Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 105
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
|
Office of the Auditor General, Observations on the B.C. Utilities Commission , March 2018 |
|
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today nous célébrons la journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. We celebrate Francophonie Day. I wanted to introduce some important guests in the precincts.
Along with my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country, who worked on these francophone issues for many years, I’d like to welcome Pascal Bornoz, the consul general of Switzerland; John Bell, the honorary consul of the Côte d’Ivoire; Padminee Chundunsing, who’s the president of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Yvon Laberge, the executive director of the Collège Éducacentre; Benjamin Stoll, the executive director of RésoSanté; Stéphane Lapierre, the executive director of Assemblée francophone des retraités.
They’ll all be joining us today in celebrating the Journée de la Francophonie in the Hall of Honour at noon. I welcome everyone to join us there, and I ask everyone to welcome our guests to the Legislature.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Eileen Greene, who’s here with nine nursing students from the University of Victoria. They are in their final practicum at the Royal Jubilee Hospital emergency unit and the Vic General trauma unit. They finish their nursing program at the end of March. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
L. Throness: I have several friends in the gallery today. First of all, from Chilliwack, Susan Mathies, my constituency president. She brought her sister Marjorie with her. Would the House please welcome them.
Also, I would like to welcome a visitor from Terrace today. Jennifer Maillet operates Willow Creek Childcare, which is an important community resource. Would the House please give her a warm welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are four really terrific people who help keep my office running very, very well. They are Michelle Wakeman, Sara Hembree, Charlotte Hunt and Talea Pecora. They do an amazing job. I would ask the House to make them all very welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce five remarkable youth to the Legislature today: Megan Walker, Grayson Threlfall, Astrid Nielson-Miller, Alex Bradley and Avery Williams.
They, together with 20 other British Columbia youth, are working with Dr. Lindsay Harriet at the University of Victoria on writing a book about what it’s like to grow up as a transgender person in 2018. Their project is called The Transgender Tipping Point. They’re accompanied by parent Guy-Anne Orieux and honorary grandmother and good friend Glynne Evans.
Hon. J. Sims: It’s a great delight for me to stand up and welcome to this House my friend Padminee. She is here, and it’s delightful to see her in here.
Last weekend I had the privilege of participating in the 50th anniversary of Mauritius’ independence. I really was amazed at the cultural contributions of this community and also of the warm welcome they gave to all of us. I so much appreciate everything they add to the Canadian mosaic, especially into our Francophonie community.
Welcome, Padminee.
A. Olsen: It’s my honour today introduce Michele Bond, Nancy Chapman, Jane Gregory, Cathy and Gary Wolfson, Sheila Russell, Jim Callans, and Ken and Jane Marriette from my riding on the Saanich Peninsula, the beautiful Central Saanich. They represent a group called the Citizens Protecting Agriculture Land — strong advocates for agriculture. Could the House please make them feel very welcome.
Hon. J. Darcy: I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge a really, really wonderful woman who works in our office in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Her name is Debbie Wade. She’s the administrative coordinator. She really is the heart of our office — incredibly smart, confident, compassionate.
She has — well, it’s good news for the Premier’s office, bad news for our office — been snagged by the Premier’s office to come and work there. The Premier is very, very lucky that Debbie Wade will be joining his office.
We want to just thank her. I know that I thank her also on behalf of all of the people who have phoned and emailed and written our office and come in to visit in the last seven months. An amazing, amazing public servant in the province of British Columbia.
Thank you, Debbie Wade.
Tributes
NATALIE WILKIE
G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to congratulate 17-year old Natalie Wilkie, who took home a bronze medal in the cross-country sprint standing event at Pyeongchang. Would the House please send a congratulations to Natalie.
Congratulations. Our community is extremely proud of you.
NORM PARKES
Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to mark the retirement of a very long-standing public servant, somebody who has served this province for 35 years, all that time in the Ministry of Transportation. Norm Parkes joined in 1980 as a summer co-op student working with the Beam and Drilling Crew in Nelson. He worked his way up through a number of fields, including development approvals, traffic engineering, highway design, planning, partnership, operations and finally into the executive.
Norm has been a strong mentor and is really looking at how the young people will come into the ministry and how we’ll have a very strong ministry in the future. He’s helped and supported the technical entry level program and the engineering-in-training program and is really a mentor himself. He is known to be a trusted resource full of knowledge for the ministry and works collaboratively, collegially.
The ministry will find an empty hole when Norm leaves at the end of this month. He’s worked on a number of major projects and has had a big influence on our ministry.
I think a number of people know Norm has had cancer. He’s been publicly fighting for a year. He is going to be retiring reluctantly, I think, in some ways, because he loves his job so much. He’s so passionate. But he does want to spend time with his wife, Gwen, and his son, Kevin.
I hope the House will wish Norm a very happy and long retirement and thank him for his work.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M207 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
(RENAMING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
D. Davies presented a bill intituled Electoral Districts (Renaming) Amendment Act, 2018.
D. Davies: I move that a bill intituled Electoral Districts (Renaming) Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given today in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read now for a first time.
Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.
D. Davies: I am pleased to stand in the House to introduce a bill that would change the name of my riding to better reflect its regional composition. The Northern Rockies regional district is an important part of my riding. It is a place that I represent proudly, along with my entire riding.
The federal electoral district to my provincial riding also reflects Northern Rockies. In fact, it had its name changed from Prince George–Peace River to Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies.
The Northern Rockies regional municipality comprises roughly 10 percent of the province’s land mass. It includes Fort Nelson, which is the largest community in the regional municipality.
The Northern Rockies is home to one of the most important industries in our provincial economy, natural gas. It has incredible natural gas — in fact, one of the largest natural gas plays in North America — as well as an incredible amount of timber supply.
I believe it is important for Northern Rockies to be recognized, when I represent them.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
D. Davies: 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 M207, Electoral Districts (Renaming) 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 M208 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2018.
A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
The right to privacy is well established in British Columbia, as is the right to be free from discrimination because of gender identity and expression. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, however, gender identity and expression is not recognized as a category of personal information that must be protected when its disclosure may harm a third party.
In addition to proposed changes to ensure the protection of gender identity and expression in freedom-of-information releases, the bill also proposes a move to gender-inclusive language. This would demonstrate a commitment to protect the personal information of gender identity and expression in the legislation to an even larger extent and provide the act with an update making it more representative of the people it is meant to protect.
I wish to recognize the young members in the gallery today, who have been quite instrumental in bringing this to my attention, as well as the good work done by the member for Vancouver–West End, whose championing of this in the Legislature over many years has also informed me and others as to the importance of acts like these.
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 M208, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy 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 M209 — PERSONAL INFORMATION
PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2018.
A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
The protection of people’s private and personal information is essential, especially when the information could have negative impacts or when its release was not consented to. Too often personal information regarding gender identity or expression is revealed.
This amendment would replace 16 instances of gendered language throughout the act with gender-neutral language. By explicitly making a point of doing this, it reinforces to those who may rely on the act that gender identity and expression is important personal information that should not be revealed without that party’s consent. This bill will build trust between those who wish to keep their gender identity and expression private and those they seek guidance from concerning personal and confidential issues.
I would like to thank for this, as well, the youth in the gallery above, for bringing this to my attention, and once more to the member for Vancouver–West End, who was an advocate for language and issues like this over the years and has also made this an important topic of discussion in the Legislature.
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 M209, Personal Information Protection 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.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
PYEONGCHANG WINTER PARALYMPICS
M. Stilwell: On Sunday night, the flame for the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Paralympics will be extinguished, but the passion for sport will live on.
This year’s competition is the biggest Winter Paralympics to date, with 55 athletes representing Canada, ranging in age from 17 to 55. There are nine athletes from British Columbia.
To date, Canada’s medal count includes B.C.’s 17-year-old Natalie Wilkie from Salmon Arm. Natalie earned her first-ever Paralympic medal in the women’s standing sprint, racing to a bronze medal with North Vancouver’s Emily Young finishing right behind her.
Mollie Jepsen of Whistler claimed bronze in the women’s downhill standing event and added two golds to her collection, helping Canada claim 16 medals so far — five gold, one silver and ten bronze — with two more days left in competition. Our sledge hockey team will be playing for gold on Saturday.
Everyone knows I’m one of the biggest fans of the Paralympic Games, but I seem to have some competition with action icon Mr. T. His Twitter feed has been active, with supportive posts and his hashtag: #IPityTheFoolwhodon’twatchtheParalympics.
The Paralympics has continued to grow its fan base over the years, as fans everywhere take an interest in the adapted sports, the athletes, their stories and accomplishments. These athletes deserve to be celebrated and recognized for representing their country, their province and their community on the international stage. Watching them meet and exceed their own expectations at these games has been nothing short of inspiring, especially when we read their individual stories and learn about the challenges they’ve faced and overcome against all odds.
I ask that you all get out and cheer, tweet, Instagram, Facebook — whatever social media you use — to celebrate sport and the incredible athletes who pursue their passion in the pursuit of excellence. They make Canada proud. [Applause.]
Mr. Speaker: Members, maybe, perhaps we could applaud again for our own great Paralympian. [Applause.]
GORDON NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE
S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to celebrate Gordon Neighbourhood House. It’s a community hub that is growing, growing and growing. It’s currently under renovation now, so if you went by the front, you would have no idea about the incredible activities that are going on inside.
Gordon Neighbourhood House has been around since 1942. It started in the basement of a house when the West End still had a lot of houses. Obviously, that has changed, but they have grown into their own neighbourhood hub that does so much, with a slogan, a motto: “Together we grow.” The idea behind the house is solving problems in the community through volunteerism, the support of staff and the support of community.
An interesting change is they’ve decided to adopt food, the sharing of food and the growing of food, as one of the key ways they build community. “Now, where the heck in the West End would you grow food?” I hear many people ask.
Well, they actually have an urban farmer. We have a working farmer in the West End. What do they do? Well, we don’t have too many houses. We don’t have too many acreages. So what do they do? They reach out to the apartment owners, condo owners, many of whom don’t look after the gardens as well as they might, and offer to take them on. They take them on. They connect community members to the earth, get their hands dirty and remind us and remind young people, who may never have had the chance, where our food comes from.
That food, when grown, ends up going out as community lunches for seniors, for young people, for, really, anybody that wants to come together over a meal and learn about our neighbourhood and how to grow together.
But that’s not all. They have language classes; child care; the young ideas caucus, which I used to be young enough to be a member of; the seniors group, which, the longer I’m around here, the closer I get to that group; and the Attic thrift store, a thrift store which provides good-quality clothing and needed things to folks who either can’t afford it or want a bargain.
They do so much for our community. It’s an honour to work together with them. I want to thank the board, the staff and the volunteers most specifically, because, really, “together we grow,” and we do it in a large part because of the good work of Gordon Neighbourhood House.
WILF PECKHAM
S. Bond: Wilf Peckham was a curling icon. He competed in the Kelly Cup men’s curling bonspiel for 68 consecutive years, from 1945 to 2013. In fact, he won it three times. In his final victory, the team he defeated was skipped by his son Gerry.
Wilf also loved to dance and, in the words of his son: “He and mom danced in the living room, danced in the berry patch, danced when nobody else was…first on the dance floor and the last to leave.” Wilf lost the love of his life — his wife, Mae — in January 2014, after being married for 68 years.
Wilf was a Second World War veteran and served his country with distinction. Landing in France shortly after D-Day, Wilf’s service was recognized by the French government in 2014 with the French Legion of Honour. It is the highest order of merit for military and civil merits that can be awarded and was presented on the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Normandy.
Wilf could either be found at the curling rink or at the local legion. He was a familiar face at our Remembrance Day ceremony, and he never missed participating in the annual poppy campaign.
Sadly, Wilf Peckham passed away on March 2. I cannot begin to tell you how much Bill and I and our entire community will miss this very special person. A recent editorial in the Prince George Citizen was titled: “Peckham Lived an Extraordinary Life,” and that he did. He served his country with courage and pride. He loved his wife and his family. He was an accomplished curler and a very captivating storyteller.
While we will miss Wilf, his life will be celebrated on March 17 in Prince George. I have every confidence that on that day, Wilf and his beloved wife Mae will once again be dancing with the same energy and joy that I have seen so many times.
I was honoured to know you, Wilf Peckham, and rest assured, we will remember you.
WORLD DOWN SYNDROME DAY
M. Elmore: The United Nations has declared March 21 as World Down Syndrome Day to help raise awareness and show how people with Down syndrome play a vital role in our lives and communities. World Down Syndrome Day is an opportunity to challenge misconceptions and share knowledge. It’s a day where people in B.C., Canada and around the world will be focused on empowering people with Down syndrome and encouraging inclusion.
In Canada, approximately one in 750 people are born with Down syndrome. What they tell us is that they want the same things as everyone else: to go to work or school, play sports, have friends and be part of the community. A key to building a more inclusive and accessible province is changing perceptions about what people with disabilities can do and showing how their unique perspectives and skills can benefit our communities and our workforce.
The global theme for World Down Syndrome Day this year is: “What I bring to my community.” People with Down syndrome are asked to share their experiences on social media and show the meaningful contributions they make throughout their lives, in school, work and the community. I hope that everyone will follow the campaign, share their stories and magnify their voices.
British Columbians value inclusion. We want communities and workplaces that welcome everyone and embrace diversity. On March 21, I encourage all British Columbians to celebrate the contributions people with Down syndrome bring to our communities and our province. That will help us build a better, more inclusive B.C.
SAANICH PENINSULA
YOUTH HEALTH SERVICES CLINIC
A. Olsen: Today is a good day for youth on the Saanich Peninsula. I have spoken in this House about a pilot project spearheaded by a local doctor in Sidney to provide a health service specifically for youth. Recognizing there was no supportive health clinic for youth on the Saanich peninsula, Dr. Kate Evans started down the path of creating it. After many meetings with stakeholders and support from the South Island Division of Family Practice, a pilot project for a clinic aimed at youth from 12 to 24 was born.
Clearly, there was a need in my riding for an inclusive clinic close to home, open after school and judgment-free. The clinic was only open for two hours once a week, and doctors would see between four and 16 patients each week.
The two-month pilot stayed open for six months. They closed in mid-December of 2017 to examine the project and apply lessons that they learned. It was not just physical issues. Youth were seeking mental health support for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, psychotic symptoms, grief and complicated family issues.
The doctors built trust with their young patients, who felt they had someone who they could speak to about any mental health issue that they were facing. My partner has faced mental health challenges since her youth, and perhaps the early intervention a clinic like this offers would have helped her address the trauma she has experienced much earlier in her life.
Fast forward to today — literally, today. I’m delighted to say that they’re opening again. This afternoon they open in their new space in the Peninsula Medical Clinic in Sidney, supported by a number of local organizations, including the town of Sidney and the Saanich Peninsula Primary Health Care Society, and with significant funding from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
This is yet another example of government financially supporting the incredible efforts of community members. I raise my hands to MCFD and the leadership of those involved in this important project.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
R. Chouhan: Every morning when we enter this building, we never think about our safety and security. We take it for granted because we know there are men and women who were up all night to keep our building safe and secure. There are 40 uniformed officers and many more who are part of the security team. Some of these wonderful people are here in this chamber.
In the last few years, we have witnessed, in many countries, several unfortunate incidents in and around government buildings and institutions. We hope and pray that that never happens here in British Columbia. We may not know that security staff go through a lot of training and planning to meet with any challenge that may pose a threat to our security. I’m pleased to note that the Sergeant-at-Arms, Gary Lenz; the head Clerk, Craig James; and Randy Ennis, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, have made the security of everyone in this building their number one priority.
However, I must digress. Despite all their training and alertness, they were unable to stop an intruder. There is a mouse in the House. Not only was the mouse running around freely, but the mouse was very disrespectful. When it crossed from one side of the House to the other, the mouse did not stop and bow to the Chair. I hope they get some special training to never let this mouse get in the House again.
Seriously, next time you see one of these security personnel, shake their hand and tell them that because of them, we feel very safe.
On behalf of all of us, I want to express my sincere thanks to these men and women for taking care of us. Keep up the good work.
Oral Questions
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX
M. Stilwell: Last week I asked the Finance Minister about the chaos that the NDP speculation tax is causing in my community. This week the regional district of Nanaimo is demanding an exemption from the minister’s plan. To quote regional district Chair Veenhof: “The unintended consequences of this tax far outweigh the benefits, and in its current form, it should be eliminated altogether.”
Will the minister grant the exemption to the regional district of Nanaimo?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. As I’ve said before, and will continue to recognize in this province, we have inherited a housing crisis in British Columbia that needs to be addressed, and we are going to take action. We are going to take bold action to ensure that British Columbians can live and work in their own communities. That’s critical to address.
Nanaimo has raised some issues. We are listening to communities across the province. But the regional district also acknowledged: “We’ve experienced rapid escalation in property values. We very much appreciate the goals of the province to address the cost of housing in British Columbia.” We are listening, and the specifics will be out later this spring.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: Well, it’s great that the minister is listening, but the Finance Minister told the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan: “The tax introduced in the budget will be tweaked.” But the Nanaimo region doesn’t want it tweaked. They don’t want to be part of it all.
Again to the minister: will she exempt communities that reject her new tax?
Hon. C. James: As I said on budget day, we put out the principles of the tax. The details are being worked on. The specifics will come out, and the legislation will be in the fall.
I also want to read to the member a note that we received from Sara in Nanaimo, who says: “If you think the same problem doesn’t exist in Victoria or Nanaimo, you’re mistaken. The reality in these areas is that we have hard-working families who’ve not only given up their dream of owning a house, but they can barely afford to rent a home, even with multiple jobs.” I know the other side may not want to listen to people in British Columbia who care about housing and who are struggling, but that’s what we’re working for on this side of the House.
I continue. “We have seniors living on the street or close to being there because their fixed income is pricing them out of the rental market. People are living in cars. We have a tent city. It’s incredibly hard to feel bad for those who have two homes in places with a hot housing market, especially when they choose to leave it empty.”
We are listening to British Columbians, and we are going to address the affordability crisis for families in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a second supplemental.
M. Stilwell: Well, here’s a fact. Ladysmith is just ten minutes from the Nanaimo Airport, at the edge of the regional district. I can tell the minister that people talking about economic development are simply talking about moving ten minutes down the road to avoid her tax grab. To quote regional district Chair Veenhof: “This is not a hypothetical concern. We are already seeing it happening.”
My constituents want to know: on what basis did the minister draw her line between Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley?
Hon. C. James: As the member knows — and I’ll repeat it again — we are working on the specifics of the tax. Those will be out this spring. I mentioned that on budget day. We put the principles out. We are taking the opportunity to listen to British Columbians. We are listening to people in the regional district, and we are listening to citizens.
Mark, a teacher, for example, in the Nanaimo regional district wrote: “Over the last few years, we’ve seen my profession of choice and passion lose the ability to provide for housing in this area. I’m left with little choice. Hang on a few more years, work a second job in the evenings or leave the province or the country to find somewhere else more affordable.”
This is a bold 30-point plan to address housing. We are going to move ahead to support the people of British Columbia who live and work here and to support the employers of British Columbia in being able to recruit and retain employees in our province.
B. Stewart: Again to the Minister of Finance, I have heard loud and clear from the people of West Kelowna, and they are angry over this half-baked plan to tax family cabins. I am sure that every other MLA in the House has received many hundreds of emails opposing this NDP tax. To quote just one of the hundreds of letters I have received: “This tax is misguided, uninformed and unfair.”
Will the minister grant the exemption West Kelowna is demanding?
Hon. C. James: I’ll let the member know that our office has been in touch. We’ve been talking with the mayors, with the district and with West Kelowna as well. I’m having another conversation. We are continuing to listen. That’s the responsible thing to do — to make sure that we’re listening to people. But we’re also listening to constituents, and I think that’s important to recognize.
Ann writes in: “I’ve lived in Kelowna for over 20 years. I’ve seen many changes. I used to know most of my neighbours, but now many of the homes are owned by absentee owners. Their houses are empty for most of the year. I’m happy the new tax is going to encourage people to settle and work in British Columbia or, at least, rent out their homes until they decide to move to British Columbia.”
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna West on a supplemental.
B. Stewart: The minister claims her half-baked tax is about speculators, but that is just not true. This will harm people who work hard and build our community. To quote our mayor: “We are fundamentally concerned this would push property values below the amount of equity people have in their homes. It’s a potential financial crisis.”
On what basis did the minister draw her line to include West Kelowna?
Hon. C. James: I’d like to read the statistics around Kelowna and West Kelowna, because I think the member says that this is going to be difficult. Well, I can tell the member that it’s very difficult right now, whether you are a teacher, whether you are a firefighter, whether you are a store owner, a small business owner. If you can’t find a place to live in your community, that makes it very difficult and has a huge impact on the community.
Let’s look at Kelowna and West Kelowna, experiencing a housing affordability crisis. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey found Kelowna to be severely unaffordable, a 0.2 percent vacancy rate in the Kelowna area. Just a few months ago the Kelowna Now newspaper’s headline read: “Kelowna is Officially the Hardest City in Canada for Renters.” According to the United Way, more than a third of renters in Kelowna are forced to pay more than half of their income on housing. A citizen survey in Kelowna said that housing affordability was a top concern.
So is there a reason that we’re focused on Kelowna and that we’re looking at how we make housing more affordable? Yes. The crisis that was left after 16 years has to be addressed, and we’re taking action to do it.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
A. Olsen: There is no bigger critic in this Legislature of the B.C. Liberal’s approach to government-funded partisan advertising than the B.C. NDP. They regularly, and rightly, levelled criticism at the Liberals for the way they treated public dollars as if they were part of their election campaign.
On the eve of the 2017 election, the B.C. Liberals almost doubled the government advertising budget, to $15 million. They blanketed the airwaves with ads, and many were clearly partisan in nature. In opposition, we heard promises that an NDP government would end the use of partisan government advertising by having the Auditor General check ads to make sure that they were neutral. We’ve heard from this government that they’re still committed to this, but we haven’t seen action.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Where does the government stand today on the previous commitment to ensure that government advertising has independent oversight and that public tax dollars are not being used for partisan purposes?
Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I couldn’t agree more on the need to do things differently. I think the public is certainly seeing that.
We are making sure that the advertising that we are bringing forward is non-partisan and that it talks about government programs that individuals in British Columbia need to apply to, to be able to address it — whether we’re talking about child care, whether we’re talking about housing, whether we’re talking about PharmaCare and the importance of people applying for PharmaCare and the changes that have happened in PharmaCare. “Find out what’s possible for you” is the focus of the advertising that we’re looking at.
Then, to follow up on the second part of the member’s question, which was what we’re looking at when it comes to advertising. We are in the process of developing new standards right now to ensure that British Columbians have confidence in the process. We’ll be happy to share those when the work is done, as I know the members agree with us that we need to make sure that partisan advertising isn’t being paid for by public dollars.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: No one would argue against the need for government to promote the important programs and services for the public. That’s not what’s in dispute here. Clearly, there is a need to inform the public. However, there is no place for public funds to be spent on partisan government advertising. This government has been cautioned already by watchdogs for partisan advertising, only months into the tenure. We need independent oversight to put an end to this.
In opposition, the NDP introduced a bill three times that would have ended partisan government advertising by requiring all ads to get the Auditor General to sign off that they were nonpartisan and factual. Our caucus would support that measure now. Let’s not let this go any longer. People get cynical when we see a party say one thing in opposition and another in government.
My question is again to the Minister of Finance. Back in September, the government said that they were working on options. We hear that again today — the options for independent oversight of government advertising. It’s now March, and we haven’t seen substantial movement. When will the government fulfil the commitment to having independent oversight of government? What’s the timeline?
Hon. C. James: I don’t have a specific timeline for the member, but I can assure him that as we’re developing those standards, the work is going on right now. We’re in the process right now of developing those standards.
We’ll be happy to share those with the member and all members of the House so that we can all get input into the standards to make sure that they are very specific around ensuring that public dollars are not being used for partisan advertising. That will include everything from the appearance of ministers in ads and making sure that is banned, as part of those standards.
That’s the kind of approach that we’re taking, that’s the kind of work that we’re looking at, and we’re open to all suggestions and all ideas. We’re looking at previous bills, as well, and making sure that we put a process in place that’s going to really ensure that the public can have confidence once again in the utilization of government dollars.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON CHILD CARE FACILITIES
L. Throness: Willow Creek Childcare in Terrace is one of the largest daycares in B.C.’s north. It has 144 spaces, 40 employees, and it will be hit hard by the employer health tax. It could cost the daycare more than $14,000 next year and every year thereafter. This daycare operates on tight margins so it can be affordable for parents, so the tax jeopardizes its viability.
My question is to the Finance Minister. Will she listen to daycares and exempt them from the employer health tax?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: I am happy to talk about listening to child care providers and parents and people who work in the child care field, as we did in this budget with the biggest investment in child care you have seen — $1 billion in this budget going into child care to support child care providers, to support affordability for families, to ensure that child care centres can provide good quality care for family and children.
Child care centres haven’t seen a budget like this in British Columbia. We’re proud to invest in child care after years of neglect by the other side.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: Well, let me talk about Willow Creek just for a moment. It just started paying MSP premiums so it could keep its employees, and now it’s hit with a permanent, unforeseen tax. Instead of creating new child care spaces, as this government promised, we could lose spaces in Terrace.
On behalf of Jennifer, who’s up watching in the gallery today, I ask the Minister of Children and Family Development: will she find $14,000 in her budget to save Willow Creek Childcare from this punishing tax?
Hon. C. James: I would remind the member that with the elimination of MSP and the introduction of the employers health tax, there is a net tax cut of $800 million in British Columbia — $800 million.
I would certainly hope that that child care centre and child care centres across British Columbia are looking at the opportunities to apply for the funds that will support them in providing quality affordable childcare for families in British Columbia.
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX
J. Thornthwaite: Heather is a resident of North Vancouver concerned about the new NDP tax on family cabins. Her family has a cabin in the Gulf Islands that was left to the family after their grandfather died. Heather writes: “We enjoy using our property, as this is a getaway throughout the year, as do our children and grandchildren.”
Does the minister believe Heather is a speculator who should be forced to sell her family cabin?
Hon. C. James: We are bringing in a speculation tax to get speculation out of the housing market because it’s hurting affordability for British Columbians. We are taking action to address that.
The speculation tax will target speculators who do not live here or are treating our housing market as a stock market. We are going to address that. The details of the tax will be coming. We introduced the principles, and I said on budget day that we’d be bringing forward all of the details on the tax. They will be coming forward in the spring, the legislation in the fall.
Mr. Speaker: Member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to read from Heather’s letter further. “If this tax is to include us, we are going to have to consider selling our inheritance as this would become too expensive for us.”
Why would the minister punish Heather’s family and force them to sell their inheritance?
Hon. C. James: I again come back to the affordability crisis in British Columbia. The details and specifics on the tax will be out. They will address the member’s question and other people who’ve been raising issues. Those are exactly the issues that we’ve been working on.
As I said on budget day, when I announced the tax, this is a bold tax. This is a new measure. We are doing the responsible thing and listening to British Columbians, making sure we’re working on the issues, the same issues that we’ve been working on since February. Specifics on the tax will come out, and we will ensure that we are making B.C. affordable for people who live and work here and who are struggling right now in our province.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON BUSINESSES
J. Sturdy: Troll’s Restaurant in West Vancouver, in Horseshoe Bay, has been in business over 72 years. It employs over 125 staff at peak season, and they’re going to be seeing an $18,000 increase in their employee health tax.
Does the minister think tight-margin businesses like restaurants should…? What should they do? Should they raise prices; should they reduce staffing? In hopes of an answer from the minister.
Hon. C. James: I would remind the member, as we’ve heard from other business owners, that when you put $900 into an individual’s pocket — $1,800 for a family — those dollars get spent in small businesses across the community. They don’t get taken out of the province. They get spent directly in the community.
I would ask the member…. I would ask all members on the other side of the House: would they leave MSP premiums in place? Would they cut programs and services? Would they eliminate support for child care? Would they eliminate support for seniors? Those are the decisions that I’d like to know from the other side — what they would do about MSP.
We’ve made our choice, which is standing up for families, standing up for individuals, eliminating those premiums and putting money in people’s pockets.
Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.
J. Sturdy: The minister just needs to look at our 2017 budget to understand what we would do on this side of the House. The minister also needs to recognize that….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
J. Sturdy: The minister needs to recognize, as well, that if you don’t have a job, it’s not particularly helpful.
Holly, the manager of Troll’s, is quoted as saying: “While government has stated they’re offsetting costs, that doesn’t apply to us.” The question — in hopes, again, of an answer from the minister — is: should Troll’s lay off staff, or should they just increase prices?
Hon. C. James: Let’s talk about Budget 2018 and the investments that were made in there to ensure that we’re supporting businesses and economic growth — major investments, historic investments in child care and housing, the key issues that businesses said need to be addressed when it comes to recruitment and retention.
A record investment, $15.8 billion, in capital projects like schools, hospitals and roads, which create good jobs in every corner of British Columbia. We cut small business taxes by 20 percent. We’re eliminating PST on electricity for businesses. We’re creating a new clean growth incentive program that will help industry keep pace with the latest environmental standards.
We are standing up for the economy, we are standing up for families, we are standing up for services, and we will continue to do that.
BUDGET AND TAXATION POLICIES
S. Bond: Last week the Finance Minister said that her budget documents “provide all the information that taxpayers and citizens in British Columbia need to know.” But it turns out that just isn’t the case. Added to that, the Premier is now promising that there’s every chance of clarifying the information before the end of session.
To the Minister of Finance, will she provide even one piece of clarity today that thousands of British Columbians are waiting for? A simple question. Does she intend to tax the cabins of British Columbia’s families under her so-called speculation tax?
Hon. C. James: As I’ve said and I’ll say again, as we announced on budget day, as the member knows, we put out the principles of the speculation tax. We are going to get speculation out of the market in British Columbia to help with affordability in British Columbia.
I want to read for the member a quote from Peter, who lives in West Vancouver and who writes about the B.C. speculation tax. He says: “There are many empty homes, homes with satellite families in West Vancouver who contribute very little to our province and to the supports that we all rely on.” He says: “For those of us who live here, this is infuriating.” Peter says: “Homes should be for living, not for leaving empty, not for speculating.”
That’s what we’re doing, and the details on the tax will be out this spring.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, I am sure that lifelong British Columbians who’ve managed to work hard and purchase a cabin or inherit a cabin from their families hardly consider themselves speculators. The minister’s lack of answers to British Columbians is no answer at all. It brings no comfort at all. They are uncertain about whether or not they have to sell their family cabin — the minister’s new definition of the word “speculation.”
That’s not the only issue that is causing concern and confusion. School boards, health authorities, charities, universities are also uncertain if the Premier will keep his promise to keep them whole.
Let’s try it again. To the Minister of Finance, one piece of clarity today. A simple yes or no will do. Will the list of exemption requests that is growing every day…? Does the minister intend to exempt non-profits and agencies?
Hon. C. James: I will say again, when it comes to the MSP and when it comes to the employers health tax, with a net elimination of $800 million of taxes in British Columbia — that in fact supports people in our province. That’s why we’re moving in this direction.
We have ensured a year for implementation of this tax. It is not coming in until 2019. We are in discussions with school boards, with other groups and organizations that are talking to us about the money they are saving this year with the 50 percent reduction in MSP and the costs that they will have.
We will continue those consultations. As I said, we have a year. We gave the year to make sure that we could implement this properly.
R. Sultan: The Minister of Finance has a vital role to play in the success of our province, and all British Columbians rely on her. Sadly, the minister’s replies to many questions in recent days have been long on rhetoric and short on content.
In view of the confusion and uncertainty which abound, could the Finance Minister simply withdraw the tax proposals impacting housing and payrolls?
Hon. C. James: Well, I have to say that I appreciate the member’s question. I appreciate his thoughtfulness. But we, in fact, are determined that MSP premiums will be eliminated. We are doing that because unlike the other side, we believe in getting rid of a regressive tax — the last province left in this country with a regressive tax.
We are also committed to getting speculation out of the housing market and addressing affordable housing for people in our province. That’s important for investment. That’s important for business. It’s important for families. That’s our commitment.
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a supplemental.
R. Sultan: A journalist has described this budget as half-baked. Now, the Premier informed media that all of the budget’s unknowns can be accommodated by the sum set aside for contingencies. But unfortunately, the unknowns are overwhelming. Having seen countless financial documents in my time as a professor at the Harvard Business School, I must say, with regret: “Give this one a failing grade.”
How can the minister possibly continue to claim this is a credible budget document?
Hon. C. James: With respect, I agree to disagree with the member. In fact, the public is supporting the budget because it invests in the public in British Columbia.
I recognize that this is a new tax. It is a bold measure looking at a speculation tax. We felt a bold measure was important because of the affordability crisis left us, from the last 16 years.
Will there be details coming? Yes, there will, Member. We will make sure that we’re taking the time. That’s why I put the principles of the tax out in the budget in February. That’s why we’re taking the time to make sure we get the details ready. They’ll be out, and legislation will be in the fall.
INDEMNITY IN LEGAL ACTION AGAINST
JOBS, TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY MINISTER
J. Martin: I have a question for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. I will preface that with…. I fully understand the Attorney General cannot talk about indemnities, and I appreciate that. However, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever that the Minister of Jobs cannot talk about his own application.
So to the minister…. Let me repeat: to the minister. Are B.C. taxpayers paying his legal fees, and how much has been expended so far? To the minister.
Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to get up and to answer the member’s question. The member knows. I know he knows. Everybody in the House knows that any member in this House that faces legal difficulty is able to apply in order to be indemnified in relation to legal expenses that they may face.
The member also knows that in order to protect those cases, in order to protect members, the information about any particular retainer is confidential. It applies on the other side of the House. It applies on this side of the House. It applied when those members were in government. It applies when we’re in government….
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: Oh. Oh, I hear the member is surprised. The member for Abbotsford West is surprised by this. I wonder if he’s surprised by this total: $13.7 million on indemnity spent by that side of the House — $13.7 million. That does not include the $6 million for Basi and Virk.
[End of question period.]
Hon. M. Mungall: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Mungall: In the gallery today, we have students from Devan Coward’s class from Yaqan Nukiy School. It’s an independent First Nations school located at Lower Kootenay band, better known historically as Yaqan Nukiy, just south of Creston.
May the House please make these young minds very, very welcome.
Thank you for joining us in question period.
Petitions
A. Olsen: I’m presenting a petition with 1,400 signatures of concerned citizens asking government to consider the regulation of cannabis grow operations on the agricultural land reserve.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Observations on the B.C. Utilities Commission from the Office of the Auditor General.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment. In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 (continued).
J. Rustad: I’m back and want to welcome the staff again. As we start off today, I’d like to start off with a couple questions with regards to First Nations, First Nation tenures and forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements.
Perhaps the minister could provide this Legislature with an update with regards to the terms of forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements, whether they have changed and whether or not he is hearing from First Nations about a desire to change those agreements.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very pleased to start off today talking about First Nations and First Nations interests as they relates to my ministry.
Regarding, specifically, the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements, there have been no changes as far as the percentage of stumpage revenues from trees harvested within First Nations traditional territories. Revenue-sharing is still on a 3, 4 and 5 percent basis. What has changed is that revenue-sharing has been extended to March 2020.
We have discussed with some First Nations their views on this. They’re interested in engaging with us in a broader conversation, and that’s what we are doing. We’re having discussions about a broader reconciliation framework and how revenue-sharing and the mechanisms for revenue-sharing will fit into that. We’re engaged with First Nations on that.
For the member’s information, the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements, based on the percentages I provided, continue to provide over $44 million a year to First Nations.
J. Rustad: I’m wondering if the minister could provide an update with regards to renewals of the FCRSAs. FCRSAs are typically a period of time, in terms of the length of the agreements — forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements, for those that are watching at home. As those come up, of course, there are negotiations in terms of renewals. I’m wondering whether or not those have continued to be renewed over the last six months and what the prospect is for this fiscal year in terms of renewals.
Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re continuing to negotiate and renew the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations. If the member would like to get the numbers of agreements that have been renewed, we don’t have that available right now. But we could get that form, if that’s information that he’s interested in.
There have been some First Nations who have not been interested in renewing. We’re in negotiations with them about how to move forward together as far as revenue-sharing on the forest resources on their territories.
J. Rustad: Could the minister provide some information with regards to the budget that is allocated for — I believe it is — timber operations, pricing and First Nations and whether or not that budget has any proposed increases?
Interjection.
J. Rustad: There seems to be some confusion. I don’t know if they quite heard me.
There’s an operating expense of “Timber Operations, Pricing and First Nations,” a line in the budget. I’m just wondering whether or not there are proposed increases to that budget to be able to cover any potential increases to the forest consultation revenue-sharing or First Nations benefits packages.
I do know that as those agreements come, of course, that money moves over into other budgets. I’m just curious as to whether or not there is a proposed increase or whether that is static.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The member may have noted that under our reorganization, we have the rural development, lands and innovation branch now. Then we have a timber operations, pricing and First Nations branch.
There has been an increase in that branch’s budget because of the redeployment of responsibilities and personnel that were formerly part of other parts of the ministry. For instance, economic analysis is now under timber operations, pricing and First Nations.
That’s perhaps where the member noted some increase in resources there. He is correct. The FCRSA, the forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements — funding resources for that come from another ministry.
J. Rustad: The increase in funding. Perhaps the minister can provide just some explanation as to the rationale for the increase in funding there.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate these questions because they’re budget questions. That’s what we’re here to discuss under supply — about how the dollars are allocated within the ministry. Timber operations, pricing and First Nations division saw a net increase of $1.178 million in this budget year upcoming. That was $1 million based on internal restructuring involving rural development, lands and innovation.
So moved over from rural development, lands and innovation to timber operations, pricing and First Nations were the forest tenures branch, forest economics group, competition and business personnel and the log exports personnel. That accounted for the increase of $1 million, and the remainder, $178,000, was allocated for negotiated salary and benefit changes.
J. Rustad: I had to, of course, get at least one budget question in here today, relating to the specific numbers.
Back to the First Nations. There’s been much pressure from First Nations around the province who want land tenures. Obviously, they have title, undefined title, within their territories. Some of those negotiations were underway in previous years.
I’m curious with regard to the minister’s perspective or role in those negotiations and what they may mean in terms of the allocation of renewable timber supply across the province. I’ll ask that in a general question, and we can get into some specifics, perhaps, afterwards.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The member addresses an interesting topic. It’s an important topic, in that many First Nations were awarded tenure through non-replaceable forest licences, as I’m sure the member is aware, based on the mountain pine beetle uplift. Thatis is rapidly coming to an end, that uplift, in many areas of the province.
Those non-replaceable licences presented an opportunity, at the time, for First Nations to build capacity — whether it was in management of that tenure, whether it was in training and skills development in harvesting that tenure, or actually looking at value-added opportunities from that tenure. There was a whole range of opportunities that that presented.
Now that we’re through the beetle wood, mostly, the determinations by the chief forester for sustainable harvest levels have decreased in many timber supply areas. That has resulted in decisions around apportionment that we’re faced with in the ministry and in my decisions around apportioning a reduced annual allowable cut. That’s the challenge in this day and age.
We are in many dialogues, conversations and negotiations, sometimes, with First Nations about coming up with creative ways of addressing that. It’s definitely part of our reconciliation approach, and First Nations’ expectations are justified. They’ve been raised through the non-replaceable forest tenure awards, and they’ve been raised through court challenges and court cases as well, as the member points out, around Aboriginal title. This is the context with which we’re working, and luckily, First Nations are glad to come up with the creative solutions that we’re talking about.
J. Rustad: How many First Nations woodland licences have been issued, and how many more would the minister expect in this year?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Currently there are ten First Nations woodland licences that have been issued since 2011. As far as what’s happening now, 11 First Nations woodland licences are under active negotiation, and an additional 30 First Nations woodland licences are mandated to begin negotiations.
J. Rustad: The reason for asking the questions is that I’m trying to determine how much volume will ultimately be moving over towards First Nations in terms of renewable licences. The First Nations woodland tenures, of course, are a relatively small amount of volume. Many of the First Nations are looking for much more, to be able to support operations — nations like the Lake Babine Nation or the southern Carrier Nations, the Carrier-Sekani Nations, etc.
I guess the question to the minister is: over and above the woodland tenures, is the minister planning to issue further renewable licences to First Nations? We’ll start with areas in the Interior.
Hon. D. Donaldson: We recognize the very strong interest that First Nations have in regards to renewable tenure. As I said before, many of the non-replaceable tenures were associated with mountain pine beetle wood that is now becoming less available. So First Nations are looking at renewable tenures. We are in discussions with First Nations. We encourage, and some of them are pursuing, partnerships with major licensees, and major licensees are responding well to that. That’s a business-to-business relationship.
That’s one avenue for First Nations to acquire an interest in volume and interest in management. We also have initiatives, really innovative arrangements, being pursued by the B.C. Timber Sales. That’s another way that we can address the replaceable forest licence interests that First Nations — or address them….
I want to emphasize that there are many avenues open, not just simply the government’s ability to issue these kinds of licences on Crown land to First Nations but in business-to-business relationships. That’s a good thing because many First Nations have developed the skills and interest over the years to partner with majors.
I’ll just leave it at that for now.
J. Rustad: There are, I think, probably about 150 nations in the province, give or take — it might be a little higher or lower — that have forestry interests and that have been involved — it might be around 130 or something — with forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements. Maybe it was higher — I can’t remember — back in the days when I was on that side of the House.
Obviously, there’s expressed interest in volume associated with that. First Nations woodland tenures I believe are somewhere between 8,000 and maybe 30,000 cubic metres. Most of those nations are looking for several hundred thousand cubic metres. So when you do the math across the province — 150 nations, picking a number, at 200,000 metres — that’s obviously a significant amount of volume, compared to the volume that is available.
The reason for asking the minister on the minister’s initiative around this question on the First Nation tenures is to inquire from the minister what the intention is in terms of meeting those expectations by First Nations and how that will be met within the constraining annual allowable cuts that the province has. I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on any sort of plan they have, the ministry has, to be able to meet some of those volume expectations or whether or not those expectations will go unfilled.
Hon. D. Donaldson: This is really a very, very relevant topic, and I know that the member, when he was on this side of the House, was working on it with a great focus as well.
The crux of the matter is that there’s a declining amount of timber resources in the province, as far as what’s been harvested in the last ten or 15 years, because of mountain pine beetle, mainly, and that there isn’t the volume to meet all the expectations that First Nations have. That’s just the reality of it. Also, those expectations were legitimately raised through the issuance of non-replaceable forest licences, and now we have to plan and determine, in partnership with First Nations, how the expectations can be met going into the future when those non-replaceable forest licences expire.
I was looking for what the previous government’s plan might have been in that regard to see if there are elements. I’m always of the mindset that no one party, no one person has all the best ideas, so I was looking to staff for ideas around that. I think it’s a question that didn’t get addressed in a lot of ways, so I welcome any ideas and suggestions the member might have.
What we have done, in the measured approach with First Nations, is look at the bigger goal. If the bigger goal is to create more economic opportunities, then are there other ways in our negotiations, in creating a government-to-government relationship, that those economic opportunities can be addressed? If the goal is to have more people working in the forest, then we have tools, like under FESBC, Forest Enhancement B.C, around salvage programs where First Nations have been successful in submitting proposals and getting work on their land base in their territory.
It’s a recognition that the volume is not going to be there to meet all the demand but looking at the overall intent in a government-to-government relationship with First Nations around employment — is it economic activity? — and making those agreements and those settlements fit each individual First Nation’s needs.
J. Rustad: It is a complex issue, and perhaps it’s unfair to ask such a broad-reaching question in something like estimates. But it speaks to the following questions that are going to come, which I’d like to ask the Minister.
The current levels of allocation for B.C. Timber Sales in various regions around the province…. I know there’s a target of around 20 percent in order to be able to achieve the market pricing system. I know in some areas, of course, that’s a little below; other areas it’s a little above. Obviously, with the declining annual allowable cuts….
Where are we at in terms of the B.C. Timber Sales in the Interior, the coast, the north, southeast and any other particular regions that the minister might want to mention?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I think the member appreciates that this is another complex area, with B.C. Timber Sales, but I will acknowledge the overall approach that he has mentioned. One of the important purposes in the creation of B.C. Timber Sales was to fight back against what we always say are unjust duties by the U.S. One of the original purposes with B.C. Timber Sales was to, as the member has said, demonstrate a market price system for the price of our lumber. And 20 percent overall is what is determined by experts in this area as a good figure to get a valid and accurate market-priced system that is defensible against the interests that are attacking us in the United States.
What I can give the member is the B.C. Timber Sales target volume for each business area. It doesn’t give the exact percentage that that is, but we can work on that as well and get the member that. B.C. Timber Sales’ target volume for the Okanagan….
What I’ll do is I’ll just give you the south Interior, the north Interior and the coast. I won’t break it down, unless he wants it, into each of the business areas.
For the south Interior — which consists of the Okanagan, the Cariboo, Kamloops and Kootenay — the target volume for B.C. Timber Sales sold for the year is 4,693,715 cubic metres. For the north Interior — which consists of Babine, Prince George, Peace, Stuart and Skeena business areas — the total is 4,756,151 cubic metres.
For the coast — which includes the Chinook, Strait of Georgia and Seaward business areas — the target volume is 3,057,076 cubic metres. The total of those three areas for B.C. Timber Sales’ target volume is 12,506,942 cubic metres.
J. Rustad: Can the minister confirm…? I believe that in the Prince George supply area, there has been an AAC determination, but I didn’t see whether or not there has been an allocation yet. Could the minister please, perhaps, update the House as to whether or not there has been an allocation decision and when that might be forthcoming, if it hasn’t happened?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the member is correct. The chief forester made the determination on the sustainable harvest level for the Prince George TSA. It’s the largest TSA in the province, so there are many interests and complexities.
Of course, ministry staff are still doing the analysis on that determination, and then they will present that information to me for an apportionment decision about how that annual allowable cut is going to be apportioned amongst the various interests. That work is ongoing and underway, since the determination, and I haven’t yet received the full analysis.
J. Rustad: The reason for the question is…. Of course, with the pressures from the interests of First Nations, with the needs to meet the B.C. Timber Sales and with the drop in the annual allowable cut, obviously, it’s a very complex issue — and of course, meeting with what the demand is for the mills.
The purpose for asking the question is how…. Obviously, it might be premature because the minister hasn’t been able to review the information. To put it in a somewhat crude way, whose ox gets gored, in terms of how this all works? Whether or not First Nations have the opportunity to be able to access fibre or whether there will be additional fibre available for negotiations; through that, whether B.C. Timber Sales will have to make do with perhaps less than what they would like, to be able to fully function within the marketing pricing system — or whether it’s going to be a disproportionate amount of hit to the existing licensees.
I obviously realize that the first hit would be to the non-replaceables, but that certainly won’t cover the complete drop in that particular area. But that area is not unique, in that there are those same pressures in other areas of the province.
Perhaps I could ask a general question of the minister with regards to the allocation that will be coming, for our apportionment that will be coming not just for Prince George but in other areas.
Is there a general direction, a strategic direction of the province in terms of how they will approach these supply challenges with the existing tenures, including B.C. Timber Sales and with the desire for First Nations to be able to access renewable tenures?
Hon. D. Donaldson: The best way I can answer that question is to say that each apportionment decision is unique and complex and diverse and is based on what the interests are of the region that the apportionment decision has been made for, by me. I keep an open mind about the various interests that come to me to talk apportionment.
One way that I think about it is: what is the overall goal? In many cases, the overall goal, within a sustainable framework around how we manage the forest, is that communities, especially communities, want to see some stability, and First Nations want to benefit from the trees on their territories through jobs and economic opportunities. So that’s the bigger picture.
I don’t necessarily see it as “whose ox gets gored,” in the terminology of the member. What I want to do, and what I am doing, in considering apportionments is: what is the overall goal, and how can we get to that goal? Sometimes apportionment is just one of the tools. It’s something that I have to do. But are there other tools within my ministry and within other ministries to get to achieve those goals with communities and with First Nations? And there are.
I don’t see it in isolation, the apportionment. It’s something, obviously, that needs to get done after a determination. If the determination is around a reduced annual allowable cut, you don’t want to risk sustainability by not making an apportionment that reflects that. But I’m also willing to take time on that apportionment decision in order to get to the overall objectives.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. We’ll carry on with some questions around AAC determinations and cuts. At this time, I’d like to turn it over to my colleague from Sea to Sky to ask a quick question before the hour is up.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. We’re not too far off topic here. It’ll be an issue that I think the minister is probably familiar with. Last summer B.C. Timber Sales proposed a public consultation period on Bowen Island for the development of a forest stewardship plan.
I think it was certainly recognized that the consultation was a bit awkward. Given the timing and for a variety of other reasons, BCTS determined to step back from that and not develop a forest stewardship plan at this particular time. But it was also recognized through those conversations that Bowen is a very, very complex operating environment. I see the minister tending to agree with me there.
Some proposals have come forward to recognize that in order to achieve the annual allowable cut in the Chinook business area…. It seems to me, anyway, that it’s reasonable to think that if we’re not going to be harvesting on Bowen, which hasn’t happened in 40 years and doesn’t seem likely to happen any time soon, some of this apportionment or, at least, the target…. In order for the BCTS target to be achieved, it will have to be achieved in a neighbouring community, in another community in another area, in the same region.
Bowen has proposed — and I would tend to support this — that it be recognized that harvesting is not likely to happen on Bowen. If that’s the case, why not pull it out of the timber harvesting land base in order to not necessarily affect the annual allowable cut in other areas or the pressures in other areas?
Some of the mechanisms that have been presented were that the minister could direct Forests, Lands and BCTS personnel to not include Bowen in any future forest plans or that the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could remove Bowen from the Chinook business area. The minister could remove Bowen from the Fraser timber supply area, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could designate Bowen as Crown land so that Bowen Island could be removed from the annual allowable cut of the land base, or the minister could direct the chief forester to remove Bowen from the land base used to calculate AAC. I could certainly provide the minister with some references and the various statutes or sections.
I wondered, if the minister has had the opportunity to consider this, whether the minister would support this type of direction and if the minister could also provide some guidance to Bowen — in order to relieve, I think, the people of Bowen from the concern they have relative to industrial-style logging on the island.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the scenario the member outlined. It’s not going to be a quick answer. So noting the hour…. When we come back again, I’ll answer the question.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 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 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 12 noon.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000 (continued).
P. Milobar: I just want to get a clarification from the minister on a point yesterday that he asked if I found the record to clarify — either later yesterday afternoon or first thing this morning.
Yesterday the minister said: “I don’t recall, nor can the staff who are with me today, me saying once in the last two days that we intended to consult on point 5 of what was announced on January 30. It’s not part of the intentions paper. I certainly know it’s not part of the intentions paper. I don’t believe I said that. I have no recollection of saying that.”
I would just point out to the minister that, actually, yesterday…. Let’s see if the time stamp’s on this. I don’t have the time stamp on this version.
One answer the minister gave: “We announced in the news release that we would put out an intentions paper on five proposed regulations for public consultation over a period of months.” I’m aware that the fifth would be the restriction of diluted bitumen.
In the follow-up answer on the very next question: “In the course of consulting, we will, of course, use the new regulation pursuant to new legislation to gather detailed information, but British Columbians who pay any attention to this issue, as the member himself has, understand that there are risks.”
I just wanted to let the minister know those were the references — a couple of them; I didn’t want to spend too much time poring through every word — when I was trying to get clarification around it sounding like there was going to be consultation about point 5 while there was a simultaneous court case going on about point 5, given that he said: “We announced in the news release that we would put out an intentions paper on five proposed regulations for public consultation over a period of months.”
Hopefully, the minister can see why there may have been some confusion when we were trying to clarify if there is still public consultation planned on point 5. Or is there a new fifth point within the intentions paper?
Hon. G. Heyman: To the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I certainly didn’t mean to cause any confusion. I apologize for that. I thought at the time the question he asked was referring to the intentions paper which we put out on February 28, and as the member knows, that was not included.
P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that clarification that there will not be public consultation on point 5 as we see the reference being brought forward to the courts.
I know we have only a short, brief time here before we’ll break for the lunch hour. Maybe if I could delve into a few sides of some of the cost pressures within the employment side of the ministry.
I’m wondering, just for clarification…. There will be a couple of clarification questions, and then hopefully you’ll see where I’m going with this. I’m assuming that the ministry staff are subject to the same collective agreement as the rest of the majority of public servants would be, in terms of Medical Services Plan costs being covered off within their contract.
Hon. G. Heyman: In addition to excluded staff within the ministry and order-in-council staff, the vast majority of staff are represented by the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union and a number by the Professional Employees Association.
P. Milobar: I’m assuming that medical services premiums are part of that employment package. Is it full coverage that the employee receives, or are they responsible for partial payment and the ministry responsible for the remaining premium?
Hon. G. Heyman: The agency responsible for collective bargaining in the public service is within the Ministry of Finance. I think those questions should more properly be directed there.
P. Milobar: Is the minister telling me that within his ministry — I’m not asking for the costs or the structure for the whole government; I’m asking for the Ministry of Environment — there is no knowledge within staff?
I can appreciate that maybe there needs to be some research done over the break, and answers may be later in the day, but I’m essentially trying to find out what the cost pressure of the medical services premium is to the Ministry of Environment for Ministry of Environment staff, not for the whole government.
Hon. G. Heyman: Again, there is one collective agreement across government with the PEA and one collective agreement across government with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. If the member wishes to ask specific questions about finances in the ministry, we’ll entertain them.
P. Milobar: I think I am trying to ask a specific question about cost pressures within the ministry. There’s a $90 million payroll within the ministry in this budget. Out of that, I’m assuming benefits are part of that cost. It’s not strictly wages. I’m trying to ascertain what the cost of the Medical Services Plan is within that $90 million.
Hon. G. Heyman: The way this works within government is that there is a benefits chargeback to ministries that comes from the Ministry of Finance. It’s an aggregate chargeback. It’s a percentage amount, and we can get that percentage amount later in the morning or after lunch.
P. Milobar: I was assuming that. I recognize that sometimes numbers being asked for aren’t going to be at the tip of staff fingertips, especially with intergovernmental transfers. I can appreciate that, and I was anticipating that it might take a little time.
That’s why I wanted to start off before the lunch break with a couple of these questions so that staff would have a fair opportunity to find an accurate answer. As I say, the minister has been good about trying to provide as accurate answers as possible both in these estimates and previous estimates.
A couple other questions that I would be seeking answers for, then. Given that we are looking at this year and projecting forward, what would the overall employers health tax, the new employer health tax, be — the cost charged back to the ministry? Are the ministry and other governmental employees going to be exempt as well? I’m not sure if the minister can answer now or would like some time.
Hon. G. Heyman: I also want to just clarify for the member that while we can bring back, later this morning or after lunch, the exact percentage of payroll for the aggregation of all benefits, which include Medical Services Plan premiums for employees in the ministry, if the member wishes to know exactly what part of that percentage is Medical Services Plan premiums, that is a question for the Ministry of Finance in those estimates.
Similarly, the Finance Minister has said that the details of how the employers health tax will be implemented will be worked on over the coming months by her ministry. Rather than speculate on exactly how it may or may not be applied across government, I would invite the member to ask that question of the minister, even though those details are not yet worked out.
P. Milobar: Just to be crystal-clear, then, with the minister. The Finance Minister has not indicated to the Minister of Environment whether the costs of salaries and benefits that would be charged back to the Ministry of Environment and for future tax appropriations would be subject to the employers health tax or not subject to the employers health tax. There’s been no determination, even though you’re currently paying for medical services premiums like other employers would be and are expecting the implementation of the employers health tax.
Hon. G. Heyman: In answer to one of the member’s earlier questions, the percentage of salaries attributed to benefit chargeback in the ’18-19 budget is 24.8 percent. That covers Medical Services Plan premiums, pension contributions, a range of other benefits. So that’s all in.
In answer to the member’s more recent question, I have no reason to believe that government will not also be subject to the employers health tax, but the member will have to ask the Minister of Finance exactly how that will be applied across government. We have not yet received the instructions that accompany a budget, in a budget letter to the ministry, telling us exactly how that will work.
P. Milobar: If I’m doing the rough math, of $90 million, a quarter of that is benefits. The actual payroll would be $67 million or so. So probably, in the order of magnitude, we’re looking at an extra $1.3 million in costs — I’m doing the rough math in my head — for the payroll tax, but I will confirm that with the Minister of Finance. I thank the minister for that answer.
I’ll kind of switch gears now, into B.C. Parks, for the remainder of the time until lunch. Mr. Standen is here, I see. After last estimates, he’s probably feeling neglected. I think he was the whole show last time.
I’m wondering if the minister can shed some more depth to the announcement around the 20 conservation officers and if the hiring has already begun for them. If not, when can we see those 20 conservation officers fully up and running — in actual, for lack of a better term, boots on the ground — not still in training, not still being vetted and cleared but actually on the ground, doing the job of a conservation officer?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the questions. The way the 20 FTEs break down is that we are using about eight FTEs, to the equivalent of eight full-time COs, to hire 67 auxiliaries to work on mussel defence. They will be on the ground in May through to about October this year.
We have also completed hiring for 12 full-time-equivalent new COs, who will undergo the full training. That will begin later this spring at the Western Conservation Law Enforcement Academy. That training is around four months. That should begin around May, as I said. Once they complete that training, they then spend a period of time in the field with an experienced officer to further their training and experience. They should be fully deployed, independently, around a year from now.
P. Milobar: Just to clarify, I thought yesterday there was an answer around the zebra and quagga mussels, where there were 68 COs that were in that program last year, it sounded like, and the year before and the year before.
Would that be the same eight FTEs? Are we in fact only seeing a bump to what we would normally see for annual staffing of 12, or is there a true bump of 20?
Hon. G. Heyman: I apologize to the member for the delay. I may have misunderstood part of the answer, but I’m going to try this again.
The reason I said 12 new full-time FTEs is because there are also eight FTEs on the org chart, but they were unfilled positions. But they were also unfunded, unfilled positions. So there are, in fact, 20 new funded positions. They will be on the ground — and this is full range of duties — after going through the training I outlined, in about a year from today.
In addition to that, some of the budget money is going to help with recruitment and retention of the auxiliary mussel defence staff that I mentioned. In addition, the budget includes $1 million for mussel defence.
P. Milobar: Just to get a clear number for the public more than anything, I guess: how many funded FTEs do we currently see within the ministry? With the announcement of 20 new FTEs, what does that number move to — so funded FTEs to new funded FTEs?
Hon. G. Heyman: In the previous budget year, there were 140 funded FTE conservation officers. In this budget, there are 160.
P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Again, back to the boots-on-the-ground terminology, out of those 140 previously, what is the rate of absence from work for any length of time? Typically, when you’re in the peace officer side of the world…. I know with the RCMP, municipalities will have a funded number, a targeted number and then the reality of who’s actually able to work. Between maternity leave, paternity leave and long-term disability, there’s always a fairly large vacancy rate within the RCMP.
I know what that percentage is. I have no idea within the conservation service, though. I’m wondering how many of those 140 funded positions would we typically see not being able — for various reasons, all legitimate — to actually be working and providing conservation services?
Hon. G. Heyman: The truth is that absentee rates, for any of the reasons that the member outlined, vary from year to year, and we’re not in a position to give those statistics today for last year or other years. We can commit to finding out any information that we’re actually permitted to share publicly and share that with the member in the future.
P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that. It would be good. As you can imagine, I think the general public, regardless of political stripe, always has a little bit of cynicism around government announcements of improved services, so I think they would appreciate that.
What I’m really trying to get to, I guess, with this line of questioning is trying to figure out: are the 20 new conservation officers actually going to see a substantial bump to the workplan, or is it really almost just backfilling those positions that have been funded but not had people working within them? I appreciate you don’t have the answer right now, but that’s the core piece of it.
The follow-up to that — and this is probably the more current question, then — would be: what is the plan for these 20 new officers in terms of where they will be located within the province and where they will see themselves doing the bulk of the work? There are obviously some parts of the province that have a critical want and need for conservation officers. They’re wanting to know: are we going to see these? Should we expect this service uptake? It’s a nice press release, but it’s all being centred in different areas.
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, yes, these are real new deployments.
Our focus has been on single-officer detachments. I can tell you where the additional resources will be distributed throughout the province. Bella Coola previously had a conservation officer that was pulled. We’re now replacing that officer; we’re reinstating the position. And Port McNeill, Vernon, Mackenzie, Chetwynd, Atlin, Haida Gwaii, Chilliwack, Duncan, Grand Forks and two in the south coast region or the Lower Mainland.
I now move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada