’s World Cup was estimated to be about $118 million, all from an initial investment of $2 million. However, the reports are that the provincial government has pulled out of the bid for the men’s 2026 FIFA World Cup. In fact, we have learned that the bid deadline was last night.
Again, I ask the minister: can she confirm if the province supports the bid, yes or no?
Hon. L. Beare: We are in close contact with the bid committee, and our team is working closely with them. It’s extremely important that we recognize that along with the opportunities for benefits, there’s great opportunity for risk. We want to make sure that we protect B.C. and protect B.C. taxpayers, and we’re taking the time to do that.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
D. Davies: The B.C. Teachers Federation is clear, very clear, that the employer health tax will cost B.C. school boards an additional $70 million.
To the Minister of Education: is $70 million annually, to keep school boards whole, reflected in the budget, yes or no?
Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the question. I think we’ve canvassed it well this week, but I’m happy to answer it again. The reduction of the MSP this year is giving savings, returned savings, to school districts in every corner of British Columbia — 20 million additional dollars to spend on learning resources in the classrooms of British Columbia.
That is on top of a record investment of 240 million new operating dollars in the budget this year. Since the last full budget under that government and our first full budget under this government, there is a $550 million difference of new investment in classrooms in every part of British Columbia. It’s a record budget of putting new investment in our kids, in our future as a province, and it comes with a record investment in school construction as well — the highest school capital budget in B.C. history. Those are the facts of the budget.
We are working with our school district partners on the transition to the employer health tax. The numbers are coming in, from the B.C. association of school board officials, which show that there may not be any difference at all from the current regime to the new tax.
What we won’t apologize for is public policy to get rid of the most regressive flat tax that any jurisdiction could imagine. We won’t apologize for that. We’re getting rid of it. We’re putting money into the pockets of moms and dads who take their kids to school every day, because it’s good for the economy.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.
D. Davies: You’re right. We did canvass this quite a bit this week, but the thing is, we never got an answer. We never got any direction on where the government is going to go with this tax.
School boards are struggling to find what’s going to happen. Even Patti Bacchus is calling on the Education Minister to act quickly.
School boards are expecting the Premier to keep his promise that they will be kept whole. Is the minister planning an exemption or a refund to keep the school boards whole?
Hon. R. Fleming: I have to keep in mind that the group across the way that are asking questions about the K-to-12 education system are the same group that fought for 16 years to keep resources out of the classrooms. They fought in the courts against teachers. They fought against support staff. They downloaded hundreds of millions of dollars of costs onto school boards and told them to go and figure out how they would pay for it. They paid for it with cuts.
We’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the school system. That’s why we have the lowest teacher-per-pupil ratio in the province’s history right now. That’s why we have record sums of money in the education system in British Columbia. We’re proud of that. That’s part of Budget 2018, and the member just doesn’t seem to get it.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON HEALTH
AUTHORITIES
M. Bernier: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost Interior Health an extra $3.3 million annually. The Provincial Health Authority, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Vancouver Coastal, Fraser Health and Northern Health all face similar challenges — higher, ongoing, additional new taxes.
To the Minister of Finance, and I assume this research was done: what is the total additional cost of the employer health tax for these health authorities?
Hon. C. James: I would remind the member, as we talked about with education, that there’s a 50 percent saving of MSP premiums in this year, as of January 1. There will be elimination of MSP premiums in 2020, and there are huge investments in health care that are in this budget, including support for families when it comes to PharmaCare, reducing costs for families who can’t afford medication, including support for seniors.
We are ensuring that we are getting rid of a regressive tax. We are bringing in the resources to invest in health care, which supports not only the health authorities but supports all British Columbians who need health care in our province.
Mr. Speaker: Peace River South on a supplemental.
M. Bernier: I’ll remind the minister of her own words: that they were replacing, not eliminating, MSP with a new tax. This is a higher tax.
I’ll take it from the minister’s last response that she’s either unable or unwilling to actually answer my question on how many millions and millions of dollars this is going to cost the health authorities. I’ll also remind the minister that the Premier said that they would be “kept whole.”
With that commitment, to the minister, is she planning on an exemption or a refund to keep health authorities whole?
Hon. C. James: We are going to continue to invest in health care in British Columbia and supporting seniors and supporting families by eliminating the MSP premiums.
I want to remind the member with a few quotes from individuals who have written in to us. Reema from Pitt Meadows, for example, wrote to say that her family is working hard to get ahead. By eliminating the unfair MSP premiums, they’re going to save money for their son’s education. Diane from West Vancouver, 70 years old, says that MSP premiums are going to make all the difference in her life to be able to afford her prescription medications. Lucia from downtown Vancouver, 28 years old, working full-time. She’ll save $900 a year. She says: “The MSP cuts make life more affordable for me, and anytime I save money, it goes towards paying my rent.”
We are eliminating the MSP premiums. We are bringing in an employers health tax. We have a year’s transition to continue discussions with groups and organizations in our province, and we will make sure that affordability is there for families.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS
M. Lee: The employer health tax on the University of British Columbia will be an estimated $23 million next year, plus MSP. This is just one of the more than three dozen post-secondary institutions throughout our province that face a significantly larger tax bill as a result of replacing the MSP with a new, higher NDP tax.
My question to the Minister of Finance is: what is the total estimated additional cost of the employer health tax for all of the post-secondary institutions in British Columbia?
Hon. C. James: As I said to the previous questioner, we are implementing the employers health tax January 1, 2019. We have given a year’s transition so that we can make sure that the implementation is done well. We’ll be having discussions — as we are with school boards, as we are with health authorities, we will with post-secondary institutions.
I can tell you that the students and others who attend those post-secondary institutions are thrilled at seeing MSP eliminated, thrilled at getting rid of a regressive tax. I can also assure the member that when you look at the investments we are putting into post-secondary education to ensure that students, former children in care, can get to school, expanding opportunities for engineering in our universities and colleges…. Those are exactly the investments British Columbians have been asking for, and those are the ones we’re going to deliver on.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.
M. Lee: Well, I continue to get the impression that there has been no assessment as to what the total impact on post-secondary institutions will be for the employer health tax. Students don’t pay the MSP. Students pay tuition. There are questions, serious questions, that need to be asked about what the impact will be of this new tax for post-secondary institutions and our students.
The Premier has committed that organizations will be kept whole. Is the minister planning an exemption or a refund to keep the post-secondary sector whole?
Hon. C. James: Well, coming from that side of the House that doubled tuition during the 16 years that they were in — and now you care? Now you say you care? I’m sorry, but now it’s too late. It’s too late. You proved by doubling tuition that you didn’t care about students, and students know that.
I want to read a quote from John from Maple Ridge. With the hundreds of dollars he’s saving thanks to the elimination of MSP premiums, he is going to help his daughter pay for school. That’s exactly what we want to support.
BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS
AND EMPLOYER HEALTH
TAX
T. Redies: Three-year revenue projections for both the employer health tax and the so-called speculation tax mean nothing when the Minister of Finance will only give details as we go along. The minister either has no idea or is refusing to come clean on what it will cost to keep non-profits and public agencies whole, as the Premier promised. How can the minister possibly stand in this House and state that her revenue projections are still accurate?
Hon. C. James: Again, let’s remind everyone in this House. The province knows this; families know this, because they’ve already starting seeing the benefit, as of January 1, when they see their savings: that eliminating the MSP will save hard-working British Columbians $2.6 billion a year.
As other provinces have done, we are bringing in an employers health tax. This is the lowest employers health tax rate in the country. We will ensure we provide support for health care and other programs and services that families rely on, and families will have money in their pocket that they haven’t seen in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Redies: School boards, health authorities, charities and universities all face a significant, ongoing gap between the previous MSP and the new NDP employer health tax. That’s a fact. The minister promises that details will be discussed at a later date, and the Premier claims everyone will be kept whole.
This bogus budget doesn’t add up. How can British Columbians trust the minister’s numbers?
Hon. C. James: Well, we are the last province in the country that still has MSP premiums — the last province in the country. Yes, in our budget, we’ve decided we are taking a bold step. We are getting rid of MSP premiums and supporting families with savings. Yes, we are bringing in, as other provinces have done, an employers health tax. We have the lowest rate in this country. It will bring in the resources needed.
I would ask the member across the way. I would ask all the members on the other side: are you suggesting that we leave MSP premiums in place? I know that’s what your government did. I know that’s what the other side did — double them. Perhaps that’s the solution the other side would like to propose — that we leave MSP premiums in place or cut child care or support programs?
We’re investing in people, we’re investing in affordability, and we’re going to continue to do that.
AIR AMBULANCE FEE FOR
WILDFIRE
EVACUEE
D. Barnett: Last week I asked the Minister of Health about my 90-year-old constituent Rudolf Dunst, who wrote to the minister last year. Mr. Dunst was air-lifted to Vancouver for emergency heart surgery following his evacuation from the wildfires last summer and has since been billed $20,000 for the flight. On March 1, the minister said he would be reviewing it with Mr. Dunst and his family. But my constituent still has no answer.
The question is simple. Will the minister pay Mr. Dunst’s bill?
Hon. A. Dix: The member is an experienced member in this House and knows that the details of health cases are not a subject for debate in the Legislature. We take these issues seriously.
The one thing I would say is this, and the members opposite know this. Nothing has changed with respect to reimbursement of ambulance services in a long time. The policies that she is questioning in the House were in place for 16 years under the previous government and for years before that under other governments.
What we’re doing — what I’m doing, because I’ve committed to doing this for the member and because there are circumstances in this matter — is reviewing the case to see whether there is a possibility to make a change to allow us to deal with the concerns of Mr. Dunst. But I’m not going to debate that here in the Legislature.
I think this is serious matter. It’s a serious matter for the family, a serious matter for the region and a serious matter for the member. If we are going to, in fact, find exceptions to rules, they have to be done in a coherent way. With a generous heart, yes, but in a coherent way, if we’re going to change practice that was in place the entire time that the other side was government in this House and before that, as well, in previous governments. That’s why we’re taking the matter seriously, and that’s what the review intends.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
T. Wat: I would like to present a petition from the businesses and merchants from Pacific Plaza in my riding of Richmond North Centre to the Premier and to this House urging this government to follow through on their election commitment to build a new acute tower in Richmond.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on committee stage of Bill 2, and in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On section 74 (continued).
Hon. C. James: I’ll just introduce the staff I have with me this morning: Richard Purnell, acting director of tax policy; Jordan Goss, executive director of the consumer tax programs branch, revenue division; and Duncan Jillings, director of property tax as well.
We have some of the responses from yesterday, some of the information that I said we’d try and get. If it’s reasonable for the member, we could start there with some of the information. Then I know the member had asked, as well, that we just reiterate, from section 72 on, the specifics of the luxury vehicle tax.
If it’s reasonable for the members, I’ll start with the information that was asked for yesterday.
S. Bond: I think, if it works for the minister, we’d rather see that information in writing. There’s no point in taking a lot of House time to go through all those items, so we’re happy to have it presented to us. However, we do want to work through the clarification that we feel is necessary.
With the indulgence of the Chair, it does cover a number of sections, because the minister has, in various sections, outlined the tax brackets, both current and future, for luxury vehicles, passenger vehicles. At no time did she reference 12 percent, whereas the document in front of us actually talks about 12 percent.
So if we could start with those sections, clarify the 12 percent, and then receive the information that we asked for in writing, that would be most helpful.
Hon. C. James: I’ll do the overview, because it applies to all sections. Then, if the members want us to go through individual sections and double-check on individual sections, happy to do that. We did raise the 12 percent in different sections, but I understand we had a lot of sections to go through yesterday, so happy to provide that clarification.
For the members, the 12 percent applies to private sales and gifts where they are private. So they don’t come through a dealership. That’s 12 percent. It’s the current rate. That’s not changing.
On dealership sales, leases or gifts — if they come through a dealer — 7 percent for passenger vehicles valued at less than $55,000; 8 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $55,000 or more, but less than $56,000; 9 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $56,000 or more, but less than $57,000; and 10 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $57,000 or more. Those are the existing.
The new rates apply to vehicles valued at $125,000 or more, and apply to both vehicles acquired privately and to vehicles acquired from dealerships. Those rates, again, are 15 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $125,000 or more, but less than $150,000, and 20 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $150,000 or more.
S. Bond: We appreciate that clarification. I know my co-critic will have a further question on section 74.
I just want the opportunity, though, to also confirm, because it’s important, that that tax revenue — the taxes generated from the increases to passenger vehicles that have been outlined for us….
I’m wondering. I’m sure the minister will want to confirm that these taxes will be going into general revenue, I’m assuming. That would obviously help to offset things like a bid for the FIFA World Cup, as an example. That might be one of the examples, or perhaps that’s a moot point at this point in time. Perhaps the minister could clarify where this money is going.
Hon. C. James: The member is correct, general revenue.
T. Redies: Back to section 74, I’m still confused as to why it says vehicles less than $125,000 will be charged 12 percent tax. It seems to me that there’s something missing there, if you were trying to ensure that vehicles under $57,000 were not going to be taxed at an additional amount.
Hon. C. James: This is not a new provision. This is an existing provision: “12% of the fair market value of the passenger vehicle on the entry date…if the fair market value is less than $125 000….” This relates, as I mentioned before, to private sales.
The section below is related to dealer sales. That’s the difference between the two. The top is related to private sales, and as I mentioned earlier around the 12 percent, that’s there. The list below is for dealer sales.
T. Redies: I’m sure you can appreciate, Minister, that this is very confusing. And if it is private sales versus another category, I would think that it should be spelled out better in the language in this document. I think it is very confusing, certainly from my perspective.
I guess one of the other questions I wanted to ask is: what are you basing the attribution of value to the tax? Is it based on the original purchase price, the fair market value? And what happens when vehicles arrive in B.C.?
Hon. C. James: This section talks about gifts. It talks about the date of entry, so fair market value would be…. That’s the use, its fair market value. Fair market value would be what you get on an open market on the date of entry of the vehicle. So if it’s a ten-year-old vehicle, it would be what the fair market value would be for that ten-year-old vehicle on the date of entry, when it came in.
T. Redies: Would that be established by the black book value? Is that how it would be established?
Hon. C. James: We use gold book in British Columbia, apparently — black book, but similar and exactly the same kind of process — and takes into account the value, the wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.
Section 74 approved.
On section 75.
S. Bond: I just want to highlight and support the comments made by my colleague. You know, these sections are very confusing. There is language that I think, over time, we need to sort out. I can imagine if we’ve spent a lot of time trying to sort this out…. I can’t imagine the average British Columbian will be spending a lot of time doing that.
Perhaps in the interest of time and getting on to the next sections…. In section 75, the reference is to leased vehicles, vehicles that are leased outside of British Columbia. I’m assuming the minister can just confirm that the details provided regarding the 10, 15 and 20 percent in terms of the current tax brackets and the new ones are identical to what she has reflected in other sections.
Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct, Member.
Sections 75 to 78 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Shall section 79 pass?
Interjection.
On section 79.
S. Bond: Thanks to the enthusiasm of the Minister of Health. It was a nice try, but no, there are some questions on section 79.
Interjection.
S. Bond: I know. You were most helpful to your colleague.
This is where we were starting to talk about the on-line accommodation platform. I’m assuming this is linked to the government’s initiative around looking at things like Airbnb and collecting taxes and using that, the revenue there, to support a housing strategy. Could the minister tell me the purpose behind enabling an operator of an on-line accommodation platform to apply to register as a collector? Is there no automatic requirement for them to do so? If the minister could explain the expectations of those on-line operators.
Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. This continues on…. There are a few sections, as the member knows, related to on-line accommodation platforms. Currently the Provincial Sales Tax Act cannot require businesses that are located outside Canada to register to collect tax, except under very specific conditions — for example, the inventory of the business is held in British Columbia. That would be a specific condition where we could require someone….
What this change does is it provides the legislative authority for businesses located outside of Canada to voluntarily collect the tax. So the requirement now…. As I said, within the tax act, we can’t require them to do that. This gives us the legislative authority for businesses located outside of Canada to voluntarily register — which is what Airbnb has done, for example — which is why this change is coming forward.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In light of the direction that the government has decided to take here, can the minister articulate for us exactly how this process, obviously being enabled here, changes the circumstances for a person who has a condo that they are going to offer for use? Can the minister walk through what changes for the person who decides to use their accommodation as part of an on-line accommodation process?
Hon. C. James: I’ll refer to the general principle of why we’re bringing in these sections because this actually doesn’t apply to this section. It applies to a piece of the next section.
I think the member has asked: what’s the big picture, and what does this do? These amendments, these changes, will allow taxes to be collected from on-line accommodation providers. If you’re an individual, personally, and you’ve got your house and you’re renting it out…. You’re renting on an on-line accommodation platform. This would enable an organization like Airbnb — I use them because it’s the most common for people, but there are number of other organizations — to collect those taxes on your behalf and remit them to government.
Rather than each individual provider having to do that, this provides and enables the opportunity for the provider to come to us and say: “We will sign an agreement. We will collect and remit the tax on behalf of the individuals who use our on-line platform to be able to advertise.” So for the individual, it doesn’t change. It, in fact, provides more ease by having an on-line provider collect that tax and submit it to government.
S. Bond: When we look at the remittance to government…. I think the government has stated that the revenue will be part of a housing affordability measure. The minister knows how I feel. When our government was in her shoes…. We believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency. Can the minister outline for me what level of accountability or reporting will be completed and made public?
This is a brand-new area of taxation, a new revenue source for the government. It is going to be linked, apparently, to housing affordability. From our perspective, it’s important British Columbians know how much is being collected and what the government will do with that. Can the minister assure British Columbians today that there will be some level of transparency?
Hon. C. James: The member knows…. In the budget, we’ve listed the proposed revenue or the amount that we believe will come in. It’s on page 65 of the budget, for those who are listening who want to take a look, and $60 million is what we’ve predicted at this point. A portion of that will go to the province, to general revenue. Then a portion, the hotel tax or the MRDT, goes….
As the member knows, for those communities that partake in that program, they get the actual revenue from the MRDT. The on-line accommodation providers will be paying both the PST as well as the MRDT. The MRDT will go to those municipalities. As the numbers come in, we’ll be including those in the budget as the tax expands.
We do have to be careful about making sure that if it’s one provider, for example, you couldn’t provide the tax information because it would identify the taxpayer, which you can’t do. But we expect that we will have other on-line providers come on board. We’ll have that information, and as I said, the information is there in the budget. It adjusts as the actuals come in each year.
S. Bond: With all due respect to the minister, yes, reading a budget book is one thing, but when a government initiates a new program that is looking at collecting taxes and is, in essence, targeting them to a particular program that has been one of the key platform issues of this government….
Certainly as MLAs, we all hear about the issue of housing affordability. Perhaps the minister could provide me with a more specific answer that outlines how the revenue will…. Yes, there are portions of it…. I know the minister will know there are also concerns, especially in the tourism industry, about the MRDT now being used for affordable housing options. That is a huge concern in an industry which generates billions of dollars of revenue and jobs in the province.
There will be further discussion about that as we work our way through estimates and through other ministries, but the point here is simply this. New tax tied to key platform commitments this government has made — I think British Columbians deserve to know what portion of that tax is being attached to a housing affordability strategy more specifically.
Is the minister prepared to consider…? A line in the budget is one thing, and we spend days and months debating that, but British Columbians deserve to know where that tax is going and how it’s linked to affordability and a strategy that’s been very high-profile for this government.
Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member’s questions, and I appreciate the direction that she would choose, but I think it’s pretty clear if people take a look at the general revenue of this province, where the priorities are. We’ve been very clear about that in the budget. We are accountable each and every day as members, as part of government, for the dollars and the choices that we make, and a budget is clearly about making those choices. A budget very clearly is about taking the general revenue that comes in.
This revenue at $16 million is obviously a very small portion of the housing budget. The member just needs to look at the particulars that we have spent on the housing file over the next number of years to know that.
So yes, we will be accountable. We will be accountable for ensuring that tax dollars, whether they are coming from this route, from on-line accommodation providers, from taxpayers in our province, from businesses or individuals…. That is our job. That’s our job each and every day — to make sure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and we are held accountable for that.
S. Bond: Well, thank you, Minister. I will take that as a no — that there isn’t going to be a specific, articulated and transparent process for British Columbians. Yes, there is a budget book, and yes, the minister is responsible — and her government — for those numbers. But it seems a pretty small thing to be asking.
When the government is creating a new tax, a new system in British Columbia, and has made a very public statement about the transfer and use of a portion of that revenue for a housing affordability strategy, one would think it would actually be good news and a very important way to be able to say: “Here’s the revenue that was generated. This portion is being used for this. And by the way, this is how it links to our housing affordability strategy.”
I won’t belabour the point. Obviously, our preference, as it was with the carbon tax, is to lay out for British Columbians what’s collected and how it’s going to be utilized.
Section 79 approved.
On section 80.
S. Bond: Again, section 80 is related to the on-line accommodation platform. I would very much appreciate it if the minister could outline for me…. When it talks about the changes that are being made, it suggests that it “prohibits the sale or provision of accommodation through an on-line accommodation platform unless the vendor is registered or not required to be registered.” Can the minister outline for us who would not be required to register?
Hon. C. James: Sorry, I was going back to make sure we were looking at the existing language or the new language. I think the member, if I’ve got it right, was looking at where vendors don’t need to register when they’re selling exempt accommodation. The example that’s in the regulation would be tents. If they’re selling accommodation in tents, that’s part of the regulation, currently, that exempts them from having to register.
S. Bond: Perhaps we can have a bit more clarity there. Currently, the minister will be working on regulations that will look at exemptions for certain types of on-line accommodation. The example that she’s provided is tents. There are some very sophisticated operations that use…. We might call them a tent, but they’re not. It’s called glamping. There’s a variety of other things.
Will there be discussion with the industry, with others, about who’s going to be exempt from this? What would be the rationale for exempting particular types of accommodation?
Hon. C. James: Just to give a little bit of history around the regulations, because I think the member is quite right: the version of camping has changed over the years. This is a historic list. When the PST was brought back in, the historic list just continued on — which were the regulations. That’s why it included tents. It also included accommodation that was less than $30 a night. That was included as part of the regulations.
I think the second part of the member’s question was: are we going to have a consultation around the changes that will be made in the regulation with these changes? Yes, we will.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that explanation. Yes, things certainly have changed. I was thinking, and the name finally came to me: yurts. I mean, that is a very lucrative industry in British Columbia, and we have some outstanding tourism operators and others who look at that in a very different way today. I’m wondering if the minister could define for me or give me the definition of what a “retail sale” means in the context of this section.
Hon. C. James: A retail sale would be a sale to the end customer, of a room versus, for example, a hotel that might sell a block of rooms — conventions, those kinds of things. So a retail sale would be the sale to the end customer — for a room, for a period of time.
S. Bond: Just one last question on this section. Would this impact listings that are made on websites like Craigslist, Kijiji, VRBO — to name several? So maybe a bit about the scope and who this is going to impact.
Hon. C. James: I think the member listed most of the groups and organizations that would be covered. The key is the exchange of money. So if there is an exchange of money through the on-line platform, then they are captured. If they’re simply doing a listing service and there’s no charge, then they wouldn’t be captured. So the key really is the exchange of money through the on-line platform.
Section 80 approved.
On section 81.
Interjections.
T. Redies: Trying to move us along, are you?
I believe section 81 is retroactively removing the director’s authority to exempt collectors who sell or lease tangible personal property or provide telecommunication services on certain passenger-carrying commercial vessels. Can the minister speak to why this is being done? What is the expected impact or intent of this particular measure?
Hon. C. James: This is basically administrative simplification. It’s really what we’re talking about here. Currently the director has the discretion around the taxes that are paid — international waters, etc., with cruise ships. Instead of the discretion being with the director, we’re putting it into regulation. That’s basically what this change does.
T. Redies: Does the ministry expect additional tax will be collected as a result of that? What would be that additional tax? Also, could you explain why it’s being made retroactive?
Hon. C. James: This is similar to what we’ve seen in a couple of different housekeeping, so to speak, pieces or clarification pieces. The reason it’s retroactive is that it goes back to the reimplementation of the PST, when that occurred. It’s retroactive back to April 1, 2013, just to clarify the current practice. This will not make any change. It will not bring in more tax or not more tax. It just moves the discretion from the director to regulation.
T. Redies: Thank you for that. It’s just a bit curious, because you’re basically taking away the ability of the tax collector to make an exemption. You must be doing that on the expectation that they’re making exemptions today and that potentially that is costing tax revenue to the government. Or am I mistaken?
Hon. C. James: This really is an issue that is current practice. It’s very difficult right now to collect the tax because of international waters. When does the tax get collected — when the cruise ship is moving through waters? When is the right time to be able to collect it and not?
That discretion is there now through the director. That’s current practice. The discretion will continue to be there in regulation as well, because of the difficulty of collecting the tax, because of the crossing international waters issue. This will create no change in practice from what’s currently there, because the practical nature of being able to collect that tax is very difficult. That’s why the discretion is built in.
T. Redies: I’m sure the minister must think I’m sweating the small stuff here. But you’re taking away an exemption. So you’re removing the ability of the tax collector. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
Hon. C. James: Perhaps I didn’t make this clear. The discretion will still be there. It will simply be in regulation now rather than the director having the discretion. So the discretion is still there. The exemption is still there. It will just move from the director having that exemption to the regulation having the exemption listed.
Section 81 approved.
On section 82.
S. Bond: Just a quick question. This is about attending a location outside of British Columbia. We’ve had a number of sections like this previously, basically to check compliance. Related to this section 82, where would we be going to check compliance? And how has it been determined that that would be necessary?
Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. We’ve had a number of different sections that have referred to this piece around the ability for the province to recover costs associated with out-of-province audits. There are numerous businesses across the country that have obligations to pay PST to British Columbia, so we are required, often, to do the audits outside the province. This allows the province to recover our costs associated with doing those out-of-province audits.
As with the other sections, the ability for businesses to waive that fee and to not have to pay that fee is to simply bring their books to British Columbia. That solves the problem, and that means that we don’t have any out-of-cover costs. But many businesses are located outside the province. They would rather we came to them. This is a cost recovery piece.
Sections 82 to 84 inclusive approved.
On section 85.
T. Redies: This section, per the note, provides that a fee imposed must not be varied or disallowed by a court because of specific deficiencies in process. Why is this being done? And is it typical practice that the government would disallow a court ruling?
Hon. C. James: Yes, we’ve had this discussion in a number of acts. It is consistent. It is consistent in the act and consistent across acts around assessments and penalties. It’s standard language. It does not prevent, though, someone from going to court and having it overturned because of due process or administrative…. Due process, I think, is the best way to describe it. That still remains for individuals, but this is standard language around it.
I think we talked, in the previous section, about one additional day that gets added on by mistake. It prevents that entire fee or penalty from being waived because of that one administrative change, but it still allows someone to go to court, address the due process that may have caused some difficulties and have something overturned.
T. Redies: I understand that this is, perhaps, standard language, but I guess I’m still trying to understand how this is a fair process to entities or individuals that are being taxed if, basically, because of a deficiency in the government’s process, they’re still going to be held accountable for paying the fee. While I respect that they can take the government to court, it just seems the onus is on them, not the government, to actually make sure that their processes are accurate and fair.
I guess the second question I have, with respect to this, is: if the government is basically protected from making mistakes, how do you ensure that the government bureaucracy improves its practices over time if they can always be, I guess, protected by this particular regulation?
Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I will be happy to come back to the member right after lunch.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $6,302,620,000 (continued).
D. Davies: I believe that when we left off yesterday’s chat we had just gone into the school tax, talking about impacts. I don’t recall if I did…. I never made a note of this — if I’d actually asked about the school tax going up. I’ll ask it again, just in case.
School tax is going up, but the majority of increases are going to be coming after the municipal elections, when the big increase comes. I’m just wondering if there was a reason for this, or if the minister thinks it’s fair to saddle newly elected school boards with the job of implementing this massive tax hike on the school tax.
Hon. R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify with the critic if he’s talking about the employer health tax or another tax.
D. Davies: The school tax on properties — property assessments and such.
Hon. R. Fleming: I will give this answer to the member and instruct him, I think, to reserve his question for the Minister of Finance.
Tax revenue, including the school property tax, goes into general revenue. It’s levied by the province. It’s not administered or collected by school districts, per se. It’s not tied in any way — that revenue — to funding to the Ministry of Education.
D. Davies: All right. Just out of curiosity, then — and understanding the question being pointed to the Finance Minister regarding the school tax and the increase of, I believe, 0.2 percent this year, 2 percent next year: were there any discussions with the Ministry of Education to the Minister of Finance and vice versa regarding why the sudden increase?
Again, looking at a 2 percent tax increase on property assessments next year, as an increase, is quite substantial. I’m just wondering if there were any discussions between the Finance Minister and the Minister of Education.
Hon. R. Fleming: Again, same answer. This is a tax that is a provincial tax. It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Education. The revenue is not tied in any way to education funding in our school districts or other parts of the school sector.
I would ask him to refine his question and maybe put it to the Minister of Finance.
D. Davies: All right. Feed B.C. procurement costs, I’m just curious. Moving forward with that program, has the ministry been in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture regarding increased procurement for local products in schools?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, a couple of things, I would say in response to his question. First of all, local school districts are responsible for local procurement. I expect that the Ministry of Agriculture will have some guidelines, some suggestions and some procurement options for school districts. Having said that, there are an awful lot of school districts in British Columbia that are well on their way to providing more and more locally grown food in their districts, in their lunch and breakfast programs, some of which are funded by the Ministry of Education through the CommunityLINK program, for example.
There are a lot of farm-to-school partnerships in different districts. Delta is one that would be an example of a district that has done a really good job of reaping all the educational benefits as well as the local economic benefits of not stocking their schools with junk food or foreign-sourced food products but being able to promote healthy eating, teaching kids about the local food chain and what responsible land stewardship looks like, and getting out and visiting a farm where they may have not been able to have that opportunity.
There’s lots of good stuff in the Feed B.C. initiative. Also, it dovetails very nicely with the direction that most districts have taken in recent years. But again I would say to the member that local procurement decisions like this remain local decisions.
D. Davies: Just a quick follow-up. You kind of alluded a little bit to where the funding was going to come from. But is the program mainly funded by the Ministry of Agriculture or through the Ministry of Education?
Hon. R. Fleming: Again, there’s no specific line item in the Ministry of Education. This is a Ministry of Agriculture program. What I can say is that there is a series of food programs in every school district, some of which are funded by the Ministry of Education through CommunityLINK funding, although districts have a high degree of autonomy over what they use those funds for. Really, the instructions there are to spend them on vulnerable student populations, so they have different priorities in different local districts.
Look, as I said, I think school districts have done different things with their local procurement decisions on how they provide food. We’ve got some amazing examples of schools that are doing really well, where they not only buy local products, but they are teaching high school students in formal apprenticeship programs to become Red Seal–certified chefs. We have a number of schools like that in different districts around the province, and there’s interest in creating even more opportunities like that.
We have the resort and hospitality industry working with school districts to provide those kinds of opportunities, and while training, they’re serving out very affordable, nutritious meals for students in those districts.
D. Davies: I’m just looking at the program. Of course, the idea of the program, I think, is pretty good. Some school districts will be facing some unique challenges regarding location and the ability to grow certain foods.
We’ve debated, almost to death, the employers health tax and how school boards are going to be facing challenges moving forward. Looking at school districts, moving forward within this program, being directed to take on local food procurement, will districts be responsible for doing any of this funding for getting local food procurement?
Hon. R. Fleming: Just a couple of things. This is a question that probably would have been better asked at the Ministry of Agriculture estimates. I would say that to the member.
Feed B.C. is a directive to have more locally grown produce in our school system. It comes at an exciting time, because the capacity in the school system is very high to be able to do that. We’ve got a number of schools — I’d probably not be exaggerating to say hundreds in British Columbia right now — with their own on-site vegetable-growing beds and doing production on site.
We’ve got staff costs and school costs that are already covered to be able to run local programs in schools. We’ve got local school districts running their own local procurement practices, which have made the shift away from junk food — for example, of foreign, imported food products to locally sourced B.C.-grown material. There has been no reported cost increase from that. Districts are finding their way. They’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do and because, of course, this food has an economic story to it and a land stewardship lesson that is instructive to students.
In terms of Feed B.C. right now, it’s coming at a time when the school districts are already doing much of that, and they’ll explore how they can fit with that Ministry of Agriculture directive even further. I would say that if there does come an interest in buying significant quantities and significant volumes of B.C. food, there is a central procurement consortium, B.C. Education Marketplace, that could potentially play a role, down the road, to coordinating that, but so far, no districts have expressed any interest in that.
I think they’re really excited about the idea of having more B.C. products in their schools, expanding the opportunities for kids to learn about how land is used in B.C. and what healthy eating is all about.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Moving on, there is, in the estimates book, a $10 million cut to transfers to other partners in the budget. Can the minister explain the funding cut and assure us that this cut is not to our public library funding?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, there have been no reductions in any ministry programs in the budget. So I’ll ask him to bear with me, just with an explanation of how there has been a shift of money into different subcategories in the budget. As part of Budget 2018, the ministry reallocated the next-generation network program from the transfers to other partners — it’s a $22 million program — to the public schools subvote.
The reallocation was made to accurately reflect the funding provided for public school administration. We shifted that, and to correct a funding misalignment that occurred in 2016, where the previous government cut $12 million from the AFG — the annual facilities grant program — from operating to capital, we’ve put that back into transfers to other partners. So $22 million was taken out and $12 million added back in, for a net change of $10 million. I hope that answers the member’s question.
D. Davies: Well, I’m not sure if it does. Going through the line items, it’s very clear. “Transfers to other partners” is down from $86 million to $76 million.
Under the description, it directly correlates that to, “This subvote provides funding to support K-to-12 education,” public libraries, early learning and other.... Official languages. To me, it’s very clear, in the Estimates book on page 69, if you want to look it up, that this is indeed a cut. I’m not sure where the whole explanation comes that it’s an adjustment — again, looking backwards to the previous government. I’d like clarification, please.
Hon. R. Fleming: I would say this. The $22 million for the next-generation network, in that line item, was deemed not to be in the appropriate place. So it’s been transferred into the “Public schools” column in the budget. To all the other programs that he has referenced, there have been no cuts to any of those programs in the budget.
D. Davies: I’m just wondering if there was a reason that the grade 10 satisfaction rates have been dropped as part of the performance metrics strategies plan.
Hon. R. Fleming: I’d ask the member just for some clarification around the grade 10 survey question that he’s just asked — if he’s asking about it disappearing as a publicly reported survey or if the survey itself is no longer in operation.
D. Davies: As part of the performance metric that’s used for overall review, there were grade 10 satisfaction rates from the survey, as part of that metric. They don’t seem to be in this, moving forward. I’m just wondering if there was a reason why it was removed, or not.
Hon. R. Fleming: The student satisfaction survey, as it was referred to, is now called the student learning survey. It’s administered at grades 4, 7, 10 and 12, so there still is a grade 10 survey. This is used to monitor a number of things around student experience.
It’s much more comprehensive than what we used to ask students, in terms of the questions posed to them and the answers that they complete, which are then analyzed and used as data. It asks about the student experience, their confidence in the relevance of their education to give them the ability to pursue post-secondary education, for example, and just the relevance of their school experience overall.
In the future, this is going to be much more widely used. All 60 districts are using it right now, but it will be part of the open data program of government. Tremendous potential to see what students think about their schools and, I think, drive performance improvements in the 60 districts. Essentially, the districts will be ranked by the students they serve. I think the expansion of the survey is something that’s going to help improve accountability and focus school resources on improving the student learning experience.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that.
I’m going to let my colleague ask one very quick question, and we’ll probably have to come back for just a short little time after lunch today. I’ve got a few more questions. With that being said, I’ll turn it over to my colleague, Kootenay East.
T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister and the team for taking a quick couple of calls, more on a localized issue here. School district 5, where I’m from, has lots of priorities in education. The top part is always centred around health and safety of the staff and the students, of course.
The number one priority for school district 5 for many, many years has been the replacement of Mount Baker Secondary. The school is largely in disrepair. It’s approaching 70 years old right now, and there’s some significant overcrowding. Speaking to safety, quality of education and overcrowding — things that the minister and our side of the House certainly support eliminating — the question to the minister, I guess, would be: is he aware of the priorities set by school district No. 5?
Hon. R. Fleming: I would say to the member that indeed the ministry is aware of it. I know that this project has been district 5’s top priority for at least ten years. We’ve been around for six months. We’re familiar with that being their number one priority now, as it has been for over a decade. We expect that when we get a revised five-year capital plan from district 5 in June, it will still remain their number one priority.
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.
Hon. R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I move that we recess until the afternoon sitting of the House.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Even better. Thank you, Minister.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada