Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)

OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 139

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

G. Begg

D. Barnett

J. Rice

S. Bond

N. Simons

J. Yap

Oral Questions

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

M. Stilwell

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Mark

Motions Without Notice

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

T. Wat

Reporting of Bills

Committee of the Whole House

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

Reporting of Bills

Committee of the Whole House

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

S. Bond

D. Barnett

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

T. Redies

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Hon. L. Popham

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

T. Shypitka

D. Barnett


WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: We’re honoured here today and this week to be joined by people involved in the ALS Society of B.C. Everyone knows the society does so much here in British Columbia to support people living with ALS — to provide not just support but support for research and hope. We’re very honoured to have them here: Dr. Andrew Eisen, ALS B.C. president; Dr. Heather Durham, member of the advocacy committee; Paul LeBlanc, member of the advocacy committee; Susan Brice, member of the advocacy committee; Rick Poliquin, member of the advocacy committee; Ann McArthur, an ALS director; Jim Williams, ALS director; Wendy Toyer, ALS B.C. executive director; and Barbara Vassey, who is Ann McArthur’s companion. I wish everyone in the House to please bid all of our guests welcome.

D. Clovechok: I would like to take a minute to introduce some folks today from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, specifically my neighbour, who is the president of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, Brian McKersie. I had the opportunity this past weekend to help him brand all of his calves. People asked him: “How many calves have you got, Brian?” He said: “Oh, a bunch.” So that’s the number that we did.

I also want to recognize Holly Jackson is up there, Kevin Boon, Grant Huffman, Larry Garrett, Rick Mumford and Werner Stump. So if the House could make them welcome.

Good to see you here.

S. Bond: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to join with the Minister of Health in thanking the members of the ALS Society of B.C. for being here today. They are extraordinary people. I have had the pleasure of meeting them and working with them.

Dr. Andrew Eisen is actually probably the founder of much of the work that has taken place with ALS in our province. Dr. Heather Durham is an incredible researcher and contributor. But as we look down the list, these are incredible difference-makers.

I do want to recognize Susan Brice, who is not only here as a member of the advocacy committee but was a former member in this Legislature and has gone on to do some incredibly good work with ALS and other organizations.

And perhaps just a special thank-you to Ann McArthur and her companion, Barbara, who are here today. We know that it takes a great deal of effort to make the trip here to Victoria. We know that you’ve been a very passionate advocate, and we just want to express special gratitude for you making the effort to be here today in the Legislature.

I join the Minister of Health in welcoming you on behalf of the opposition.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: As we all know from the incredible aromas in this chamber, it was B.C. Beef Day here on the precinct. Our government declared today B.C. Beef Day once again, and we’ve had some representatives join us from all around the province. Some of them have been introduced, but I’m going to introduce them by association.

The B.C. Cattlemen’s Association here today brought Brian McKersie, Larry Garrett, Kevin Boon, Grant Huffman and Rick Mumford.

We had the Association of Cattle Feeders — Joe Heemskerk, Doug Haughton, August Bremer and Andrea van Iterson.

We had the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association — Ken Fawcett, Carol Fawcett, Connie Patterson and Lindy Gilson.

I have to tell you that this is an incredible group of people that work really hard around our province. They’re part of our diverse economy. Almost to the day, I think I can say that I was waiting for years to not just become the Minister of Agriculture but to get one of those amazing hats.

Thank you so much, and welcome back to the Legislature.

J. Yap: I have six introductions today, six wonderful people who are in the precinct. I hope they will make it to question period to join us. From the Notaries Public Society of British Columbia, with us today are: Rhoda Witherly, president; Jessie Vaid, first vice-president; David Watts, second vice-president; Filip de Sagher, a director; John Mayr, executive director of regulation; and the CEO of the Notaries Public Society, Jacqui Mendes.

I’ll be having a little bit more to say about the wonderful work that notaries public do in our province during statements, but please, Members, give a warm welcome to the notaries visiting us today.

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery, I’m really, really pleased to introduce to you the young workers committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour, along with Denise Moffitt from B.C. Fed. With her are Kari Michaels, Caitlin Davidson-King, Kyle Knapton, Geoff Stephens, Milena Kollay and Ryan Milligan.

This young workers committee is here to talk to the MLAs about improving the Employment Standards Act, improving the labour code, improving health and safety — overall, trying to convince all of us to have better working conditions for all working people. Please help me give a warm welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to join the member for Richmond-Steveston in welcoming the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, the B.C. notaries. I look forward to meeting with them later on today. The member introduced all of them. I won’t repeat it, but I will add Ron Usher, general counsel for the notaries, who’s here, as well, with them. I look forward to meeting with them later this afternoon. The House, if you would please join me one more time in making them feel especially welcome.

T. Wat: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome representatives from Korean Air. Not only are they representing Korean Air, but they are my very good friends for many years. In the gallery, we are joined by Mr. Brian Yung Dong Lim, the regional manager of Korean Air, and sales managers Douglas Yu and Stacey Ko. They work so hard in promoting the trade opportunities, the tourism opportunities and business opportunities between Korea and British Columbia. They also support the Canada free trade agreement that came into effect in 2016.

Korean Air operates daily flights between Vancouver and Seoul.

I wish the members of the House will join me in welcoming this group to the Legislature.

R. Kahlon: I’d like the House to welcome Mark Gordienko. I think he’s here in the chamber. Mark is the former president of the ILWU Canada-wide. He’s retired, and he rode his bike today to Victoria to watch question period. I hope the House will join me in making him welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two of my very good friends, Ken Brownlow and Debbie Brownlow. They’ve both helped me out a lot on election campaigns, and we’ve been fast friends, good friends, for a long time now. They visited us today together with their friends Tom Skarvig and Nikki Skarvig. Would the House help me make them very welcome.

I would like to just briefly add my thanks to the ALS Society and — I won’t list off the names — one person in particular, Dr. Andrew Eisen, who was, in fact, one of my father’s physicians when my dad had ALS. The work that Dr. Eisen has done for this province and people affected by ALS can never be underestimated and never thanked enough.

The society itself does so much to support families struggling with this. I know that all members will know that when we hear of people who have been afflicted with something that has afflicted one we love or ourselves, we immediately understand the dramatic severity of that to the circle around those people and how that circle expands. The people who give care are in need of care themselves and support, and that, I think, from my perspective, is the most valuable thing that the ALS Society provides people, along with the hope for a cure.

With the deepest sincerity, I thank Dr. Andrew Eisen for everything he’s done for the people of British Columbia.

D. Barnett: I know they’ve been introduced, but I don’t very often get people from the Cariboo-Chilcotin coming to this wonderful place. Today I have two of my constituents who are longtime ranchers in the Chilcotin, Grant Huffman and Rick Mumford, who are both members of the Cariboo Cattlemen’s Association and members of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. I would ask the House once again to welcome these two fine gentlemen here.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Jobs, Trades and….

Hon. B. Ralston: Technology, especially today. The tech conference is on today, Mr. Speaker.

I want to acknowledge, in the gallery or the precinct, an incredible group of Canadians who are part of the Persian diaspora, which is very strong here in British Columbia — Mahbaibeh Mohebkhah, Hesam Teimouri, Romina Mahboub, Afshin Kiasat, Maryam Malekpour, Amir Bajehkian, Sima Ghaffarzadeh, Houman Kabiri Parvizi, Kasra Ghorbaninejad, Mahdi Shooshtari and Milad Toutounchian. Would the House please make those people welcome.

R. Glumac: I will continue the introductions of the group that is here today. They represent many tech professionals, data scientists, CEOs and engineers. I would like to introduce Azin Rahimzadeh, Ehsan Hamidi, Fez Rismani, Golnaz Falaki, Hamed Khatami, Edeem Karoue, Iman Makarami, Kamran Tayabi and, from my own riding, a community leader for a long time and well known and well respected in the community, Fred Soofi. Would the House make them feel welcome.

C. Oakes: Like many farm kids, I had the opportunity, growing up…. My parents started the Breeder and Feeder Association in the Cariboo region, and it’s a really important organization. I know that with the work that they’re doing, they want to expand it onto Vancouver Island and into Vancouver. It’s a really important association that does such great work, especially in the Interior and the north. I have a constituent here today, Lindy Gilson. I’d like to thank the group for the incredible work and keep it up.

B. Ma: I’d like to join in with my colleagues in introducing the remainder of the Iranian-Canadian technology professionals that are joining us in this House today. I’d like to introduce Mahta Ghaznavi, Mahyad Aghigh, Mehdi Hashemi, Mehraveh Seyedalikhani, Mohammad Akhlaghi, Mona Kavianipour, Sahra Dilmaghanyan, Sajad Seifian, Vahid Ahsani and Zahra Zaker. Can the House please join me in wishing them all a very good

به مجلس خوش آمدید

which is “welcome to the Legislature.”

[1:50 p.m.]

M. Dean: Well, in the gallery joining us today are 35 grade 5 students from Victor Brodeur School in Esquimalt, and they’re here with their teacher Daniel Bernatchez. Will you please make them very welcome.

A. Olsen: I’d just like to introduce another group of students from Gulf Islands Secondary School on Saltspring Island and students from all of the southern Gulf Islands. Ms. Louise Doucet and her grade 11 French social studies class are going to be in the precinct in a few minutes. Could the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Rustad: I know the cattlemen have been introduced, but I wanted to say a few words as well. The cattle industry, in my riding in particular, is a stabilizer, economically and socially. It’s a very important component of the communities throughout my riding of Nechako Lakes, as I know it is in many ridings throughout the province.

I particularly want to say thanks to Ken and Carolyn Fawcett, as well as Larry Garrett and all the cattlemen that are here. They do a great job raising the beef that we consume, even though much of it gets finished in Alberta. They’re looking at expansion. They’re looking at great opportunities, and I just want to thank them for the efforts that they do.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

RAMADAN

G. Begg: It is the world’s second-largest religion and the fastest-growing major religion in the world with over 1.8 billion followers, or almost 25 percent of world’s population. A 2015 Pew Research Center report found it is on track to surpass Christianity this century.

Canada is home to a rapidly growing community of more than a million of its members. They are descendants of immigrants who came to Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the faith of Islam, and its followers are Muslims.

Muslims all over the world, including a large number here in British Columbia and in my riding in Surrey, are now observing one of the holiest months of their calendar. They will fast during the daylight hours in this ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar, called Ramadan.

The purpose is to remind people of the goodness of what they have and show equality with the poor. Ramadan is a time for study and self-discipline. It is one of the five pillars of Islam and marks the month that the Quran was first revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

For many Muslims, it means a month of fasting from sunrise to sunset, forgoing food and water. When fasting, Muslims will have one meal before dawn and share another meal with friends and family after sunset.

The fast is not simply about denying food and water. It also involves, arguably, the more taxing challenge of avoiding ill speech, arguments, loss of temper and malicious behaviour. The goal of fasting is to get closer to God and keep one’s mind focused on a spiritual plane, while helping and caring about those members of the society that are less fortunate.

Muslims will observe this holy month by focusing on prayer and reading the Quran, while generously giving to good causes and their neighbours. It is a period of reflection, patience, self-restraint and generosity that is intended to bring Muslims closer to Allah.

Ramadan started last evening this year and ends on the evening of Thursday, the 14th of June, when Eid will be celebrated and Muslims will gather with family and friends to eat and pray together.

To all the faithful who observe this event in British Columbia, Ramadan Mubarak.

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: It is an honour to rise today. Another important day in British Columbia is B.C. Beef Day. I am sure that you have heard me say this before, and I’m sure that you will hear me say it again: British Columbia cattle is a key component of our economy.

[1:55 p.m.]

When we speak of agriculture in this province, most people do not understand how much of our industry is the production of beef. There are over 4,000 ranches operating in British Columbia, and approximately 545,000 cattle.

This day is a day of celebration, but it is also a day of awareness. The Cattlemen’s Association has always flourished with the environment in mind, and we are working hard to adapt to a changing climate. Cattle are kept happy and healthy through clean drinking water and green earth, and so are we.

I would like to finish by thanking our ranchers and barbecuers today for treating everyone to a fine feast and for feeding our province. This industry contributes $600 million annually to the province’s GDP and is well worth a day of celebration. Today there are ranchers, cattlemen and -women from all over the province who came to the Legislature. They shared a wonderful barbecue with politicians, staff and the public — as always, great-tasting, wholesome and safe beef — just in time for summer. I know it was delicious, and I hope you all had a chance to stop by. They’re always very gracious.

Our hard-working ranchers have done us another great day at the Legislature in British Columbia. Thank you to the ranchers.

FLOOD PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: There are nearly 2,000 properties under evacuation order and another 3,000 under evacuation alert, due to freshet and flooding events across B.C. The current forecast for B.C. is for continuing warm weather into the long weekend. Now, that may sound like a lot of fun for people going to the cottage or the golf green this weekend, but for some, this will mean more flooded homes, lost property and irreplaceable keepsakes and memories. The higher-than-normal snowpack, combined with these warm temperatures, translates into the potential for overland flooding.

These conditions call for increased vigilance in the communities of the southern Interior and the lower Fraser Valley. We are doing everything we can as a province to prepare for more flooding in the days and weeks ahead. During this trying time, we want British Columbians to know that we will be there to help. To date, we have activated the Provincial Emergency Coordination Centre on the Saanich Peninsula to support regional operations centres in Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey and Nelson to provide assistance to local governments.

We’ve made disaster financial assistance funding available to those affected in the regional districts of Kootenay-Boundary, Okanagan-Similkameen, Central and North Okan­agan, Columbia-Shuswap, Thompson-Nicola and many areas in the Cariboo. We are making this funding available to help residents, local governments and First Nations rebuild so they can rebuild the process of healing.

We’ve deployed over two million sandbags to local governments to protect homes and public infrastructure. We’ve provided a total of 12 sandbag machines to Cache Creek, Oliver, Vernon, Willowbrook, Kelowna and Prince George. Over 300 B.C. Wildfire Service firefighters have been deployed to assist with sandbagging throughout B.C. We have additional resources ready to deploy to Prince George, Kelowna and Chilliwack in support of communities in the path of expected high waters. We’re working with local governments to protect communities and are monitoring the increased risk closely.

British Columbians are resilient. We will pull together and meet these challenges, and our government will be there to protect lives and to restore homes, businesses and communities.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

S. Bond: Imagine losing the ability to walk, talk, eat, swallow and, eventually, breathe. That is exactly what happens to someone when they are diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. There is no cure for ALS, and few treatment options for the majority of people living with the disease. That is why the ALS Society of B.C. is so important.

[2:00 p.m.]

The mission of the organization is to provide direct support to ALS patients, along with their families and caregivers, so that people living with ALS can have the best quality of life possible. I have had the privilege of seeing the work that is done firsthand, and I’ve heard the stories of gratitude from families in my community and beyond. Through fundraising and research, the goal is to make ALS a treatable, not terminal, disease.

Today we are joined in the gallery by many members of the ALS team here in British Columbia. Their passion, their hard work and their dedication is making a difference. To each of them, we express our sincere thank-you.

June is B.C. ALS Awareness Month. To mark the beginning of the awareness month, several landmarks will be lit up in purple, including our Legislature, the Royal B.C. Museum and other locations in the province. During the month of June, there will be events held throughout the province to raise funds and awareness, including the Walk for ALS and the B.C. Golfathon for ALS.

As a regular participant in the Prince George Walk for ALS, I want to encourage each MLA in the Legislature to consider attending an ALS event during the month of June. By participating, you will demonstrate your support for the families in your constituency that are impacted by this life-changing disease. By walking together, we can help stop ALS in its tracks.

LYME DISEASE

N. Simons: May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month. In B.C. and across Canada, thousands of people live with Lyme disease or have a loved one affected by it. It would be difficult to find a more misunderstood disease than Lyme. It’s becoming a global epidemic, with an estimated two million new infections in 2018.

Lyme disease is most commonly spread by the bite of an infected tick, and climate change is facilitating the spread of these ticks. Lyme disease is easily misdiagnosed, often going for years without detection and then becoming completely crippling and sometimes fatal.

It’s often called the great imitator, as its symptoms mimic those of fibromyalgia, MS, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue syndrome and other psychiatric and cognitive disorders. Doctors are often not given the proper education to recognize symptoms, and the standard tests don’t find Lyme because the illness may not have yet dispersed throughout the body.

The disease should be treated in the early phase. Four weeks of antibiotics given immediately usually cures it. But when not treated, it becomes a complex chronic disease generally viewed as untreatable here in North America.

Some steps are being made. Last year the federal government funded $4 million for a Lyme disease research network. The Quebec legislature recently recognized the need for an action plan and has struck a committee to develop one. B.C. might consider following their lead with a plan that includes advocates’ and patients’ input, a strong public awareness campaign, better diagnostic testing and supporting patients with treatment options.

You’re most likely to come in contact with Lyme disease from May to September. So as we all migrate to the great outdoors, remember that ticks live in some of our favourite outdoor places like grassy fields, the woods, gardens and nature parks. After a hike or a walk in these areas, check yourself and others. Be tick and bug aware, and protect yourself and your family.

NOTARIES PUBLIC

J. Yap: Once again, it’s my pleasure to welcome B.C. notaries to the Legislature today. Each year they make a point of coming to Victoria to engage with MLAs on both sides of the House, update us on developments in the industry and share the issues of concern that come up in the course of their important work.

Indeed, notaries provide many valuable services to the people they serve in communities across British Columbia. They are unique legal advisors who provide clients with guidance and support in areas like land law and assist them with personal planning tools, like wills, powers of attorney, representation agreements and advance directives.

In carrying out these duties, notaries have developed a stellar reputation for providing work of the highest standard. They are individuals of impeccable character and integrity. They are supported in that work by the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, which is committed to the advancement and protection of the public interest by ensuring that those high standards are met. The organization also provides ongoing educational programs for its members to increase their skills and knowledge.

Notaries in B.C. not only provide important legal services to individuals, families and businesses; they also put a high priority on public service in their local communities. Many of them are very involved personally in the community, supporting fundraising, social services, charities, business associations, youth sports and recreation.

[2:05 p.m.]

I hope all members will join me in warmly welcoming the notaries here at the Legislature today, thanking them for all that they do. If I may, Members, when you next meet one, give a notary a hug today.

Oral Questions

USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION
MINISTER AND RESPONSE TO
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

S. Bond: The Minister of Advanced Education was asked through a freedom-of-information request to produce any and all emails and text messages she sent in the month of February. The government’s response to the request was sent on May 10. It reads: “Although a thorough search was conducted, no records were located.” Well, you can imagine our surprise when yesterday the minister said the missing records apparently exist in her Outlook folders.

To the Minister of Advanced Education: why did she fail to provide the requested records, especially in light of her enthusiastic response yesterday?

Hon. J. Sims: All ministries are required to adhere to the common records management policies. How they implement those requirements do vary slightly between ministries, depending on the culture there. While the same rules generally apply, each ministry works differently, and practices and procedures could vary.

However, let me assure everyone in this House that, in most cases, the office of primary responsibility in all cases tasked with maintaining minister’s office records is the deputy minister’s office. All directions and records of decision are provided, either via email to the deputy’s office; or in writing via documents like decision notes that document the decisions, options in front of the minister, policy recommendations, etc.

All of these directions or decisions are communicated in various ways. In some cases, it may be through email. In some cases, it may be through signing a note and, in many cases, a staff person sending a note to the deputy, the issue notes that are considered part and parcel of the game — for example, a staff person sending a note to the deputy’s office, approving it on the minister’s behalf.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: Often and many times, it may be a staff person sending a note to the deputy’s office, approving it on the minister’s behalf. The direction is then kept appropriately in the deputy minister’s office.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: I’m astounded by the answer from the minister that’s just been provided, suggesting that each ministry works differently. There are clear requirements for ministers and ministries, and they better be consistent. Wow.

Let’s remind the Minister of Advanced Education what she said yesterday when she was eager to leap to her feet and explain her missing emails. “You are able to create folders, so I have sent, inbox and drafts, and I have a whole bunch of drop-down folders.”

The minister said she had been briefed, so she knew she had an obligation, as does every minister, to produce the records regardless of their location, but she didn’t — zero records for an entire month in a minister’s office.

Can this minister explain why she didn’t produce the sent emails? Where are they, and what does she have to hide?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Every ministry follows the rules that exist for keeping records and government decisions. Every ministry follows those rules.

[2:10 p.m.]

Despite that, there can always be some variations on exactly who is placed in charge of those official records. In most of the ministries, that is in the hands of the deputy minister. The decisions that are made, the issue notes that are signed and the emails that confirm a decision or direction go to the deputy minister and are kept on record, and records can be found.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.

S. Bond: Again, to the minister’s response, let’s be clear. The ultimate responsibility for following the rules and ensuring that if an FOI request is made, it is followed, lies with the minister. Let’s be clear. This minister and her staff have a duty to thoroughly search for records.

The minister went out of her way yesterday to confirm she had a briefing. Yesterday she acknowledged the existence of records. She told us they’re in the drop-down folders in her Outlook account. But the official response was that no records were located.

There are really only two options here. Either it was the minister herself who didn’t disclose the records, or those were her instructions to her staff. To the minister, which is it?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Each and every ministry staff are directed and required to adhere to common record management policies. Those are written down. They have not changed when the change of government happened. Those same rules are being followed by the public service.

Directions and decisions are communicated in various ways. In some cases, it might be through an email from the minister’s staff. For example, a staff person sending a note to the deputy’s office approves it on the minister’s behalf. That direction is then kept, appropriately, in the deputy minister’s office.

We hold ourselves to a high standard. Some recent examples have fallen short of that standard. Our government and its staff have been directed to manage records properly, and we will be providing additional training. We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to ensure no mistakes are made.

M. Stilwell: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education claimed to be an expert when it came to freedom-of-information rules. In fact, she jumped to her feet. But today she’s not jumping so fast because apparently she has something to hide.

Yesterday she said: “I was fully aware and briefed.” Let me read for you a quote taken directly from our FOI training document: “Search diligently for any records…. Do not try to play games.” Who is it that’s playing games with these emails? Is it the minister, or were these the instructions she gave to her staff?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleagues for that question. I’m really quite pleased that they have such a high level of interest in freedom of information now that they are sitting on the other side.

Let me make it clear. Ministries’ staff keep records of decisions made by the government. They follow the recordkeeping practices as outlined in policies that have not changed since the opposition was in government. Those rules are being followed. The appropriate holder of the official records on the decisions is the deputy’s office. That’s where the records are kept.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: The minister says there’s such a high level of interest from this side of the House, but given the high level of interest when you were in opposition, you’d think you’d be getting the rules right today.

It’s unbelievable that there were zero documents found. Not a single thing done by the minister in February — it’s not possible. The training document prepared for the minister is called “Key Tips on FOI.” It reads: “If public servants ask whether you have records that respond to an FOI request, search diligently for any records. Do not try to play games.”

To the minister: what are you hiding in these emails?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question as well. Let me repeat, I don’t know how many times, in each ministry, our staff do receive training, and they will get more training to make sure that they are following the rules that exist for appropriate recordkeeping and following the rules as laid out in policy and also as confirmed by the information and privacy officer.

I want to assure my colleagues across the way that records and decisions of government are being kept. They are being kept in the deputies’ offices, and appropriate guidelines are being followed. We do hold ourselves, in light of the past history of the opposition, to a higher standard. We admit that some recent examples have fallen short of that standard.

Our government and its staff have been directed to manage records properly. We will be providing additional training to staff and those who have records. We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to ensure no mistakes are made. In a small number of cases where best practice may not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to address it and to comply with the rules.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed and that decisions are documented. Our government is committed to doing just that.

SUPPORT FOR DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
SUPERCLUSTER INITIATIVE

A. Weaver: In February, B.C.’s economy received a huge boost with the news that our digital supercluster won over $150 million in federal funding. The supercluster offers an opportunity to bring together the private sector and our post-secondary institutions and government to solve problems and accelerate innovation in key sectors in our province like health care, forestry and manufacturing. This will help B.C. be more competitive as we respond to changing global trends.

The supercluster will generate more than $5 billion in GDP growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next ten years. It already has hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and private sector commitments, with over 300 partners. For the province to be able to participate in this groundbreaking initiative, all we need to do is contribute $1.5 million per year for five years.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology is this. Will this government seize the opportunity before them, make at least the minimal contribution required and take a seat at the table of the digital supercluster?

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the Leader of the Third Party’s enthusiasm for the supercluster proposal. The federal government took the initiative by creating a fund and having a nationwide competition. British Columbia put together a consortium, as the member has mentioned, of over 300 companies — institutions, non-profits, start-up companies — led by some of the biggest companies in the province, and was successful. It has huge potential to create jobs, economic activity and research here in the province.

[2:20 p.m.]

Just this week the supercluster group appointed Sue Paish, who will be known to many people here, as the CEO of the supercluster. The structure, the governance model, is all being worked out. She was just hired earlier this week. Once that structure is in place, we will certainly consider provincial options to support this exciting initiative.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: The digital supercluster provides a generational opportunity for this government. Familiar words, actually.

Government can bring the biggest issues B.C. faces to the table, harnessing the ingenuity of our private sector and our exceptional post-secondary institutions to find innovative solutions to our most complex and difficult problems in areas like, for example, health care, where precision health can enable more effective and targeted treatment for patients; or in areas like our natural resources and manufacturing sectors, where partnerships will increase efficiency and productivity, creating more jobs in rural B.C. and helping us to get better returns for our products.

My question again is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Why wouldn’t government do everything in its power to support this initiative and to make sure that it has a seat at the table — that it seizes the power of the supercluster to tackle the most pressing challenges we face today?

Hon. B. Ralston: Indeed, that’s exactly what the government is doing. This opportunity is a very exciting one. There are some challenges, as Sue Paish puts together her team, devises a governance structure. There are some issues about the ownership of IP that will come out of the research that’s going to be done, the way in which the funds will be divided among the companies involved.

There are some challenges. I’m convinced that the group is definitely up to it. We are excited by the opportunities.

As the member mentions, there are huge challenges that we here in British Columbia can solve. In fact, just today, over across the water at the tech conference, there’s a group of 3,000 people meeting, talking about the opportunities presented to all regions of the province, all citizens of the province, by the promise of the digital transformation that we’re undergoing.

The supercluster is part of that, and we intend to do our part in spurring that group on to success.

USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION
MINISTER AND RESPONSE TO
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

P. Milobar: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education trotted out a pathetic excuse about a whole bunch of drop-down folders, and that just does not pass the smell test. This is yet another minister who broke the rules and was trying to game the system.

What was the Minister of Advanced Education deliberately hiding in the documents she is required to produce under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. As I have repeated a number of times. and I’m quite happy to talk about it for the rest of QP as well. let me tell everyone in this chamber that records of decisions are being kept. They’re being kept in the ministry. Decisions, whether they are issue notes that have been signed or whether they have been emails approving decisions, are all kept in the deputy minister’s office. So those records do exist.

Let me assure everybody across the way that we hold ourselves to a very high standard, and we won’t take any lessons from the other side. Our government and our staff have been directed to manage records appropriately, follow the written guidelines and rules that have been given to them but also follow the direction we received from the information and privacy officer.

We are directing staff to take a cautious approach to ensure no mistakes are made. In a small number of cases where best practices may not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to address it and comply with the rules. We are making sure that there is additional training being provided.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed for each and every one of us and that decisions are documented appropriately. Our government is committed to doing just that.

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. If the records exist, they should be released. It sounds like they’re being deliberately withheld, further to FOI rules.

These are the facts. The Minister of Advanced Education was asked, through a freedom-of-information request, to produce any and all sent emails. The response back was: “No records were located.” But yesterday the minister alluded to the records existing in custom folders she created.

Either the minister is deliberately hiding emails or she has instructed her staff to hide them. Which is it?

Hon. J. Sims: I really do want to thank my colleague for that question and for the line of questioning.

The opposition here is deliberately conflating their own embarrassing history of breaking records management rules with our government’s policies, which are within the rules and consistent with best practice.

They were caught breaking the rules by deleting emails after an FOI request came in. That’s a clear violation of the rules, and it was wrong. To make things worse, they were triple-deleting to cover their tracks. That’s also wrong, and that’s why it’s now also against the rules. Even when someone blew the whistle on both these practices, they lied about it.

You know, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our government and our staff have been directed to manage records properly, and we will be providing additional training to staff to make sure that that is happening.

We are directing staff and ministers to take a cautious approach to ensure no mistakes are made. In a small number of cases, where best practices may not have been followed, we have taken proactive steps to address it and comply with the rules.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed, and we are going to make sure of that.

J. Johal: The Minister of Advanced Education has tried to hide her emails from freedom-of-information requests by creating, in her words, a “whole bunch of drop-down folders.” Let’s see what the Privacy Commissioner has to say about this. “Searching for emails…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question clearly.

J. Johal: “…in a thorough manner includes searching in the inbox, the sent-items folder and any folders custom-created by the user.”

The minister is in direct violation of the rules. What is she hiding?

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said a few times today, and I will say it again, ministries and ministry staff keep records. When a decision has to be made, either an issue note is signed…. I’m sure those who were ministers on the other side will remember those. When a direction has to be given, an issue note is signed or an email is sent or something is sent to the deputy minister’s office in writing.

We are not a government of Post-it Notes. We are following the rules and policies that exist. Records are being kept, and the holders of those official records are the deputy ministers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Just yesterday this minister got up and told all of us on this side of the House that she was going to teach us how to use Outlook. Now she refuses to get up. This is what B.C. taxpayers are paying for. It’s sad, and it’s pathetic — sad and pathetic.

[2:30 p.m.]

What is clear…. The minister and her staff received clear advice upon taking office: “Do not try to play games.” The guidelines from the Privacy Commissioner are also explicit. It’s against the rules to use custom folders to hide documents. The minister knows this, because she was fully aware and briefed, as she said.

What is in this minister’s emails, and what is she hiding?

Hon. J. Sims: I will say one thing to my colleague, and thank you for that question. What I want to say is that all the vim and vigor that’s coming from the other side because they have a newly found respect for government records and the need to keep those records…. I will say that when the opposition was in government, they not only triple-deleted; they actually made sure that no information could be found, by triple-deleting.

Right now the practice is that every ministry has a process, and they follow the rules that exist for keeping records. What happens is that when a minister has to give direction — either a decision or a direction for work to be done — issue notes are signed, emails are sent through the staff, and the deputy minister’s office keeps the records. Records are being kept. Nothing is being triple-deleted.

I will tell you that we as a government are committed to the highest of standards, and it’s because of that that we are placing additional training for staff and for ministers to make sure and take all the extra precautions, because we know how important it is for official records to be kept and that rules are followed. Rules are being followed, and we will continue to do so.

M. de Jong: It’s quite a spectacle. Yesterday the Minister for Advanced Education was positively glib. She was dismissive. She ridiculed the opposition. She described herself as an expert in this process. She was very forthcoming about the fact that there were email records, but she had….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

M. de Jong: But she had very cleverly placed them in folders, folder drop boxes that weren’t accessed and weren’t provided in response to the request, the lawful request that was made for those records. Here the minister, confronted by the fact that she is in violation of the guidelines, the rules and the law, refuses to be answerable, refuses to be accountable.

If she wishes to be taken seriously as a minister of the Crown, I ask her now, today, here, to stand up and confirm for the House that she has reviewed the emails that she hid and that she will be releasing them forthwith so that people can see what she was hiding.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague across the way for his question. Let me assure my colleague, as I have assured other colleagues who have stood up, that all ministries are required to follow the rules, policies and guidelines that exist for appropriate recordkeeping. That happens according to the rules, which have not changed since that side sat in government, and records of decisions are kept in the deputy minister’s office.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I hope the Minister of Citizens’ Services won’t be offended by this, but the opposition takes very little comfort from her assurances, given her own record of the past with respect to adhering to the guidelines that she is responsible for enforcing.

This represents a tool for communication, the email system…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. de Jong: …and ministers and their staff may choose to avail themselves of the use of that tool to the extent that they wish to. But if they do choose to avail themselves of the use of that tool, they have an obligation to do so according to the rules and to provide records when they are asked for.

This minister not only hasn’t done that; she stood in this House yesterday and acknowledged that she’s hidden records in drop boxes and folders. And today she refuses to be answerable for the very admission that she made yesterday. It’s time….

Being a minister is hard work. I’m the first to admit it. But it comes with a code of accountability. If this minister wants to be taken seriously, she’ll stand up in the House today and answer for why she has hidden records that should have been released to the opposition under FOI rules.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again we see games-playing on the other side. We see the twisting by a party in opposition who, during the entire time in government, did not follow the rules around freedom of information, who have stood in this House for the last 30 minutes and twisted the words of the minister that she said yesterday, accusing her of things that she did no such thing and made that clear yesterday.

They have stood up and deliberately twisted the way in which records are kept when they know full well that if they want the records, they’re kept in the deputy minister’s office. That was the way when they were in government, and that’s still the rules today. Nothing has changed. What is sad and pathetic is that once again they have demonstrated that they have learned nothing from the last 16 years, and that’s why they’re sitting over there and deserve to be over there.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Mark: I reserve the right to rise on a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to refer four statutes to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF STATUTES TO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[The revision of the following statutes be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to the Statute Revision Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 440:

• Health Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 179;

• Veterinary Drugs Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 363;

• Trespass Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 462; and

• Workers Compensation Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 492.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills by the Legislative Assembly, the Committee is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 30; in Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Finance; and in Section C, the Birch Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Morris: With respect to sub 12(2), it says: “The general manager may disclose information obtained under this Act, other than personal information, if the general manager considers that disclosure is necessary to protect public health or public safety.” And he can do that, in the following subsection, without the consent of the individual. Can he give me an example of what kind of information that might pertain to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Product recalls, for example, would be an example of that.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

M. Morris: Section 14(h). Basically, it says: “A person must not possess cannabis unless one or more of the following apply…(h) the cannabis was lawfully purchased from a location outside British Columbia, the cannabis has been brought into British Columbia and the amount of such cannabis in the person’s possession is not more than the amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.”

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m just wondering where the burden of proof is. If he’s in possession of this cannabis, how does he prove that it’s legal cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be through either a sales record or receipts or proper packaging. If you’re in a vehicle, for example, the rules require that your cannabis be in proper packaging. So all of those things would be used.

M. Morris: That takes me to sub (i): “the cannabis is a cannabis plant that is growing or has been grown in accordance with section 56 or was produced from such a plant.” Again I ask: how do you prove that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is intended to deal with an individual who has the four plants and has grown them for their own personal use. It is and, practically speaking, would be very difficult to prove that it came from somewhere else. But the reality with this is you would be….

The 30-gram limit would be, in essence, the control measure, because if you had more than 30 grams in your possession, then, obviously, you’ve got an offence. But this is intended for the individual who’s grown the four plants and has grown them for their own use, and they’re able to have the 30 grams in their own possession.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. Again, the little senses go out in me from an enforcement perspective. This is an opportunity — even though it’s a small amount, 30 grams; maybe it might be 35 grams next time or whatever — to inject some illegal cannabis into the system, if you look at all the recreational cannabis users there. Has there been any thought given to tightening that particular section up to prevent that from happening?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say not beyond those that I just outlined a moment ago — the 30 grams, the packaging and all of those issues. Again, this is in terms of the general application in terms of possession, but if the member does have ideas or thoughts, we are certainly open to them by policy.

This is an issue that, in essence, all the provinces are having to deal with, and they’re dealing with it in a very similar manner to what we’re doing in B.C.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

M. Morris: I’ve got an amendment that I’d like to introduce. I’ve got copies here. I’d like to move the following amendment on section 15.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d like to amend section 15 by adding the underlined text as shown on the amendment I’ve just handed out.

[SECTION 15 by adding the underlined text as shown:

15.1 A person must not sell cannabis within 300 metres of a school or community centre.]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: The reason I put that in there is that this is an important section: “A person must not sell cannabis unless one or more of the following…” is applicable.

One of the weaknesses, in my view, with the legislation surrounds the protecting of our youth from the impact of retail cannabis. Having minimum distances where these retail outlets can be located, I think, helps at the end of the day in limiting the availability of retail cannabis to youth — particularly those that are going to high school, those that are associated to or attending our school institutions throughout the province here.

This is something that I think is reasonable and probably…. I’ve seen many municipalities — Vancouver is one of these municipalities — that have very similar kinds of provisions within their bylaws as well. So I think that the province should take a lead role in this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s intent with this motion. Under this legislation, and under the policies that we’ve had in place, this issue is one that is in the purview of local government. Many municipalities have already been in touch with us that they have the ability to determine the distance. Whether it’s zoning, distance from schools or distance from community centres, a number of municipalities have already indicated to me that they’re looking at a distance even greater than that.

Therefore, I would say that I can’t support this amendment — not because I don’t think the intent is a good one. Rather, local government has that authority, and in terms of dealing with these applications, it’s part of their zoning process, their approval process. Everything I’ve heard from local government to date indicates that they are every bit as concerned about the issue of location in relation to schools and community centres as that member is and that I have also indicated publicly.

That’s why I would not support this particular amendment. It’s not that I don’t share the member’s concern, but I think local government is well equipped, and I indicated that they will be dealing with this issue in their zoning processes, in their approval application process.

The Chair: Member, before we allow the member to make any further comments, we’ll wait till the member for Saanich North and the Islands gets a copy of the amendment so that if he has any comments, then he can look at it. Let’s wait for that.

While the member for Saanich North and the Islands is looking at the amendment, maybe the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has further comments.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. I did have an extra copy; it just was on my desk. I apologize for that.

I just feel that it sends a strong message out. It indicates that the province is very serious about this. You know, we’re not only looking at…. We have a number of small communities throughout the province here, as well as the larger ones in urban B.C. We have rural areas, as well, that have rural schools situated.

I think maintaining a minimum standard here, to set the bar at a certain level, sends a pretty strong message out, notwithstanding the fact that municipal government officials have contacted the minister and advised him on what their intentions are. Again, this is just another strengthening of one of the greatest concerns that we have here. Access to youth, I think, needs to be paramount.

A. Olsen: I would like to reiterate something which the B.C. Green caucus has identified to our colleagues in the opposition. While this is a seemingly simple amendment, the opportunity to have the discussion, the awareness of them…. This has certainly not been a surprise. We’d like to reiterate the opportunity that the official opposition has to have these discussions about these kinds of amendments with us in advance so that we have the opportunity and the benefit to be able to review them.

At this stage, I think the Solicitor General, the minister responsible, has identified, with respect to local governments, the decision-making of local governments to be able to define the kind of composition and community that they are going to have. I think that this bill is quite strong, both on the clarity with respect to minors possessing cannabis products as well as the offences that are in place for those that would sell to cannabis products to a minor.

With that, I think that it’s not an amendment that we’re going to support. But again, I think that the spirit of the bill does really clearly articulate that it is not supported in any way to be producing or supplying cannabis to a minor. With that, I’ll take my seat.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

M. Morris: Section 19: “A person who brings cannabis into British Columbia or who receives cannabis that was sent to them from outside British Columbia must within the prescribed time provide the prescribed information to the prescribed person in a form and manner satisfactory to that prescribed person.”

Prescribed, prescribed, prescribed…. I understand a lot of that is waiting for the federal bill to be passed.

What time are we looking at here? The minister…. Obviously his staff has looked at this. We’ll be bringing this in…. This is a little bit confusing here. If I could get some clarification around it.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. This does anticipate the federal level, the federal legislation. Once that is in place and we do know exactly all the details, we do intend to move quickly on this section. It is intended, at this point in time, to deal very much with people who are producing outside of the province, common carriers who would be transporting product from outside of the province. That’s why this section is here, and it’s dependent, in part, on the federal legislation.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

M. Morris: Sub 20(2) says: “Unless the regulations provide otherwise and subject to subsection….” My copy ends there. I don’t know whether I’ve got a faulty copy or whether there was a misprint there.

Interjection.

M. Morris: Subsection (3). Okay. For some reason, it didn’t show up there. Thank you.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

M. Morris: On the application under this part for licences, an application under this part must have a bunch of information in there. But under sub (1)(d), “include other information and records that the general manager considers relevant to the application or that class of application,” would that include information about previous dispensaries?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it could.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

M. Morris: “Fit and proper determination powers.” Under section (4): “Without limiting another power of the general manager under this Act to make inquiries and conduct investigations, when the general manager is determining if a licensee or an applicant is fit and proper, the general manager may make inquiries and conduct investigations that the general manager considers necessary, including, without limitation, background investigations and prescribed checks, in respect of (a) the licensee or applicant, (b) an associate of the licensee or applicant, or (c) a person having a connection to that associate.”

I’m just curious as to what infrastructure is in place to allow the general manager to do this. This is going to take a lot of resources and a lot of coordination, particularly at the outset, once this is proclaimed and we have these applications coming forward. What does that look like?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is an expertise in the LCLB which will be utilized. But more importantly, because these will be extensive background checks, we will be using the expertise in the security programs branch within the ministry.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just to be clear, in this section here, “Mandatory requirements,” in sub 26(3): “For the purposes of subsection (2) (c), the applicant must (a) be the owner of the establishment or proposed establishment, or (b) have an arrangement that the general manager determines (i) gives the applicant a degree of control over the establishment or proposed establishment….”

I’m wondering how this reflects…. I’m assuming that there’ll be a number of applications coming in for multiple locations — for one applicant to have, perhaps, a chain of stores. Do the mandatory requirements to have that hands-on control…? How does that apply to one single application who intends to have several stores?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Each store would have to have a separate application. You’re not going to be able to come in and go: “I want to apply and have seven stores.” You’re going to have to go in. Each one will have to have a separate application. You will either have to have complete ownership of each application, or you will have to have, if it’s a lease arrangement, control over that lease arrangement.

M. Morris: Sub 26(4)(a): “a person who has arranged, or agreed to arrange, with another person to sell the cannabis of a federal producer to the exclusion of the cannabis of another federal producer.” It gets into what they can sell and what they can’t.

I know all of the cannabis will be distributed through a central retailer. Does the cannabis retailer have the option to just sell one product from the cannabis distribution centre, or would they be obligated to sell all the products that are in the cannabis distribution centre?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section is intended to prevent market domination by one producer, for example. But you, as a retailer, would be able to choose what products from the cannabis distribution branch you wanted to retail.

M. Morris: I was just handed another amendment I’d like to introduce for section 26 here. I’ll give time for it to be circulated and read. It’s just right at the very end of that section.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’d like to move the following amendment on section 26 by adding the underlined text that’s shown on the document, sub 26(5):

[SECTION 26 by adding the underlined text as shown:

26 (1) The general manager must not issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence if, in the general manager’s opinion, it would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must not issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence if one or more of the following apply:

(a) the applicant is not an individual, partnership, corporation or Indigenous nation;

(b) the applicant is a minor;

(c) subject to the regulations exempting a class of licence from this paragraph, the applicant does not meet the ownership or control requirements set out in subsection (3) for the establishment or proposed establishment;

(d) the establishment or proposed establishment, or equipment or facilities in respect of which the licence is proposed to be issued or has been issued, does not comply with this Act, the regulations or the terms and conditions of the licence;

(e) in the general manager’s opinion, the applicant is not fit and proper;

(f) any prescribed criteria are not met.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) (c), the applicant must

(a) be the owner of the establishment or proposed establishment, or

(b) have an arrangement that the general manager determines

(i) gives the applicant a degree of control over the establishment or proposed establishment that will allow the applicant to comply with the requirements relating to establishments set out in this Act, the regulations and the terms and conditions of the licence, and

(ii) is of a satisfactory duration.

(4) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must not issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence, other than a licence of a prescribed class, to or for

(a) a person who has arranged, or agreed to arrange, with another person to sell the cannabis of a federal producer to the exclusion of the cannabis of another federal producer,

(b) a federal producer or the federal producer’s agent, or

(c) a person who is so associated with, connected with or financially interested in a federal producer or federal producer’s agent that the person is, in the opinion of the general manager, likely to promote the sale of cannabis of the federal producer.

(5) Without limiting subsection (1), the general manager must not issue, renew, transfer or amend a licence for [three] years after the coming into force of this Act to an applicant who has illegally produced or sold cannabis in the previous four years, including those who have owned or operated a cannabis retailer where cannabis has been illegally sold.]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: The reason I have that in there is that the infiltration of organized crime into the cannabis market right across Canada — and right across North America, quite frankly — is quite prolific. I think this gives an opportunity for those that have been illegally distributing cannabis to prove, themselves, that they’re not involved in organized crime and that they maintain a legal, lawful lifestyle for a period of time prior to them applying for a licence to get back into the retail business of selling cannabis in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s amendment and the issue that he’s bringing forward. This amendment is around organized crime and illegal crime, and that is one of the key goals around the federal government’s decision to legalize cannabis but also the framework with which we, in the province, are operating and which we have said is one of the key priorities for us.

That’s one of the reasons why when we’ve looked at what’s been taking place in British Columbia in how best to go about reducing the role of organized crime, we have said that an individual with an existing retail operation is not precluded from applying for a licence, but they are not going to be grandfathered.

They do not get any special consideration. They have to go through the same hoops as everybody else. In fact, they have to go through a background check, and it will be an extensive background check that looks at all aspects of who the applicant is and what it is they intend to do. If they are able to get through that background check, then, if a municipality deems that they’re fine with it, from their perspective, they pass a background check. Then and only then would they get a licence to be able to operate.

Municipalities have already made it clear that there are existing “dispensaries” where they have not approved the location, who have not complied with bylaws or with local government instructions. They’ve made it clear that they will not be getting local government approval. Therefore, they will be illegal, and they will have to close.

Local governments have said, though, that there have been those where they have given local approval, who have complied with all of their requirements — their licensing procedures and the fees for those licences, which are significant — and feel that they should be able to apply. We’ve said yes, they can apply, but there’s no grandfathering, no guarantee.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think that the strengths in this legislation will be able to deal with the issue and the concerns the member has raised around organized crime, which I share. This section has been developed with considerable consultation around it at the local government level, with law enforcement and within the surveys that we have done with the public. So we’re confident that the section, as it is, will do the job that we want it to do.

A. Olsen: In reading this amendment, I would just suggest that…. From my initial read and having not a lot of time to think about the ramifications of this, it appears to me that the first part of this…. Sorry, I’ll start with the last part. The second part of this: “…retailer where cannabis has been illegally sold.” That might be somewhat easy for us and for the general manager to be able to determine. There are some very public locations, and perhaps we’d be able to identify those people.

The first part of this: “…illegally produced or sold….” I think there are also some challenges to this to understand. These people are going to have to self-identify or something — yes, as they’re in the application process. I’m not sure…. There have been some concerns that have been raised by the official opposition, by the critic, about the cost that’s going in. I can imagine that this would increase the cost of that.

I won’t repeat what the minister said, but I will echo that there are very strong aspects of this bill already that recognize that there has been a certain amount of activity either at the production or at the sale level and that the choice in this bill is not to necessarily pass judgment or to exclude but, rather, to say: “You’re going to have to go through the process with everybody else, and it will be up to, ultimately, the authority to determine whether or not you get a licence.”

I feel that there are some big unknowns here in being able to quantify what this means to the process and will not be supporting the amendment.

M. Morris: Just a couple more comments on that. The illegal trafficking that has been taking place over the past number of years through these dispensaries — it’s what they’re termed these days — indicates to me that the individuals that operate those and have produced the product for those dispensaries have been flaunting the law. They’ve been operating outside of the law. To me, that’s a red flag that that surfaces. Somebody that doesn’t really care what the law says is going to do it anyways. Past behaviour is an indication of what future behaviour might look like.

The other concern that I have is the fact that individuals that have been involved in these illegal dispensaries the past number of years have connections with producers that are producing illegal product in Canada and British Columbia and might have a propensity to maintain a relationship and to maintain their supply from that.

Those are just some of the concerns I have. I think that this strengthens this legislation so that we ensure that we only have operators in there that are guaranteed and that have a proven history of obeying the law.

A. Olsen: In hearing the member speak, I don’t know that this actually ensures anything, to be honest with you. I think that it is more language and another point, but I don’t know that it actually ensures anything.

I think that there has been…. The member speaks quite strongly about illegal behaviour at dispensaries and the ability for people to access for medical. Certainly, there has been, perhaps, a stretching of the law. But these have been operating, and there has been a test within our society. I don’t know that we can ignore that. I don’t know that we can….

I mean, if it was as cut and dry, as black and white, as the member of the official opposition had said, then the RCMP and police forces would have a much clearer approach to this. I think that what we’ve seen in our cities is that the police forces and the court system are not quite as black and white as the member would like us to believe.

[3:20 p.m.]

Part of the reason why we are having this discussion right now, why the federal government campaigned on this in the last election and why we are discussing and debating this is because it’s not as black and white, and it has not been as black and white, as the member continues to stand up and make this appear to be black and white.

For me, to suggest that this is going to ensure some­thing…. I don’t think it does. I think the only thing that it ensures is…. It ensures an increased amount of unknowns for the general manager, who already has a significant number of unknowns to be dealing with.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 26 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

M. Morris: Section 31(1): “In this section, ‘special terms and conditions’ means terms and conditions under section 32 that apply to one or more licences but not to a class of licence.” Again, one or more licences under one individual or under the control of one individual.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It could be specific terms and conditions that apply to a licence holder who has a number of licences, or it could also apply to a number of licences held by a number of different owners but not applying to the class as a whole.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

M. Morris: Sub 32(1)(d): “advertising and branding, including the use of words, phrases, designs,” etc. It says, “or other branding elements…that could indicate that the licensee is associated with the government or is exercising a function of the government, is associated with another business,” or sells medical marijuana. I’m just wondering. That sort of insinuates that a licensee can sell both recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Why would that last subsection be in there?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. This section deals with…. You can’t use the word “pharmacy.” You can’t use the term “dispensary.” You can’t do “pharmacy” with an “f” or a phonetic pharmacy or dispensary. That’s what this deals with.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

On section 34.

M. Morris: Section 34(1): “Despite section 154 (2)…of the Community Charter, a council as defined in that Act may delegate its powers and duties under section 33….” So it may delegate its duties under this section. Is that to a consultant? Could that be just to anybody, or what’s meant here?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would have the ability to, similar to what is in the Liquor Control Act that was put in place in 2015…. It could be that council could delegate to the chief administrative officer, for example, and let’s say, in fact, in this election year, some municipalities may well choose to do that.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

M. Morris: It’s a long section. I should have looked ahead in my notes here.

Just looking forward to 38(11)…. So there’s “A monetary penalty imposed,” and it “must be paid within 30 days”. What recourse does the manager have if it’s not? I think that it might be explained further in the act, but I’m just wondering. If it’s not paid within 30 days, what recourse do we have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are debt collection provisions later on in the act.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

M. Morris: This relationship between actions of a general manager and the offences…. Just a little bit of clarification, if I could.

If the licensee has received a monetary penalty for illegally selling a product that’s not grown under federal regulation or whatever the case may be, can he also be charged with an offence? If he’s received a monetary penalty for one thing, can he be charged with an offence for one of the other provisions under the act as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are specific offences set out with administrative penalties against them, so it could be a case of either-or. So if there was an offence and you ended up having been dealt the administrative penalty, you would not be charged for that offence. That being said, if there were other offences, you most certainly could be charged for those other offences.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Morris: If a monetary penalty is administered…. The individual has been found to be not in compliance with two or three different items or different provisions. A monetary provision is provided. Is there still an opportunity to charge for an offence under one of those areas that he’s paid a monetary penalty on?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: If an administrative penalty is imposed, you wouldn’t face a charge for the contravention. But if there were other areas, other contraventions that weren’t covered by administrative penalty, you most certainly could be charged.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

M. Morris: Section 46(3): “A former licensee must maintain records required to be maintained under the licence for 6 months after the former licensee’s licence expires or is cancelled.” I am curious as to why the six months and perhaps not a one-year period or two years.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The six months is consistent with the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

M. Morris: The conditions around licensing under the cannabis act are a little bit different circumstances, I think, perhaps a little more serious than under the liquor act. I’m just wondering if there has been…. I’ve seen a lot of similarities between the two pieces of legislation, but because of the differences, I suppose, in cannabis versus alcohol, I’m just wondering whether the minister would ever consider or has considered extending that period to 12 months. You know, the investigations sometimes take a long period of time, and if the records disappear, particularly as we’re starting off in this process, where we’ve got a number of people applying for licences, I think it might be prudent to look at a longer period of time.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. One, this is in alignment with the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. Two, if the manager…. Or if there is an investigation, they have the ability to say, “We want the records now,” and they’d have to be produced. But I also think the member has a point, and I’m prepared to look at this issue down the road. We’ll take a look at it.

Sections 46 to 51 inclusive approved.

On section 52.

M. Morris: Just so I get it clear in my mind here, 52(1): “Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an adult must not possess in a public place an amount of cannabis that is more than (a) 30 g of dried cannabis, or (b) an amount of cannabis that is equivalent, as determined in accordance with the regulations, to 30 g of dried cannabis. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an adult if (a) the cannabis the adult possesses is medical cannabis, (b) the adult is carrying the prescribed proof…(c) the amount of medical cannabis the adult possesses is not more than the amount permitted under the Cannabis Act….”

Can an adult be in possession of both? Can he have medical marijuana, and can he also be in possession of 30 grams of recreational cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that plus 30 grams. So you can have what you’re allowed to have for medical, but then you can’t have an additional 30 grams above that.

M. Morris: Okay. I appreciate that. But subsection (3) also talks about how: “Subsection (1) does not apply to cannabis that is a cannabis plant.” My question is…. If the plant has got buds on it, it’s probably ready to be harvested. How does that apply to this as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The next section actually deals with that. What this section says is you can’t be walking down the street with a flowering or budding plant.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

On section 54.

M. Morris: Again, the maximum allowable amount of cannabis, a couple of things in here: “(2) This section does not apply to cannabis that is a cannabis plant. (3) A person must not possess at one location an amount of cannabis that is more than the maximum allowable…of cannabis” — which I’m understanding is 30 grams; and: “(4) If 2 or more persons occupy the same location and there is an amount of cannabis at the location that is more than the maximum allowable…each person is deemed to have contravened subsection (3).”

Have we determined the amount of dried…? This often refers to the plants that you are growing at home, so the amount of dried cannabis harvested from the plant. If we have a large plant, four plants that we’ve harvested from, I think they’re going to, obviously, produce more than 30 grams, or they could. How does this reflect the maximum possession limit allowed? It seems to me that this is going to allow more than the 30 grams.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points on this particular section. This deals with the indoor cultivation of cannabis with the maximum four plants that you are allowed. It applies to the amount that you would reasonably harvest, or harvest off four plants, dried. What you have in your home is what you have in your home. But when you’re outside in public, you would only be able to have 30 grams in your possession. If there are four people living in the house, it still only means that you could have four plants.

In terms of what would be reasonable off four plants, that is going to be prescribed by regulation. That is something that more work will be done on as we develop the regulations around that.

M. Morris: I guess what this appears to me is…. An individual can grow these fabulous four plants at home and harvest them but had just come back from the retail store with his 30 grams that he got in there, as well. A day later, he says, “I guess my plants are ready for harvesting now,” so he can harvest them. Is this section allowing that individual to have whatever the prescribed amount is going to be from the four plants as well as the 30 grams from a retail outlet?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be the prescribed amount; it will not be the prescribed amount plus 30 grams. So whatever the prescribed amount is from the four plants that you have in your home, that’s what you can have. You can’t do that and then say: “Oh, I want to add another 30 grams.”

M. Morris: Just one more clarification on this section, and then my colleague from Richmond will have a question.

In respect to the definition, “‘location,’ in respect of a person, means a place, other than a public place, that the person occupies as a residence or workplace or for any other reason.” I’m just wondering — I might be stretching it here: when we have cubicles in an industrial plant, or where we’ve got a piece of heavy equipment that’s working out in the bush that is not a vehicle, where the operator might be sitting inside the machine, can he be legally in possession of this kind of a substance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be a workplace issue, in a sense, if you’re in a piece of heavy equipment. But this is also about possession, which is separate from workplace use and impairment.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just one more stretch question on this, I guess. According to this section, they can have possession of up to 30 grams in a location, a workplace. The definition of “location” in respect of a person means “a place, other than a public place, that the person occupies as a residence or workplace or for any other reason.” So a person must not possess at any one location “an amount of cannabis that is more than the maximum allowable amount of cannabis” — the 30 grams.

I’m just wondering. If we have an employer that wants to take one of his employees to task, I think there might be a policy saying that we don’t want cannabis on the premises here. Will this legislation typically allow them to have that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This legislation would not override a workplace policy in regard to possession.

Sections 54 and 55 approved.

On section 56.

T. Wat: Before I raise a question to the minister relating to this section, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding the minister might have, based on my comments in this House on Monday. The minister seemed to think that the remarks about minors in response to the second reading of Bill 30 were my position. In fact, I’m doing my duty as an MLA for Richmond North Centre relating the concerns of some of the constituents and Richmond city councillors.

In my statement, I was referring to the city of Richmond’s main concern that minors between the ages of 12 and 18 can possess up to five grams of cannabis. This was in fact stated by Richmond city councillor Chak Au. If the minister remembers, he was the NDP candidate running with the minister’s political party in the 2017 election. So I take this opportunity to put on record that I was relating the concern of my city’s residents and councillor to the minister.

My question to the minister on section 56. This bill would not prevent someone who has been convicted of child neglect from growing cannabis in a household where children reside. Of course, we respect parental rights and the family unit. But that does not mean government should allow children to have access to cannabis in their homes where a parent has been, very unfortunately, found to be a neglectful parent in the eyes of the law, which is quite a high standard. I would like to hear the minister’s comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The law does not deal with this issue on a whole range of commonly found items within a household. That can range from medications to alcohol to tobacco to exotic pets to other plants. I mean, there are many plants, for example…. A common one that I can think of is at Christmas, the giving of a poinsettia. The poinsettia is poisonous.

[3:50 p.m.]

Many household plants are poisonous. The law does not discriminate in that regard, and therefore, what the law does expect and what is expected is that parents take precautions and are responsible in terms of how potential hazards in their home are dealt with. In that sense, cannabis is no different in that regard. That’s why there’s not a special provision that deals with the point that you are raising. There is an expectation that parents assume proper parental responsibility.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the explanation.

Personally, I do think that cannabis — marijuana — is different from the Christmas plant that the minister is referring to. If somebody is growing cannabis, he must have the intention of consuming the cannabis. In this case, it’s different.

I’m talking about parents who have been found to be neglectful towards their children. I’m concerned about children whose parents have been found by law to be neglectful, and he’s consuming the marijuana that he grows in his house. He might attempt to use the marijuana together with the children. That’s where my concern is.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d also make the following observation, and I understand the point the member is raising. This legislation does not deal with that. However, other existing legislation does deal with that, and that would be the child welfare legislation, which is around the care and neglect of children. There are provisions in that act that would be able to deal with parents who are being neglectful of children around whatever, whether it be cannabis or whether it be something else.

T. Wat: Can I assume that the other children and the act that you’re referring to will be dealing with the situation that I’m talking about, Minister? I just want confirmation of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If, for example, a court felt that a child was at risk because of cannabis in the home, they could impose terms and conditions to deal with that issue.

M. Morris: Section 56(f): “the cannabis plant is not from a seed or plant material that the adult knows is illicit cannabis.” How would that be determined? Is government intending to…? I know the federal government is talking about tracking things from seed to sale. When a homeowner wants to plant his four plants, he goes to a cannabis retailer and buys four seeds, and they’re registered. Or is there some tracking system that’s in place for the homeowner to produce a document if he’s ever questioned?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The reality is that that is going to be very difficult. There is no seed-to-sale tracking after you have purchased your seeds.

You can have up to 30 seeds in your possession. I know there’s misinformation out there that you can only have four seeds, but you can have up to 30 seeds, which, as we talked about earlier, is the equivalent under the federal legislation.

The reality is, of course, that’s very difficult to deal with. But this section is there because there may well be those occasions where an investigation may, in fact, find that someone may have been selling illegal seeds. There are records, and they say that. That may well be a situation. But most people, I expect, will be wanting to abide by the law, and they will be able to purchase legal seeds through a distribution branch and a retail outlet.

M. Morris: I’m just going to push that one a little bit more. Just wondering if the minister is privy as to what the federal legislation might look like. They have said many, many times that they will be tracking things from seed to sale. I’m curious how they’re going to do that. We’ve got analysts involved that we spoke about in the previous days on this.

But if a person goes to a retail outlet in British Columbia and buys a package of seed, is there documentation for that that individual would have in his or her hands to produce to authorities if they’re ever challenged on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, let’s put it this way. That’s why we’re still waiting to see what the federal legislation looks like. As I said, this is one of those areas. This is an evolving process. I suspect that there are areas that, once the federal legislation has passed, we’re going to continue to be dealing with and that will evolve over time.

But what we’re doing right now is within what we know and what we anticipate. Again, it’s going to depend on, at the end of the day, what the final federal legislation looks like.

M. Morris: Just one more on this one. I’m assuming that if I go into a retail cannabis store and I buy either cannabis or another product in there, it’ll come in a package that has an excise label on it of some kind or a tracking number on it of some kind. I’m just wondering whether that same tracking number or excise number will be attached to cannabis seeds, which would be separate from the cannabis products themselves?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes. They’ll be packaged with a stamp on them, just like everything else.

Sections 56 to 62 inclusive approved.

On Section 63.

M. Morris: Just a clarification. I think it’s correct. Under 63(3), a person “must not smoke or vape cannabis in a prescribed area of any the following places: (a) a park within the meaning of the Park Act.” I’m assuming that that would be covered under a provincial park, where people are camping and where there are children are running around.

But section (3) says a person must not smoke “in a prescribed area of any of the following places.” Does that mean that if we have a campground with 200 camping spaces in it, there might be a prescribed area where you can’t do that? Or will the entire park be off-limits to smoking or vaping?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are developing those regulations and looking at all the different aspects and the natures of parks, because there’s also a wide variety of parks. Some are very remote, and you’re not going to have issues of children running around. Then there are, of course, other parks which have very much a high propensity for families with kids to be using. Those regulations are under development, and those are the kinds of issues that we’re looking at in terms of the formatting and the prescribing for those regulations.

Sections 63 to 67 inclusive approved.

On section 68.

M. Morris: This one is quite an impactful section — the vicarious liability for principals, teachers on a school property, restaurant owners, operators of public institutions. I’m just wondering. When I look at the section here…. “If a person consumes cannabis in contravention of section 61 (a) [in or on school property], the education authority, superintendent and principal are each deemed to have contravened that section and are…liable for the contravention.”

Again, that applies to public places. I’m just wondering what kinds of steps that a principal or somebody needs to take to ensure that they’ve met the baseline in making sure that it doesn’t happen there, because it probably will.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section is actually consistent with what we have already in place for tobacco and vapour products, under the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act. In terms of the base that the member is talking about, what it would mean is that it’s similar to the tobacco and vaping issue, which is reasonable steps having been taken. There is a general understanding of what “reasonable steps” means, certainly as it does in regard to the tobacco and vaping, and it would be the same with this.

Sections 68 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

M. Morris: Again: “A minor must not operate a vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is in motion, while there is cannabis in the vehicle.”

Just to comment on this particular section. I think it goes to the social responsibility that we spoke about yesterday. There’s a huge part of this legislation that is educational in nature, to make sure that we get out to the young folks ahead of the game here so they all know what the ground rules are here. I just wanted to make that comment, because it’s fairly clear in here, but I think that educational responsibility is huge here.

Sections 74 to 93 inclusive approved.

On section 94.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just some clarification, I suppose, on section 94. “The monetary penalty is, as determined by the director…an amount equal to 2 times the retail value of the cannabis” that the person bought. So when we have government retail outlets and private retail outlets and we’ve got a range of price for that different product there, is that two times the retail value that the individual might have paid for at a particular store, or is it a set retail value that the province might have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about cannabis that is seized from an illegal dispensary, so it would not apply to a licensed retail store. There are other penalties that deal with those.

Section 94 approved.

On section 95.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to section 95 on Bill 30 that is in possession of the Clerk. What the amendment will do is it will amend, as follows, section 95(1).

[SECTION 95 (1), in the definition of “compliance order”, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

“compliance order” means an order of the general managerdirector under section 94 (7) other than an order based on a signed waiver referred to in section 94 (5);]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment corrects a typographical error.

Amendment approved.

Section 95 as amended approved.

Sections 96 to 98 inclusive approved.

On section 99.

M. Morris: I just want some clarification on the “injunction under subsection (1) regarding a contravention may be granted whether or not this Act provides for a penalty” — buying, selling or producing. I’m sort of looking for an example of where this might come into play. Where the Supreme Court, on application by the director…. Is this to prevent somebody that just continually flaunts a law and sells, or are there other circumstances here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.

Sections 99 to 106 inclusive approved.

On section 107.

M. Morris: This is an interesting one for me. I just need to understand what this is about.

Section 107: “If a person seizes cannabis under this Act, the person may post a notice informing the public of the seizure.” And then sub (2): “A person must not remove, alter, destroy or deface a notice referred to in subsection (1) without the permission of the person who made the seizure.” Who is the person here who makes the seizure?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the person authorized under the act. It could be the general manager. It could be law enforcement. In much the same way as if there’s a liquor violation posted on a door, you can do that.

Sections 107 to 112 inclusive approved.

On section 113.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Morris: I’m just curious. We’ve got people that will be applying for licences as soon as this act comes into force. Does the ministry have training programs all ready to go in place? There are a lot of references to training for the licensees and for staff. I’m sure there’s going to be a rush to get all this training done. Is the ministry prepared for this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Training programs are currently under development. That work is currently taking place. As with liquor, there may well be occasions when training takes place after the opening, but that training will be required.

M. Morris: So will that be like Serving It Right? Will it be on-line training, or will it be face-to-face training?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The program is still under development, but it is similar to Serving It Right.

Sections 113 to 128 inclusive approved.

On section 129.

M. Morris: So 130, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting the following from all or part of one or more provisions of this Act…” — there’s quite a list here. Oh, I’m sorry — 130.

Section 129 approved.

On section 130.

M. Morris: As I was saying, there’s quite a list here: “(a) a person or entity; (b) a class of cannabis; (c) a form of consumption of cannabis; (d) a thing; (e) an action….” I’m just wondering if the minister can provide me with some examples of what that’s about.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section is intended to deal with those situations that arise where we may be required to make an exemption to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sections 130 to 133 inclusive approved.

On section 134.

M. Morris: I’ve got an amendment, which I should have passed out earlier.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’d like to move the following amendment on section 134 by adding the underlined text, as I’ve shown for subsection (g).

[Section 134 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

134 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) respecting fees and charges payable under this Act, including, without limitation, fees payable

(i) by licensees and applicants for licences,

(ii) by applicants who apply under section 40 or 95 for a reconsideration of an order under section 38 or 94,

(iii) for training programs referred to in section 113,

(iv) for the registration of cannabis workers, and

(v) for another service or benefit obtained or required by a person;

(b) allowing all or part of the fees referred to in paragraph (a) (iii) to be collected and, despite section 14 (1) of the Financial Administration Act, retained by a person who provides a training program as remuneration for the provision of the training program;

(c) specifying when a fee or charge payable under this Act must be paid;

(d) respecting the waiver of fees and charges;

(e) respecting the circumstances in which a fee or charge paid under this Act is to be refunded, including the application and information requirements for the refund, and specifying a minimum refund amount;

(f) respecting the method or manner for payment of fees, charges or monetary penalties, including conditions or requirements relating to the payment.;

(g) allowing the minister to designate all or part of the fees referred to in paragraph (a) for the purpose of funding an educational program.]

On the amendment.

M. Morris: As we’ve talked about, the social responsibility associated with bringing legalized cannabis to the fore in British Columbia and Canada, I think, is significant. The educational component is a big part of that. We did talk about it yesterday. I think enforcing that and ensuring that there’s a mechanism to fund this massive educational program that takes place is a necessary component to getting off to a good start.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his amendment and the spirit in which it’s intended. I’ll just reaffirm what we’ve said repeatedly throughout this entire process: that we view education and protection of young people as paramount. One of the issues, though, with this legislation is that I will be working with the Finance Minister in determining exactly what we need and what we require. It is conceivable that, certainly in the beginning years, it may be more than what the fees and licences bring in.

Certainly it’s something that I’m prepared to look at in the future. At the current time, though, we do have the Treasury Board process. We do have those things in place. We have identified this as a priority, and it will most certainly continue to be a priority.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 134 and 135 passed.

On section 136.

M. Morris: Just some clarification here. It’s the regulation the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make “authorizing a treaty first nation to make laws in respect of cannabis that apply within the boundaries of its treaty lands, and (b) respecting the enforcement of those laws.” I’m just wondering whether those laws could be contrary to the existing provincial legislation that we’re talking about now.

Interjection.

M. Morris: I’m just wondering whether any legislation that a First Nations council may pass would supersede the provincial legislation that we’re speaking about now. I’m more concerned about retail sales set up within the First Nations territory where they might differ from the provincial legislation requirements for licensees and training and the other provisions there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This provision is intended to ensure that treaty First Nations can have an authority to make laws with respect to cannabis on treaty lands, which is generally consistent with the authority the Nisg̱a’a Nation has under its final agreement in respect to intoxicants on Nisg̱a’a land and the authority First Nations are expected to have with respect to intoxicants on reserves under the federal Indian Act.

M. Morris: This pertains to the Nisg̱a’a lands only, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not just to Nisg̱a’a but to treaty. So the Tsawwassen, for example. The Sliammon would be another example.

Sections 136 to 157 inclusive approved.

On section 158.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: I’m just curious on this one, section 158: “Section 26 is amended by adding the following subsections: (4.1) In determining the priorities, goals and objectives of the municipal police department, the municipal police board must take into account (a) the priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement…established by the minister.”

We’ve got it as part of this legislation. Is this to ensure that police departments no longer will ignore the illicit sale of cannabis, the distribution systems that are currently in place? I know there’s been a lot of…. Many police departments have let these kinds of activities carry on. I’m just wondering whether, because now we’ve got this legislation in place and the minister wants to make a strong statement, this will be a priority for government and for the minister to ensure that a hard line is taken with the illegal dispensaries and illegal products in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: While the province cannot and doesn’t direct the operational decisions of police forces, what we are saying is that municipal police boards should be taking into account the priorities, goals and objectives that we are setting forth with this legislation. And as we’ve said, what we want to see is a reduction in the illegal black market. We want to see legal markets in place, and police boards are going to need to take that into account.

M. Morris: I’m happy to see that, because it does provide some definition to what needs to be done here to address that and to make sure that this legislation does get off with a strong start and that the illegal cannabis trade is abruptly halted in this province to the extent possible.

Sections 158 and 159 approved.

On section 160.

M. Morris: Section 160, “(3) For greater certainty, vapourizing a substance containing cannabis is not smoking cannabis for the purpose of subsection (2). (4) A tenancy agreement entered into before the cannabis control…” so smoking in a rental unit, I suppose. I’m wondering. They’re allowed to vaporize cannabis, but they’re not allowed to smoke cannabis. This is what I’m reading in here. There are no restrictions on vaporizing cannabis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct, because vaping doesn’t create the smoke and the odour nuisance that smoking does.

Sections 160 to 163 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Next sitting.

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act, committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD
DONATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

Hon. A. Dix: I wonder if we could have a five-minute recess just to make sure the opposition critic and the Third Party critic can be here. I’m sure we could start quickly after that.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. This House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 15.

N. Letnick: Over the last few days, we’ve debated estimates in the Douglas Fir, in the little House. We moved up then to the Birch Room in the little, little House, and now we’re in the big House for this bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

I think the Ministry of Health has seen quite a large amount of this precinct, and I think this is where it ends for this session. Sad day, of course. The next 15 minutes, half an hour, and then it’s all over. I think this is the furthest apart that we’ve ever been over the last few days.

The minister, I’m sure, would like me to get up and ask him questions in question period. I might actually get that chance some day. All we need to do is for his team to…. Well, I won’t go there.

Anyway, back to the bill, section 15. Could the minister please answer why there is an option to verbally make a compliance order to a person if there is the risk that the verbal communications have no physical record?

Hon. A. Dix: As in section 10, where we said that the orders could be made in writing or verbally, in the circumstances here, it’s if the order is required when an inspector is at a site or a facility and needs to make a verbal order because it’s impossible, in effect, under those circumstances to make a written order. It would always be followed up with a written order.

This simply says that a verbal order, as suggested in section 10, is valid if it’s made — and this is important — to the person named in the order or the owner, manager or other person in charge of the facility that’s to be inspected or that is the subject of the order. That’s the nature of a verbal order. It can’t be made to an assistant in those circumstances. So if there’s a verbal order, that’s the circumstances of it. It, of course, would be followed up with a written order, and that’s what we allowed in section 10.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that it would be followed up with a written order. That satisfies my concern with section 15. And just in case the minister has other work to do, I have nothing up to and including section 19.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

N. Letnick: Section 20 is the point at which I would like to lift from the table the proposed amendments. I’d like to move in the Committee of the Whole an amendment to the act as section 20.1. That’s on the orders of the day. A question, a concern: do I have to actually read the amendment itself into the record, or is the fact that it has been submitted…?

Interjection.

N. Letnick: It’s on the order paper; I don’t have to read it? Okay, so if I can speak to it just briefly….

The Chair: Just move it, Member. Move it and speak.

N. Letnick: I’m moving it.

[SECTION 20.1, by adding the following section:

Amendment to this Act

Annual Reporting

20.1 The Minister of Health is required to annually report the percentage of blood, plasma and plasma-derived products sourced for use by British Columbia’s medical services that:

(a) comes from outside of British Columbia, and

(b) was sourced by donors who received inducement as defined in section 2 (2) of this Act.]

On the amendment.

N. Letnick: Yes, it’s moved, and now I’ll speak to it. Okay.

As we noted in the first part of the bill yesterday, Canadian Blood Services’ goal over the next few years is to increase, by approximately 2024, the self-sufficiency of plasma and plasma products in British Columbia — I guess in Canada as a whole, but in British Columbia as well — by up to 50 percent.

[4:40 p.m.]

Right now some estimates have us anywhere from 15 to 20 percent, and the goal is to increase that triple, by three times.

Their proposal to the governments of the country is — who, by the way, operate with CBS at arm’s length, not totally independent but almost, in that case…. They require approximately $855 million, almost $1 billion, to get to that goal of self-sufficiency. So that means that right now we’re about 70 to 80 percent relying on other jurisdictions for our plasma and plasma products. As the minister has already acknowledged, most of that comes from paid sources.

If the goal is to achieve 50 percent self-sufficiency, and if the government believes it’s important enough to bring this legislation forward, as it does in Bill 29, then I believe and the members of the opposition believe that what we need in this act is something that would hold information available to the public so that we can see how CBS and their masters — at arm’s length, granted, but still — the governments are doing in reaching those goals.

So every year they’ll be reporting out, whether it’s in the Ministry of Health service plan or other way, to ensure that we continue to move towards a place of achieving the self-sufficiency that the CBS, who, through this act, along with government, will basically have a monopoly on this process.

With that, I have moved the motion. I understand the minister has a different proposal, and I look forward to hearing what that proposal might be.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much to the member for putting forward this amendment and engaging in this discussion.

Earlier this hour, I gave a letter to the member in response, because what we want to do, I think, is achieve the purpose of what he’s suggesting. The letter makes a substantive case why we shouldn’t make this amendment in this particular form now but also proposes a solution so that we would get to the information, on an annual basis, that the member seeks and assess progress. I think his proposal is absolutely legitimate and absolutely one that we’re prepared to act on together, along with our colleagues in the Third Party.

I want to read into the record, if that’s okay, the relevant parts of the letter.

“I appreciate the intent of the proposed amendment in promoting greater knowledge of British Columbia’s needs for plasma products and making more transparent the degree of self-sufficiency in this province. However, it is my view that, as drafted, the provision is unworkable and may not be successful in securing the desired information.

“Given that it is Canadian Blood Services, not the province, that possesses this information, it is not feasible for the Ministers of Health to be accountable for reporting the specified information. It’s also impractical to place an obligation directly on Canadian Blood Services in the bill.

“In addition, the Canadian blood and blood products system uses a pooled model where blood and blood products are moved across the country according to need, so information on where the blood or components was collected and processed within Canada is not readily available. Products used within British Columbia come from a supply that is shared by all provinces and territories, making it impossible to track the original source in all circumstances.

“As I noted, I appreciate the intent of the amendments and suggest that there may be measures other than those specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the draft section 21 that may be of interest. Accordingly, I would propose that by the end of the session, May 31, 2018, the member from Cowichan, the Third Party Health critic, meet to advance a means by which we could report annually to the Legislature and the people of B.C., and I make an undertaking to do exactly that, consistent with that offer.

“This report would include relevant information concerning the usage of blood and plasma products in British Columbia. For example, I would expect that CBS can advise of the specific products that are derived from plasma and those which are manufactured from paid donor plasma. As well, data may be available on Canadian sufficiency in plasma for fractionization or immune globulin.

[4:45 p.m.]

“I believe these measures would provide meaningful indicators of CBS’s progress towards achieving sufficiency in plasma, and I trust that securing this information will alleviate the need for the amendment.”

In short, I think we should meet together. We should identify the information required that should be tabled in the House every year.

As Minister of Health, I’d make an undertaking on the part of the government to provide that by, say, one year from today so that we’re providing the House and the members consistent information about the progress towards the goal in plasma self-sufficiency, and if required over time, we could consider in discussions whether making that provision a statutory provision might be part of a future miscellaneous bill.

In so making that suggestion, I’m saying that we’re opposed to the amendment as it’s presently constituted but supportive of the spirit of the amendment and intend that the government will follow through, I think, on the intent of the hon. member. I believe we can set a pattern for years to come where appropriate information is brought to members of the Legislature on an issue of common interest.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the letter that he provided me, as he said, some time ago today. I also appreciate the undertaking that the minister has made to meet with the Health critic for the Third Party and myself to come up with a process by which we can report out to British Columbians on an annual basis progress on this issue and maybe other issues that we come up with when we get together for that meeting. I didn’t want to complicate the bill with it today, hoping that this amendment would actually pass if it was as simple as possible. That’s why I pared it down to what it was, on behalf of the official opposition.

Should the amendment fail — we all know how this place works; it sounds like it will — I will immediately set some time up to meet with the minister, at his convenience, and with the member of the Third Party and get the ball rolling.

The other piece that I also want to thank the minister for is his openness for looking at an opportunity, once we do decide how this information or what information should be reported, in a miscellaneous stats bill in the future to make it part of this legislation so that future ministers, whoever they may be, and future governments would still be bound by whatever we come up with. We all know that in this place, things can change very quickly, and we don’t want the corporate memory of this conversation to be the only thing we rely on when we are reporting. It really needs to be in the legislation so that there is some flame to the feet of whoever is in government — to make sure that progress is made on the issue of self-sufficiency.

With that, I will be supporting the amendment, but should it fail, I will be immediately supporting the minister in his kind offer.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

N. Letnick: On section 21, could the minister please explain why section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply for this act or its regulations? Section 5 of the Offence Act states: “A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment.” So if the minister could please explain why the Offence Act does not apply.

Hon. A. Dix: Interesting. Subsection (1) provides that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply. This is necessary because under section 21 of the Voluntary Blood Donations Act, the breach of specific sections of the act will be an offence. If section 5 of the Offence Act were to apply, contravention of any provision of the Voluntary Blood Donations Act would be an offence, which is not the intention. So this is a limiting, not an expansion. That’s the reason why this provision is in the legislation.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

[4:50 p.m.]

N. Letnick: Section 25 again talks about the Offence Act not applying. Is the answer the same as the previous answer?

Hon. A. Dix: This section of the act is patterned on the Ontario and the Alberta legislation. The section for the Offence Act does not apply because that would establish a general penalty for a person convicted of an offence.

The general penalty is a maximum fine, under section 4 of the Offence Act, of $2,000 or not more than six months imprisonment. Obviously, the fines are more significant here, as they are in Ontario and Alberta. That’s the reason why section 4 of the Offence Act doesn’t apply.

N. Letnick: In that case, could the minister please comment. If you’re contravening the act, you can do time in jail or pay a penalty. Does the same apply for regulations as well? If you contravene the regulations, is there a potential for a penalty of jail time?

Hon. A. Dix: The fines in the act are applied to the specific offences identified in the act. Here there is no jail time considered in the act. These are offences. These are fines. When the member talks about jail time, that’s not envisioned here as it is in section 4 of the Offence Act. It’s not envisioned here. The intent of these fines is for violations and offences that are established in the legislation.

N. Letnick: So is the minister saying that there’s no opportunity for someone to go to jail if they are in contravention of the act?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s not contemplated in this act. We’ve gone with the fines, exclusively, as they have in Alberta and Ontario.

N. Letnick: Is the minister aware of other acts in British Columbia purely on fines and no opportunity for experiencing jail time?

Hon. A. Dix: Specifically, for example, as we understand, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act has fines in it. But violations of that act….

[4:55 p.m.]

There may be other acts that are violations of other laws that take place in those facilities, for example, as there would be in this facility. The violation of those acts do not lead to jail time. In this case, the same approach is being taken. We could look for a list. I believe there’d be a long list of legislation. This is consistent with other health acts that we have in the health system in B.C.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

N. Letnick: Could the minister please explain why it is that in this section it states, “The minister may publish…” instead of making it a statutory obligation that the minister must publish the information?

Hon. A. Dix: Two things. One, it’s consistent with the approach taken in other jurisdictions, and to a degree, we’re trying to keep that as uniform as possible. Secondly, the “may” allows us, in certain circumstances, not to publish, as opposed to publishing it in every circumstance. That’s consistent with the Lab Services Act, the Workers Compensation Act and other acts in British Columbia.

It does provide discretion, which — I would guess, you could argue — is to the benefit, potentially, of the person who is found to have committed an offence. It gives that option if, for whatever reason, that’s seen as a more reasonable approach. It gives the option of, yes, publishing the name, which has a certain deterrent value should the act be violated. It’s not our expectation that it will be, but should it be.

At the same time, if there are circumstances, whatever they might be, when that might not be desirable, it gives the government the opportunity not to do that.

N. Letnick: Could the minister please provide an example of under what circumstances the government may choose not to publish someone’s name who has violated the act versus someone who has…?

Hon. A. Dix: These are, obviously, complicated issues, so I’m not sure that this example would be satisfying. If you had an obvious, first-time offender who may have violated the act but may make a reasonable case that they didn’t know they were violating the act, for whatever reason, that discretion might be applied, right?

Those are the kinds of circumstances that one would see it happen, but not if there’s an organized effort in full knowledge of the act to not follow the act. Under those circumstances, I think that would be unlikely. Although, it’s a possibility here. It does give the discretion in case someone…. Under circumstances where they were naive or misunderstood what the act meant, it gives the discretion not to publish their names in their circumstances.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

N. Letnick: Just to thank the minister for that last answer. It was a very reasonable example. Thank you for that.

Section 28(2)(d). This section allows regulations to be made that determine the exercise of powers not otherwise discussed in the act. It’s the standard regulation piece. Could the minister explain what some of these exercised powers might be and why they wouldn’t be included in the legislation already?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The member will remember our discussion of the list of powers under section 6. In that time, there’s obviously a long list. The idea of this, which is referred to there — and this is the regulation-making power here — is under the circumstances when, if a situation arises where those powers are found insufficient to enable a proper inspection, there’s an ability to provide the necessary authority.

I wouldn’t imagine we don’t know what those would be, but it essentially gives the government the regulation-making power to do that, as discussed.

That is a long list, as the member will remember, in section 6. It’s not our expectation that that would be required necessarily, but should it be required, it gives the regulation power to the government to do that.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I’d like to thank the director of legislation to my right, Katherine Thiessen-Wale, who works hard on these legislations in spite of the limitations of the minister sometimes in understanding the law — the details of the law, in any event — and the assistant deputy ministry, Ian Rongve, both of whom were very much a part of making this legislation possible.

I note that this was legislation that had been proposed in opposition in its fundamental form by my colleague, the member for New Westminster. We’re very proud of this day of bringing it into force.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD
DONATIONS ACT

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. A. Dix: Next sitting.

Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I would like to call committee stage of Bill 33, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018, standing in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST
BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:09 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Chair: The member has an amendment on section 4. We’ll wait till we get the copies.

[5:15 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: On section 4, I have quite a number of questions. First of all, in 34.2 there’s the reference to capital costs. Is the intention of the definition of “capital costs” to be just the items listed in the mayors plan? And since the government wholly took on replacement of the Pattullo Bridge, does the minister expect this project to be included in the definition of capital costs?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to recognize that DCCs in general, overall, are about expansion of the system, and it’s about new development. In this particular case, this DCC enables TransLink to impose DCCs for the purpose of assisting TransLink in funding the capital costs of eligible projects in the transportation service region.

S. Sullivan: Can I conclude from that comment that because the Pattullo Bridge would not be an expansion of the system, that would not be part of the definition of capital costs?

Hon. S. Robinson: TransLink is not contributing capital costs to the Pattullo Bridge.

S. Sullivan: So no DCCs will go to the Pattullo Bridge.

Hon. S. Robinson: No.

S. Sullivan: The next item of definitions is under “collection entity” and, especially, in section (a). Can the minister define “transportation service region”? Does the minister have any authority by regulation to expand the collection entity?

Hon. S. Robinson: The transportation region is defined in the TransLink legislation.

[5:20 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Okay. The transportation service region is defined in the transportation legislation, did you say?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s defined, actually, in the piece of legislation that we’re looking at right now. It’s defined in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

S. Sullivan: Can the minister elaborate more on eligible project? This is one of the definitions as well: “‘eligible project’ means a project to provide, construct, alter or expand assets….” Does the minister have any predetermined intention of which projects this would apply to?

Hon. S. Robinson: The eligible projects are defined by TransLink, and the DCC portion is designated to any expansion that contributes to the growth of the region.

S. Sullivan: Is there a belief that eligible projects could be changed and altered as needed? Today it may be the mayors plan; tomorrow it could be something else?

Hon. S. Robinson: The short answer is yes, but I think it’s important to understand that TransLink is required to put together an investment plan, which is a public document. They can adapt the bylaw accordingly, as long as it matches up with the investment plan, which is a public document.

S. Sullivan: Would this be, then, dependent on the mayors’ plan or the needs of the region? Or would the minister be able to alter that according to the minister’s conclusions on what needs to be done? Or would you be waiting for the regional government to determine what that need is?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is an enabling bylaw, so it’s really up to the regional government in their governance to make those decisions.

[5:25 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: So you do not envision that the provincial government would decide its own priorities and expand eligible projects beyond what the local governments would be asking for?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, I do not foresee that.

S. Sullivan: My next question is on 34.21, especially (1)(b), which says: “a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure that is within the transportation service region.”

My question is about this word “alteration.” It says that a building permit that allows the alteration of a building would have to pay the development cost charge. Am I reading that correctly? So any alteration of a building?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s a very good question. When we think about basic principles, this is about when there’s pressure put on the transportation system — in this case, an alteration that’s going to put pressure on the transportation system. The example is if you’re going to be building a basement suite in a home and having additional density — a gentle density, albeit, but density nonetheless — it’s going to put additional pressure on the transportation system.

It’s an example like that. I hope that helps the member understand what’s meant by alteration.

S. Sullivan: So if an individual has a residential building, maybe with seven units, and they want to renovate the units…. There would be no additional people living in it, or perhaps there might be; that wouldn’t be the intention. Would that be considered an alteration that would be applicable to these charges?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member looking for sort of another example. Given the example that he’s used here, again, it doesn’t put additional pressure on the transportation system — unless, for example, they were going to divide a suite or they were going to change and alter it where you would actually have more people living in that building. Then that would trigger it. But if it’s a renovation and because it’s not putting additional pressures on the transportation system, it wouldn’t apply.

S. Sullivan: Yeah, I guess what I’m looking for is a definition of what that level of alteration would have to be. Maybe there’s a renovation that may allow for more internal bedrooms inside, even if there’s no additional floor space. Would that be considered enough to trigger it?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This DCC was developed based on existing DCC legislation. Just like in local governments, they’re given the tool of DCCs in order to prepare for growth and make sure that they have the resources to have the infrastructure for growth. And just like in other DCC situations, it’s left up to the local body to determine at what level they would identify when the additional pressure is put onto the system as a result of the alteration.

S. Sullivan: I just wanted to clarify that repainting versus renovation, etc., will not attract this fee.

Hon. S. Robinson: No.

S. Sullivan: Okay. Another part of the definition is the “extension of a building or structure that is within the transportation service region.” My question is about the…. Will there be a minimum square footage or, perhaps, a percent of the building extension that would be extended to the building or structure that would trigger…? Is there some minimum that would trigger the DCC?

[5:35 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to respond to…. The member’s question was about minimum standards, and I need to correct the record. My example of a basement suite wasn’t quite accurate, so I want to correct the record.

For a development authorized by a building permit that authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a building, there are some exceptions: if it contains fewer than four self-contained residential suites, unless TransLink’s bylaw specifies otherwise, or if it will contain self-contained residential dwelling units that are no larger than 29 square metres, unless specified otherwise in TransLink’s bylaw or by minister’s regulation. That’s what exists currently, so I wanted to stand corrected.

S. Sullivan: Yes, that’s very important. So less than four would not be covered?

Hon. S. Robinson: Fewer than four self-contained residential units would not be required to contribute to the DCC. And it’s the size as well. Those are the triggers.

S. Sullivan: Can I confirm that if there are more than four and there is a basement suite added, then that could actually attract the attention…?

Hon. S. Robinson: The question is if there are five. Then, yes, it would trigger the DCC.

[5:40 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Okay. My example that I had been originally contemplating was something like somebody wants to extend their balcony or enclose their carport or whatever. That would not attract the DCC.

Hon. S. Robinson: No, it wouldn’t. My previous comment was that if there were four units and they wanted to add one more, it still wouldn’t trigger the DCC, but if they were building a brand-new building with four units and a basement unit — so there’s a total of five units and it was brand-new — then that would trigger the DCC.

S. Sullivan: Okay. That’s good to clarify that. My next question is about 34.21. It is regarding subsection 34.21(2). “Subject to subsection (3), development cost charges may be imposed under subsection (1) for the purpose of providing funds to assist the authority to pay the capital costs of an eligible project to service, directly or indirectly, the development for which the charge is being imposed.” Could the minister explain what is meant when she refers to using development cost charges to pay, either directly or indirectly, for an eligible capital project — namely, what exactly does “directly or indirectly” mean in this context?

Hon. S. Robinson: An example of a direct capital cost is, for example, if there’s a new building that’s going up and it required a bus stop right in front of the building, some sort of transit stop. That’s a direct benefit. But also, because it’s a system, there are some indirect benefits as well. When you have a system that moves you to another part of the city or across the region, that’s also a part of that benefit.

S. Sullivan: My concern is the interpretation of that “indirect.” One could imagine that all aspects of urban life could be indirectly related to transportation, so I would worry about runaway scope here. Can the minister give any reassurance that this will be directly…? Well, here I’m using the word “directly.” Would the minister be able to give me a reassurance that this would be directly, indirectly related to transportation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure the member can appreciate, from his time when he was mayor of Vancouver, how DCCs were used to deal with growth. Putting a pipe right at the front of the building but not having it attached to the system to take away the sewage…. You had to do both ends; otherwise, what was the point of the pipe?

It’s a similar sort of example in terms of the DCC. You can have the stop in front of the house, in front of the apartment, but if you didn’t actually have a system that went anywhere, what would be the point? It’s again recognizing that it’s a whole system that works. I have every confidence that TransLink recognizes that and will use the DCC appropriately.

S. Sullivan: Okay. So I will be reassured that there was some direct-indirect relationship.

[5:45 p.m.]

The next question is on 34.21(3), especially on: “(1) for the purpose of providing funds to assist the authority….” First of all, I was a little bit taken aback by the double negatives. “Development cost charges may not be imposed under subsection (1) for the purpose of providing funds to assist the authority to pay” for things in relation to the following: “a motor vehicle, other than a ferry.”

A question about that. Subsection 3(a) allows the revenue generated to be used for ferries but not for other motor vehicles. Does this prevent the addition of, for example, SkyTrain cars or West Coast Express trains or buses?

Hon. S. Robinson: The actual act itself, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, has, in the act, a definition of “motor vehicle.” It does not include “(a) airplanes, (b) the cars of electric and steam railways, or (c) other vehicles running only on rails or tracks.”

S. Sullivan: Okay. Subsection (c) says “a parking facility.” It prevents a parking facility being paid for by this charge. I’m just wondering what the rationale was for that.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is about the park-and-ride component that, I have to say, I make fabulous use of in my community. It’s been a tremendous opportunity. It’s just about being consistent with the DCC being used for capital costs for the transit system itself.

S. Sullivan: So the development cost charge may not be imposed for a parking facility, despite the minister’s enthusiastic use of it in relation to transit?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct, because we want to stay consistent within the world of DCCs. Parking lots are not an eligible expense for DCCs.

S. Sullivan: I have another question on 34.21(3). Again, when this subsection states, “Development cost charges may not be imposed under subsection (1) for the purpose of providing funds to…a parking facility,” does this refer to what is essentially the development of a parking facility project? Or would this also include the development of a parking facility if it was part of a larger capital project? If it was eligible for some other building that also happened to have a parking facility in it, would it be eligible? Or would that trigger the DCC?

Hon. S. Robinson: In order to be really consistent with all the DCC legislation, it is not eligible for parking at all.

S. Sullivan: My next question relates to (4) and (5). It says: “(4) Subject to subsection (5), a development cost charge that is payable under a bylaw…must be paid before or at the time of the approval of the subdivision…. (5) The minister may, by regulation in respect…authorize the payment of development cost charges in instalments and prescribe conditions” under which the payments must be made.

[5:50 p.m.]

My question is about this idea of having a DCC payment to be made at the time of the approval, that a minister can approve these installments. Has the minister considered allowing DCC payments to not be paid until the development hits the market, when the revenue actually is there to pay for these?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to go back to the principle about how this DCC was developed. It was developed to be in line with other DCCs that local governments currently operate. It’s a framework that’s worked quite well for a very, very long time in local governments. It’s been a well-established system. The design of this DCC is taken after the design of existing DCCs, all of which require payment earlier on.

We do recognize, just like we do in other DCCs, that payment can be by installment — recognizing that it is helpful to the development community to stretch it out over a period of time.

S. Sullivan: The specific example I’m thinking of is in rental housing. The economics of rental housing are already difficult, and if you require these upfront DCCs, it could actually impose undue costs on the development of rental housing. I’m just wondering if the minister has considered that and is concerned about that.

Hon. S. Robinson: We do recognize that we do need more rental housing, and we are doing a number of things in order to promote that and make sure that we get more of that built in our communities. We also recognize that there’s an opportunity, particularly if it’s affordable rental, to waive the DCC. It’s also available. That’s certainly a part of the absolute conversation. Where it might not make sense to do that, then there is the installment regulation that makes it a bit more manageable.

S. Sullivan: On clause (5), I’m wondering…. The minister is giving the regulatory authority to themselves, to the provincial government. Under what kinds of circumstances might these regulations be used? Also the question: why not allow the local bodies to make that decision?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the member would see, if looking at all the DCC legislation that has been working for so long, that it’s the same framework. It’s the same regulatory framework that’s used right across the province. This is the same modelling on that. It’s the same framework that local governments use right across the province on their DCC legislation.

[5:55 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: My next question is around 34.22. Will there be just one bylaw that collects the DCC, or does this section read that it will be bylaw collected in the DCC per development?

Hon. S. Robinson: Just one establishes all the charges.

S. Sullivan: Section 34.22(1) says: “A bylaw that imposes a development cost charge must not be adopted until it has been approved by the inspector.”

Can the minister define “the inspector” and how they might evaluate the bylaw?

Hon. S. Robinson: The inspector of municipalities is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The inspector is attached to the office of the minister.

The provincial approval of the bylaw that will occur through the inspector of municipalities is there to ensure that DCC funds are only used for eligible projects and that meaningful and informed consultative input occurred with stakeholders on the bylaw, which is really critical, and that TransLink has considered the matters that it’s obligated to consider.

S. Sullivan: My concern is about jurisdictional overlap. We have an inspector appointed by the minister. We also have mayors. We have TransLink, the community.

Does the minister have any way to deal with this issue of overlap — that the inspector may be overriding the authority of local governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the member’s question. It is very challenging when you’re dealing with…. I’m sure he’s very well aware of the experience with a Mayors Council, a body of many elected officials and a relationship with the provincial government and making sure that it’s meshing appropriately.

The inspector of municipalities has a bit of a role in supporting the work of the local governments and making sure that the DCC is used appropriately, just as an oversight component. The underlying value is that the body, TransLink, has the responsibility to do all the things that they must do. It’s written out, and as long as they do that, then that gets a sign-off from the inspector of municipalities.

S. Sullivan: The next question is on (5): “The minister may, by regulation, provide exemptions from the requirement in subsection (1) to obtain the approval of the inspector.” It looks like the minister has appointed an inspector to make these decisions and then made it possible to override the inspector’s decision. Can the minister explain the reason for that?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, given the desire to keep this consistent with the same DCC framework that exists throughout the province for all DCCs, this is standard language that is in all of them.

The only existing regulation is the DCC Bylaw Amendment Approval Exemption Regulation that enables TransLink to amend its DCC bylaw once every 12 months for up to four years to account for inflation, without receiving inspector approval — so giving them the authority, without creating a sort of additional burden in terms of going through the process. So that’s what’s going to exist by regulation.

Again, it’s about wanting to be consistent as in other DCCs. It’s the framework that we’ve used, and that’s why it’s in there, because it’s in all the DCC legislation.

S. Sullivan: Okay. I thought by reading this that you’d cover all contingencies, but then we get to (6): “A regulation under this section may provide that an exemption is or may be made subject to the terms and conditions specified by the minister or by a person designated by name or title in the regulation.” I’m just trying to figure out when this would be used. Can the minister give any example where this might be acted on?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m so grateful to have people who understand the details of this legislation. Subsection (5) allows us to make exemptions by regulation, which we just covered. Subsection (6) allows for the establishment of terms and conditions for that regulation. Again, I want to let the member know that this mirrors exactly the DCC language that exists throughout the province. There’s nothing different here when looking at all the other DCCs and how they’re written by legislation.

S. Sullivan: My next question is regarding 34.23, especially subsection (3). “A development cost charge is not payable if the development does not impose additional capital cost burdens on the authority.” Can the minister point to any specific project that would meet this requirement? What was this meant to capture?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is the case where, if a developer is part of a larger project that is going to provide some capital project that meets the needs of the transit system — for example, builds a SkyTrain station as part of their project — then they wouldn’t be asked. If that’s their contribution, they wouldn’t be asked to contribute to the DCC.

S. Sullivan: Another question would be about that. When I read that, it seemed that if there are developments that don’t actually seem to put a load on the system…. I’m just wondering if, say, for example, a development was further away from rapid transit, is that something that would be covered by this?

Hon. S. Robinson: No.

[6:10 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Okay. Another question on that. It appears from the wording that a dense urban, affordable building with affordable housing would be covered. But, for example, if there’s a low-density development that does not put as much of a load on the system, is that meant to be exempted or have less of a draw on the system?

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s no…. This is a “by unit” DCC, so it’s not about whether it’s dense — low density or high density. It’s per unit. But it also recognizes that we all benefit in the region by having a robust transit system. Where you might come from a lower-density area where there might be less opportunity to access transit, you still benefit by having the ability to access the rapid transit as you move through the region. It’s a recognition that you benefit right across the region.

S. Sullivan: Under (4): “Subject to a bylaw under subsection 5, a development cost charge is not payable….” Then going to (a): “contain fewer than 4 self-contained dwelling units.” This is a fairly arbitrary number. Can the minister explain why four? Why not three or five?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, the intent here is to mirror the existing DCC bylaws under which local governments already operate, and this is consistent with that legislation.

S. Sullivan: So it’s just based on precedent that’s already accepted practice.

My next question is about (6), “A development cost charge is not payable….” Then you get to (a), subject to a bylaw “or a regulation under subsection (10) (a), each unit is no larger in area than 29 square metres.” The question is about the 29 square metres. Is this exemption to not include, say, student housing developments?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, this is about being consistent with the whole DCC structure that we currently operate under, that local governments currently operate under. So this is another one that’s about consistency.

S. Sullivan: Okay. It also limits units to only those that are residential units, so I’m wondering about live-work spaces. Would spaces that are actually, in many cases, work spaces also attract the DCC?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s pretty clear that it’s only for residential use.

S. Sullivan: So a live-work unit that is designed to also include work would also attract the DCC?

Hon. S. Robinson: If it’s being used as a residence, then yes.

[6:15 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: So (8) says: “A development cost charge is not payable… if the value of the work authorized by the permit” does not exceed $50,000. Why are development permits with work valued under $50,000 excluded?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I want to assure the member that this is also part of consistency around the DCC bylaws that currently exist and looking to have a consistent framework right across the province.

S. Sullivan: Okay. A question around subsection (10). This section allows the minister to change quite a number of sections by regulation. We have, for example: “prescribe an area for the….” There are a number of clauses here. I’m just wondering why the minister wouldn’t require these in legislation rather than through regulation.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, this is about having consistency in the legislation. If we were going to change something in the Local Government Act, if that was going through the process, then we’d have the ability to do that here as well.

S. Sullivan: Okay. Well, on (10). With the regulations granting ministerial power over the topics in (a) to (d), how would the minister determine regulations for the various sizes, values and areas associated with this section? I’m just wondering about the decision-making process and how that would come about.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for this question. I think it’s a good question, and I’m grateful that he’s canvassed it.

In terms of making any changes by regulation, it’s really important that we consult, certainly, with local governments, with those affected and with TransLink, in this case, because it is consistent with all the other DCC legislation that currently exists in the Local Government Act. It would be really critically important to consult with the stakeholders. So in this case, it would be important to consult with local governments, with TransLink and to determine if any parts needed to be addressed, and we can do that through regulation.

S. Sullivan: Section 34.24, especially on (1)(b). So in this section, “‘eligible development’ means a development that is eligible in accordance with an applicable bylaw…as being for one or more of the following categories.” And the one in (1)(b) is: “for-profit affordable rental housing.”

This leads to the question: will there be a definition of what is affordable housing, affordable rental housing? We’ve seen a number of situations where some places that have pretty high rent are called affordable housing.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point the member to subsection (4), where the authority needs to establish what’s constituted as an eligible development that would be eligible for waiving or reduction of fees.

S. Sullivan: Number (4). I see it says that “the authority, by bylaw” must establish what is eligible. Okay. So that would be the authority that would do that.

On (c), it says: “a subdivision of small lots that is designed to result in low greenhouse gas emissions.” Does the minister have a definition of this “low greenhouse gas emissions”?

Hon. S. Robinson: The authority would determine that.

[6:20 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: Okay. I’m wondering about standards, that the authority then would have complete control over that. Would it be a LEED standard, or would it be anything that the authority should decide?

Hon. S. Robinson: They do have the autonomy to decide, which is consistent with other DCC legislation.

S. Sullivan: I’m just wondering how the minister…? In 34.23(3), it says that a “charge is not payable if the development does not impose additional capital cost burdens on the authority.” How does that jibe with this section here?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, in 34.23(3), that’s where a development actually contributes to the overall capital cost of the system in some way. It would be inappropriate, I would think, to then bill them for a DCC to contribute to the system, given that they’re already doing that. So we don’t want to do that. And in this section, it’s more about: where typically they would be expected to contribute a DCC, there are some exemptions. We recognize that we want to facilitate these certain kinds of developments, so they will be waived.

S. Sullivan: I’m on (1)(d): “a development that is designed to result in a low environmental impact.” Will this development need to consider the upstream emissions in the project? For example, concrete can be used in LEED buildings but does have significant emissions. Will this kind of thing be taken into account — mainly the upstream contribution?

Hon. S. Robinson: That will, once again, be up to the authority.

S. Sullivan: In subsection 34.24(4)(c), the authority, by bylaw, “may establish the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a waiver or reduction…and the conditions on which such a waiver…may be granted.” That’s (4)(c).

I’m just wondering if the minister could explain why there is no statutory requirement to establish regulations, requirements and conditions that must be met in order to obtain a waiver or a reduction under subsection (3), with the significance of using waivers and cost reductions to encourage more sustainable development. Wouldn’t it be a priority that such requirements be immediately established both for the sake of planning and for development cost calculations and the kind of risk that that brings to developments?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, this is consistent with the Local Government Act around DCCs. Again, it’s up to the authority to develop the bylaws so that everybody knows exactly what the expectations are.

S. Sullivan: I certainly understand the importance of certainty for developers, but this subsection (5) allows the minister to change the bylaws in subsections (4) and (1). If the minister is giving themselves the authority, I’m wondering: why have any definitions listed? I think this is the fifth time in this legislation that it has guidelines for a DCC outline, but the minister can then edit them. This brings in much more uncertainty for developments and developers who want to build.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, this is exactly how this legislation exists in the Local Government Act, around more traditional DCCs. So if there was ever a change in the Local Government Act, this provides us with the ability to do that.

[6:25 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: A question on 34.25(1). This says: “A development cost charge bylaw must specify the amount of the charge or charges imposed in one or more schedules of development cost charges.”

So the development cost charges must be developed in the schedule with the rapidly increasing prices on the mayors’ plan’s projects. Will the schedule be designed with the current plan of $7.3 billion, or will this be easy to be edited, as the costs change?

Hon. S. Robinson: Just like in other DCCs, this legislation provides TransLink and directs them that they must specify its DCC rate in its DCC bylaw. It also enables TransLink to vary DCC rates. It also establishes criteria that TransLink must take into consideration when setting DCC rates, and it requires that TransLink provide information used to calculate the DCC rates to collecting entities and to the public.

S. Sullivan: I believe TransLink was earlier asking $20 million. I believe that’s now $29 million. Who knows what happens when the shovel hits the ground? I’m just wondering: how quickly will these schedules be able to be changed?

Hon. S. Robinson: The schedule needs to be part of the investment plan, and the mayors are part of the investment plan.

I want to point out that TransLink has to make a number of considerations when setting DCC rates. That includes future land use patterns of development, the phasing of works and services, how development designed to result in a low environmental impact may affect the capital costs of an eligible project, and the charges in relation to the capital costs of prevailing standards of service, as well as if the charges will deter development, discourage the construction of affordable housing or discourage low-environmental-impact development.

These are the expectations built in, in terms of how they’re to come up with their schedule.

S. Sullivan: I have a question about other revenues and how those will be considered. I believe the fares are going up 2 percent. There are property taxes increasing, parking taxes increasing. Will these be considered as well in calculating the DDCs?

Hon. S. Robinson: I just listed the elements that need to be considered for the DCCs. I can read it again into the record if the member would like.

S. Sullivan: Well, let’s move on, next, to (4)(d): “In setting development cost charges, the authority must take the following into consideration…whether the charges are excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service in the transportation service region.”

So the authority is required to consider if charges are excessive. I’m just wondering if the minister can define what she considers an excessive charge.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to say that this is consistent with all the other DCCs. This is exactly the consistent language with all other DCC legislation that we have in the Local Government Act. Again, the Mayors Council is going to have to include it as part of their investment plan, and it’s going to have to be part of the consideration when they establish the bylaw and identify the specific charge.

[6:30 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: In 4(e)(i), whether the charges will deter development — that’s, I guess, a question about how the minister might determine that deters development. I realize it may be in other legislation, but still, these are powerful words that have to be acted on. How would the minister determine that the charge would deter development?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to clarify that it’s the inspector of municipalities that has the oversight for this. I would imagine, as they do with other DCC legislation, that if there are, in this case, market studies, consultations, TransLink would have to demonstrate, when they put their bylaw forward, that they have done the due diligence in order to determine that this was the appropriate rate that would not deter development or discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of reasonably priced serviced land, or discourage development designed to result in a low environmental impact.

So there is some work that they would have to do in order to make sure that they were meeting all the requirements set out here in the legislation.

S. Sullivan: In (ii), it says that it would “discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of reasonably priced serviced land….” This definition is very vague. I’m just wondering if this could be exploited and if the minister is concerned about how vaguely this is worded and how it might be interpreted.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I want to go back to the consistency in the legislation and how well it has worked for us around the DCC charges that currently exist, in terms of getting the checks and balances and finding the spot at which it’s reasonable to expect development to contribute to growth. So having the checks and balances is certainly a part of that. And the Mayors Council is part of the investment plan. That’s part of the balance that they would need to do and that they would need to check off to satisfy the inspector of municipalities.

S. Sullivan: I want to bring to the minister’s attention the C. D. Howe report Through the Roof: The High Cost of Barriers to Building New Housing in Canadian Municipalities. It shows that excessive regulations can really affect the price of new real estate in Metro Vancouver.

I’m just looking at a quote here from the report. “You look at what the price of housing is. You compare it to what it actually costs to build a house. When there are great gaps between what it costs and what people end up paying, that tells me there are some pretty serious market dysfunctions.”

The report brings attention to the actual cost of government regulation, and it estimates that in Vancouver, it could go up to $600,000 per home. I’m just wondering if the minister is concerned whether adding more DCCs will actually increase the price of housing.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s an interesting question that the member raises. I just want to qualify that when he says the cost of a home, it’s about a single-family dwelling, not a condo. That’s my understanding, but I haven’t gone into that study in any great depth.

But I do want to point out, again, around finding the checks and balances, that we have local government mayors who are responsible for doing that. Also, this idea that if we were to eliminate all of the fees and any of the charges that are used to make sure we can live reasonably well and we can commute reasonably well across the region…. If those fees were to all disappear, including whether or not we get sewer or water to our homes, I’m pretty confident that the price of homes won’t drop, because the market is the one that’s determining that.

S. Sullivan: I believe the member for Nechako Lakes has something that relates to this. I defer my position.

J. Rustad: Thank you to my colleague. Specifically in that report…. It’s a report, obviously, that just came out today from the C.D. Howe Institute. It clearly identified Vancouver and the development charges in Vancouver as being a significant factor to the price of homes. For a single-family dwelling, 1,900 square feet, it would be $644,000 in charges just to the value of a home that’s being built. To an apartment, a 1,000-square-foot apartment or condo, it would be $350,000 to the price of a condo even before the people could start construction, simply because of the charges in the city. There’s no other city in the country that comes anywhere close to the size of the development charges in Vancouver.

I have two questions around this in particular. The first, to the minister: does the minister believe these development charges are contributing to the high value of property and the challenges around people being able to find housing in the community of Vancouver?

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member repeat the question? I didn’t hear the question. Just the last part.

J. Rustad: The bill is obviously on roads and development charges. The challenge, of course, is the cumulative effect of DCCs on properties. Given that the report has identified that there are significant charges already in the city of Vancouver and that the city of Vancouver is the highest in the country, by a long shot, in terms of that, which is contributing towards the unaffordability of houses, does the minister believe that adding additional charges to this will also contribute? And does the minister, as part of that, believe that the development charges that are already in place are contributing towards the high cost of affordability in Vancouver?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s a much more political question than it is, particularly, a policy question, so I will answer the member’s question appropriately. I believe that the high cost of housing in Vancouver is related to a number of factors. It’s not just related to fees, which certainly contribute some costs. We’ve been assured by many members of the development community that this is not a significant increase. The high cost has to do with the fact that we’ve had speculation in the market for a very, very long time. That’s added considerable challenge.

We’ve had, certainly, issues around the demand side, and our 30-point plan is about challenging some of that. We have a supply issue — getting the right supply in the right community. To address that, we’re certainly taking significant steps — around rental zoning and a housing-needs assessment — that have already been passed in this House.

Of course, there are other significant challenges that I’ve certainly heard from the development community and that have not been addressed for many, many years. That has to do with the development approval process and the public hearing process that, I think, are far more significant costs to housing. That’s something that we’re taking under consideration right now to help address those costs.

[6:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I agree. The length of time, the delay, with that is significant. But if you look…. I can’t remember exactly what the average home price in Vancouver is today, but for a condo, it’s in the $750,000 to $950,000 range. I think for a home, $1½ million to $1.8 million is the average price.

When you look at the development charges associated with that — I may be off on the prices, because I haven’t looked specifically — the development charges are close to half the cost of the home already. Any additional development charges onto the price of building new homes is going to continue to mount in terms of the cost, of affordability, for individuals that are trying to get into the market.

I just want to ask again: when do the development charges become too much in terms of the overall affordability of housing? I understand this is a small component to it, but it’s just one of many components that are added on.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would have preferred part of this as part of the second reading debate. I think that would have been a far more robust time to do this debate.

I want to remind the member that my understanding is that the market is what determines the cost of these things. The runaway cost of housing is about a market that has been completely let go out of control and has had significant impact on housing affordability.

Once again, I want to point out to the member that if all of these fees and all these taxes sort of disappeared, the market would be the element that determines the cost of housing, and that’s the piece that we need to be addressing significantly.

We also certainly have heard from…. There was a major developer, whose name I can’t remember. I want to say Cressey. They said they understood the value of this, and this was not going to have a significant impact. They just said it on CKNW. I want to say a couple of weeks ago.

I can get the quote specifically for the member, if he would like, around recognizing that development…. When you have a robust regional transportation system, there is recognition that development should pay for part of that growth.

We’re expecting one million more people to come to the region of greater Vancouver over the next 15, 20, 25 years. That’s going to have significant pressure and significant congestion. So there is recognition that the development of new homes should help pay for the pressure on the system, just like we do with water pipes, just like we do with sewage.

Transit is seen as part of the same thing, and new development adds to the pressure of that existing infrastructure and should contribute something towards making sure that it’s robust and can meet the needs of growth.

S. Sullivan: My question is on 34.25(5). “The authority must (a) provide to every collection entity, and (b) make available to the public on request” the calculations used to determine these costs, except “any information respecting the contemplated acquisition costs of specific properties need not be provided.”

A couple of questions out of this. One, is this expected to be made public, even the calculations, or is that only by a freedom-of-information request? The other question is: why were the acquisition costs not required to be disclosed?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The authority must make available, upon request, the specific information and would also share that information with the collecting authority. That would be the municipalities that collected the DCC on their behalf.

And then there was the other question about the acquisition. It’s commercial information.

S. Sullivan: So this would be considered private information, then.

So 34.26 basically allows any developer who’s paying for things outside the boundaries of land being subdivided or developed not to have that amount included in the DCC. Could the minister elaborate on this or give some examples of how she sees that might work?

Hon. S. Robinson: In this instance, it would be…. For example, if you go back to that example where you build the bus stop in front of your project, and it contributed, let’s say, $10,000 or $5,000 of your DCC contribution, they can reduce the amount of the value of that bus stop off the DCC so that you’re not being double-billed, essentially.

S. Sullivan: On 34.25 — it goes up to (5) — I would like to move an amendment by adding subsection (6).

[Section 4, by adding the text as underlined:

Section 34.25 is amended by adding subsection (6):

(6) The Development Cost charge bylaw must

(a) state how much revenue it is designed to raise for capital costs,

(b) report monthly how much revenue it is receiving, and

(c) upon reaching that amount the Development Cost Charge will be repealed.]

On the amendment.

S. Sullivan: It is a great concern that these things can end up just being endless revenue generators and start to be transferred to different projects and become an actual, essential part of the revenue flow. I think it’s really important to put some discipline around this. I would like to move section 4 by adding the text, as I specified, and I have delivered copies to the Clerk.

Hon. S. Robinson: On the amendment, first of all, it would be completely inconsistent with the framework that we’re using in terms of designing this bylaw, the DCC. We want it to be consistent, so we can’t be supporting this amendment.

[6:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I guess, since I can’t ask the member directly, on the record, the question, I’ll just make a statement. Some of the challenges that I have…. Would we be doing this for water pipes or for sewer pipes — to say that we’re only going to build to a certain limit of sewer pipes, and then we’re going to stop collecting…? That is if, of course, a sewer pipe was….

My example is that when we allow a municipality access to development cost charges to be able to provide amenities that increase the quality of life, we give them the opportunity to apply that as is needed in their district or in their municipality.

It seems like here, because this has to do with mass transit, we’re going to put a cap on it. So perhaps the member can clarify. That’s a substantive challenge that I have with it.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s comments. It’s exactly the same kind of framework. The frame is that development should always be paying its share. It allows for the growth of the system, and it’s completely inconsistent with our existing DCC framework.

S. Sullivan: The concern is, I guess, relating it to something like water charge. There would be an amount that that would go to, and at a certain point, that would be paid for.

This is not meant to be just a never-ending source of cash for TransLink or something like that. This would be meant to….

This is really quite an intrusion on municipal government. Typically, development cost charges are only collected by municipalities and only used for municipally sanctioned items. So to be able to use this by the provincial government is quite a departure. My concern is that there would be some limits put on this.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to point out to the member that this has been requested by the Mayors Council. It’s been requested by local government, to have this additional tool to help them continue the expansion of much-needed transit through the region. It’s an enabling piece of legislation that allows them to continue to grow a system that is in desperate need of significant growth.

S. Sullivan: I think that it’s very important that this is asked for by the local governments. The amendment would certainly enable the minister to add with more requests from the local government.

With that, I would like to have this on division. I’m not calling division. I would like to have the vote on division.

Amendment negatived on division.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:54 p.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.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Ma in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $172,581,000 (continued).

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister and her staff. I think there is a lot of interest for the minister today, so we’re going to try to work that as smoothly as possible. I think we did give the minister’s office a heads-up that we wanted to deal with the office of the superintendent of real estate first.

We’re going to invite our colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin to begin. I believe the Leader of the Third Party also has some questions on this topic, so we’ll try to package those together to allow the staff to deal with this in the most effective way.

With that, we’ll turn the floor over to my colleague and then the Leader of the Third Party.

D. Barnett: Can the minister confirm her understanding of the role of the office of the superintendent of real estate and how the ministry oversees the office of the superintendent of real estate’s power to make the rules and regulations governing the real estate regulations in B.C.?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s important to note that the Office of the Superintendent, their authority, is in legislation as an independent regulator for real estate.

Their authority comes from the legislation brought in by the previous government in 2016. They have the responsibility for oversight of the Real Estate Council, responsibility for rules for the practice of real estate — filing practices for real estate developments, for example — and responsibility for REDMA, for the act. So basically, it’s the oversight, it’s the authority for making rules, and for the filing practices of real estate.

D. Barnett: In mid-April, the minister announced a review of B.C.’s real estate regulators to make sure that British Columbians are effectively protected. The ministry has not only hired the lawyer conducting the review but has also set the terms of reference for the review itself. When asked in question period on May 10 about the impacts of a dual-agency ban, the minister confirmed the independence of the superintendent of real estate as a regulator.

My question to the minister: how does the minister simultaneously claim to hold the office of the superintendent of real estate at arm’s length, to protect its independence as a regulator, while also holding the full power to set the terms of reference for a review, hire the lawyer conducting the review and hold the power to make legislative changes governing the superintendent of real estate’s regulatory powers?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it is an interesting piece to do a little bit of unpacking when we take a look at the superintendent of real estate and the Real Estate Council, because I think there are some questions that have arisen.

Where does the authority for the minister come from when it comes to doing a review of the superintendent of real estate and the Real Estate Council? I think it’s important to note that the review is of both — of the structure. The responsibility comes because I, as minister of this area of responsibility, am responsible for the legislation that sets out the terms of reference for the superintendent and for the Real Estate Council.

I have the ability — and I believe the responsibility — to listen to issues that arise. There have been, in this structure that was put in place by the previous government…. So this is a structure that we inherited. In 2016, the previous government put this structure in place. There have been questions raised. There have been questions raised around clarity of who is responsible for what, to put it in a very simple term — clarity of powers; who is responsible for addressing what piece? — and overlapping responsibilities between the council and the superintendent.

I believe I have a responsibility on behalf of consumers, on behalf of others, to make sure that there is an effective regulatory structure in place. That’s why there were questions and why a structure was put in place by the previous government. It’s that there were issues raised.

I think it is time to do that review to make sure that those questions that have come up from the public, from real estate agents, from others — that we actually review them, that we look at those overlapping responsibilities. We have an obligation to make sure the system is effectively regulated.

That’s why I have called for the review. That doesn’t have anything to do with the superintendent and the existing powers that they have through legislation. Those are already there. But as governors, we all have a responsibility to make adjustments to legislation if we believe that adjustments need to be made.

D. Barnett: Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister. Minister, I don’t believe that answers my question. Maybe I didn’t make it quite clear enough. You are the government. You have the authority to make the legislation. You have hired the lawyer. You are making the rules with recommendations from this lawyer.

My question is: why are new regulations going to be put in place, new processes put in place, before the review is even completed and put back out there for public comment?

The Chair: Thank you. And I’d like to remind members to please direct your questions through the Chair.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Through you to the member, I think it’s important to note that the member is quite right. We are government, and we have a responsibility to manage the legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

The legislation is in place currently. The legislation currently says that the superintendent has the responsibility to make the rules, to carry out the rules, to get them out there. I do not, as the minister or as government, have the ability to arbitrarily say I’m not going to pay attention to the legislation. The legislation is law. It is in place currently.

If there are future changes that need to be made, then I also have the responsibility to bring those changes forward and to make recommendations around those changes. But the current legislation is in place. The current legislation is the law, and the current legislation allows the superintendent — and in fact, requires the superintendent, as part of their duties — to put in place rules and to carry those out.

D. Barnett: As I have been hearing from my constituents and from individuals working in the real estate industry, the banning of limited dual agency will have a profound impact on both the consumer and the industry. In rural and northern B.C., over 64 percent of real estate offices have five or fewer agents. In northern B.C., the ban threatens to remove the choice of residents of who they want to represent them, lead to the closure of many family-run small office closures and greatly limit access of consumers to professional real estate representation.

My question to the minister: if it is this minister’s goal to protect the consumer, what has the minister done to ensure the limited dual agency ban on June 1 does not negatively impact both consumers and the industry in rural B.C.?

Hon. C. James: I know we’ve had this conversation in the Legislature as well. As I’ve mentioned to the member and other members when the issue has come up around concerns that people have been raising around dual agency — as I’ve said then; I’ll mention again — I believe it’s important for representation to be there for individuals, whether you’re in a rural community or an urban setting.

My responsibility is to make sure that I hear those concerns and that I take those concerns to the superintendent, to the Real Estate Council. That’s just what I’ve done and have been doing since I’ve taken on this responsibility, because there are certainly issues that I’ve heard as well. I know the member has heard them, but I know that others in the House have also heard these concerns. Those issues were brought forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

I also asked the superintendent to talk about the consultation process that has occurred. The superintendent did do consultation with not only the Real Estate Council, but public consultations have occurred over this last year, including meeting with the regional real estate boards in each of the regions in our province.

Those concerns were heard, and I think…. As I mentioned in the Legislature as well, the superintendent has informed me that there were considerations to accommodate rural and smaller communities under the new rules. For example, the new rules allow for an exemption for properties that are located in underserved or remote communities where it’s impractical for a consumer to receive alternate representation.

That is something that’s been put in place, the superintendent advises me, to address some of the concerns that have come forward, and the Real Estate Council would make that determination on underserved and underrepresented areas.

D. Barnett: Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: would you please define “rural and remote” and the size of these communities that you have just discussed?

The Chair: The preferred question might be phrased “Would the minister please…” Thank you.

Hon. C. James: I thank the member for the issue. The expectation is that real estate agents use their professional judgment on this piece. What will happen is that when the rule comes into effect, the Real Estate Council then has the responsibility to educate. So they’ll be getting the information out to all real estate boards and real estate agents to have a discussion about the intent of this exception. The intent, of course, is to ensure access, as we talked about before, for representation in areas where there are few licensees, where there aren’t a lot of options.

The Real Estate Council, remember, is responsible for education and discipline, and so they will be doing the work around education on this exception — what that means, what it looks like, what is practical on the ground — and then, as I said, real estate agents use their professional judgment.

D. Barnett: As it currently stands, the Real Estate Council of B.C. is comprised of 12 to 14 government-appointed members. Currently only two of these members are industry-licensed, and both are from urban British Columbia. Many in northern B.C. are worried that the concerns of the consumer and the local realities of industry practices in rural areas are not represented on the board.

[3:10 p.m.]

Given that the current council’s term is ending on October 31, would the minister commit to ensuring that this important board is able to interpret the regulatory decisions of the office of the superintendent with a keen eye on the impacts of regulatory decisions impacting rural British Columbians?

Hon. C. James: It’s a simple yes. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve heard the concerns, just as other members have. I’ve raised those issues and those concerns with the council, with the superintendent. So yes, I will continue to raise those issues about the importance of representation for people in rural communities.

D. Barnett: To the minister: thank you. Would the minister commit to ensuring that the council has more representation from licensed real estate operators and more representation from all over British Columbia, not just urban British Columbia?

Hon. C. James: In fact, that is part of the review that’s going — representation, composition of the board. So those are exactly the kinds of issues that we are going to be reviewing and that we’re going to be making recommendations on, and then changes if changes need to occur.

D. Barnett: Would the minister commit here today to have the dual-agency ban on June 1 put on hold until this review is completed and the minister has had an opportunity to review the review before any other decisions are made for this industry?

Hon. C. James: I’ll just go back again for the member, to remind the member that we are living with the existing legislation put in place by the previous government. The previous government put the structure in place that gives the independence. I don’t have the ability, nor should I as an individual minister, to not follow the law. The law’s in place. It is up to the superintendent to make the determination around rules and to send those rules out. That’s the existing legislation.

If there are future changes in the legislation…. That’s part of what we’re doing with the review. I’m not going to second-guess the review. I’m sure there are lots of people who are putting input in. We’ll take a look at the review and see if there are changes that need to occur.

D. Barnett: As the minister responsible for the legislation for the Real Estate Act, would the minister consider making legislative changes, if necessary, to protect the rights of the consumers in this province and to protect the real estate industry for many people who, without this industry…. It will certainly hurt rural and remote communities and will also affect the consumers in this province?

Hon. C. James: In fact, that’s exactly why the review is taking place. As I mentioned in question period, as well, it is important to me that consumers have the ability and they have a well-regulated real estate industry. That’s important for the safety of consumers. It’s important for good representation. That’s precisely why the review is going on.

I won’t second-guess what the review will come forward with. I’ll wait until the review arrives, and then we’ll take a look at any changes that may need to occur to ensure that that positive regulation, that strong regulation for consumer protection and for representation is there for every corner of B.C., rural and urban, because that’s the direction.

I think it’s important to recognize again that this structure is something that we inherited. The structure was put in place. We inherited this structure. There are certainly issues that have been raised, and that’s why we’re looking at it.

[3:15 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I’d like to carry on the line of questioning that my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin has been pursuing.

I’ve got several letters here from various organizations, but first I’d like to comment upon and seek your response to the statement that you’ve made.

I do recognize right off the bat that this is legislation the government has inherited. It was brought forward as an amendment to the Real Estate Services Act by the former government. That amendment was put in, in the lead-up to and following some rather newsworthy issues that were occurring in Vancouver.

The office of the superintendent of real estate was created through these legislative changes. That office has put forward some measures which some would describe as a sledgehammer response to issues that arose in Metro Vancouver. Now, there have been unforeseen consequences of this.

According to section 89.2 of the Real Estate Services Act, the minister has regulatory power on all aspects of what the superintendent of real estate can do. So I would argue that, in fact, it is within the minister’s jurisdictional and legal right now to pass regulatory powers to limit the ability of the office of the superintendent, according to section 89.2 of the Real Estate Services Act, with respect to his or her jurisdiction in terms of licensing or requirements at this particular time.

Perhaps the minister could comment, and I will get back to some specific examples of why this is an important issue right now.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for raising the issue. The member is quite right. There are regulatory powers that exist around authority of the superintendent, as the member has mentioned, in the area of jurisdiction.

I think it’s important to note in this legislation, though, that where the legislation identifies the superintendent as independent, those regulatory powers also have to be balanced with the independence that is also in the legislation — so in taking a look at due process, whether due process was followed in bringing forward the rule; in taking a look at the discussion, the consultations, the work that was done around the consultations.

Remember that this recommendation around dual agency came forward as a central recommendation in 2016 from the independent advisory council. They brought this forward. They, again, did consultation. The superintendent’s office, again, lengthened the consultation.

I certainly, as I’ve said, have passed along the concerns. I think there are concerns there. But when I look at the balance of due process and balancing regulatory powers with the independence of the office, I did not see the ability to utilize regulations in this specific case.

A. Weaver: With respect to the statement about the Independent Advisory Group, I understand that 28 recommendations were done. I would like to quote from a letter I received from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, which was copied to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. The letter says this:

“We are writing to request your support in our call to government for a review of the ban on limited dual agency. The ban was instituted, along with 28 recommendations from the Independent Advisory Group, after a limited review, no consultation with small communities and based on no empirical evidence. It is important to remember that the IAG began its less than 15 weeks of work in response to a ‘shadow-flipping issue in the Lower Mainland.’”

I come back to this. This is a very real concern that has been outlined and addressed by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin that I would describe solely as a sledgehammer response to issues that were arising in Metro Vancouver. As the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin pointed out, there was limited, if any, representation from rural B.C. on the IAG.

Again, coming back to the issue at hand here, I understand that the minister has inherited this office from the prior government. I understand that the 28 recommendations came from the IAG. The problem therein comes in exactly with that consultation process, as well as with the recommendations and their implementation.

Just today, May 15, 2018, one month prior to the full implementation, finally rules have been put up on a website. I received an email from a couple of realtors in Parksville today in this regard. They haven’t even had the instructions, the guidelines, about how they’re supposed to implement these. There are brokers who are profoundly troubled about the legal liability they are taking on, by what can only be perceived as a half-baked list of recommendation follow-throughs, to implement these on a timeline that is just not possible, when there are no educational tools available.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

I’ll quote this right here. It says: “Today, one month prior to the scheduled rule implementation, the new forms and corresponding rules, interpretations, were finally emphasized, made available to licensees on the RECBC knowledge-base website. It’s notable that significant errors in the information required RECBC to retract and amend the information.” This is one month before it’s supposed to be implemented.

[3:25 p.m.]

The error noted wasn’t typographical or grammatical, but a clear misrepresentation of the rules. If there are troubles with the understanding of the rules with RECBC and the superintendent office, and realtors in B.C. are trying to implement these in a month — one month — we’ve got a problem. I think it’s a duty and responsibility that the minister recognize that she has the regulatory powers under section 89.2.

Again, I ask the minister, knowing that she has alluded to the consultation process, knowing that there are profound flaws with that, including the inability of realtors to get information on the topic until today, and then it was retracted…. Is the minister willing to step in and use her regulatory powers or to insist that the independent office actually delay the implementation of its regulations — in particular, a limitation on dual agencies — now as opposed to waiting until disaster ensues on June 15?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member. I think it’s just important to unpack a little bit of the issues that the member raises, because I’ve certainly heard those concerns and heard those specific issues as well.

I think it’s important to note that information has been posted since January. They’re continuing to post. Today it was the new forms that were posted. So it’s not that no information had gone out. Today they had the new forms go up. There have been previous postings that have been happening since January.

I think when the recommendation came forward — and the member, I’m sure, will remember this, as we both were part of that discussion…. As the member had said earlier, it was in reaction to making sure that there was consumer protection in place.

Then concerns, as the member has rightly pointed out, were raised about representation for all of British Columbia. That’s why you see the exception there for rural and remote communities — so that there is an opportunity for rural and remote communities to have an exception to this rule if there isn’t proper representation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Again, I come back to the issue of balancing the independence with the regulation. When there was process, when there was consultation…. All of the real estate boards, all the regional boards were consulted through this process. That includes the Northern Real Estate Board and other real estate boards. The Real Estate Council, which is the body that licenses real estate agents — their own organization — has given written confirmation that they believe that everyone will be up and ready to go on the 15th of June.

Again, that reassurance has been given. Given all of that, from my perspective as minister, I think there was due process. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns that have still been raised. That’s part of why, as I said, I’m making sure that I go through the review so that if there’s clarification around who is responsible for what, we’re able to look at that.

If there are still concerns after the implementation date, if people feel that the exception isn’t working, those will be concerns that I’ll continue to raise as well.

A. Weaver: I have two final questions. This is with respect to follow-up on that issue again.

Again, I’m quoting from a letter that I received today, in fact, from the Real Estate Alliance of B.C. This letter is referring to a response that they got on May 14, which was yesterday, from the office of the superintendent of real estate. The office of the superintendent said this: “Licensees should not wait until June 15, 2018, or council’s new course to prepare for the approaching implementation date. OSRE encourages licensees to take proactive steps to educate themselves” — in bold — “and determine what, if any, business practice changes are necessary to comply with the rules. The superintendent is confident that the industry can and will adapt in a positive manner to the new rules.”

Well, that’s not very reassuring, because this is the counter-argument that is given. The assumption that licensees — these are realtors on the street — will be able to educate themselves and understand how to comply with the rule when it takes effect is unrealistic and unreasonable.

There are changes to the rule interpretations that are ongoing — daily, in some cases. Questions posed to regulators regarding the new rules have yet to be answered. The mandatory education course on compliance under the new rules has not yet been launched, nor will licensees have access to the education prior to the effective date of the rule implementation. The forms have just been made available to licensees on May 15.

We have a real problem here. We have an office of the superintendent of real estate that is implementing these new regulations, which are being applied in response to dealing with shadow flipping in Vancouver, frankly.

We have consequences across B.C. — one last question on limited dual agency in a second; we have realtors on the street who can’t get questions answered. We have the brokers who have a fiduciary responsibility and who are unable to train their realtors because they can’t get answers. We’ve got the Real Estate Council not knowing who is on first base in the office of the superintendent, and we have rules changing on a daily basis.

Forms came out today, and apparently, one had to be retracted. This is a gong show. We cannot expect one of our…. I think it’s something like 30 percent of our GDP is in this broad sector. We cannot afford, as an economy, to have this uncertainty continue in the real estate sector, particularly in light of the fact that there are issues like speculation tax and employers tax, which I’m sure we’re going to canvass more thoroughly.

My question, again — the final question on this topic — to the minister is this. Will she, in recognition that there is chaos out there in terms of education, exercise her right under section 89.2 of the Real Estate Services Act to step in and ensure that the implementation date is deferred so that a proper consultation and due diligence can be done to ensure that licensees are actually educated across British Columbia?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I come back again to due process because I think that’s really the critical piece here when we’re taking a look at new rules coming in or we’re looking at changes and the ability to use regulations to override the independence. That’s really the balance that is required when you take a look at the legislation — the ability to set regulations but to be balanced off with the legislation that makes it very clear that the superintendent’s office is independent.

The Real Estate Council, as I said, is the governing body for all real estate agents in the province, rural and urban. They cover everybody. They are the professional body for real estate agents. They have assured us and assured the superintendent’s office that agents will be prepared. That is the assurance that they have provided. They are the body that governs the real estate agents.

The rule was announced in November 2017. I recognize, as the member raised, that there continue to be questions raised. But the information continued to go out. Just in case anyone’s wondering what the dual agency is, I realize we haven’t really talked about what the dual agency rule is. This is related to not allowing a real estate agent to represent both sides, as a consumer protection issue.

This isn’t a rule that changes practice for most agents or most communities, because you basically are saying to someone, “This is a practice that you can’t do,” and then the exception provides an opportunity, in those communities where there are few real estate agents, or remote communities, to get the exception. Someone can then look at representing both sides. So that opportunity is there.

I think the last piece I just want to touch on is the personal responsibility for real estate agents, who are professionals and who do have a responsibility to inform themselves.

Do I believe that we need to make sure that the information continues to be out there? Will I continue to raise concerns that I hear, just as the member has done, with both the superintendent and the council? Yes, I will. But in weighing the due process with the ability to use regulations to override the independence, I do not see the ability to do that.

A. Weaver: My final question is…. I’ll come back to that again. Clearly, I disagree with the minister on this.

Just to follow up on the limited dual agency, the limited dual agency serves very useful purposes in many cases. In rural B.C., it’s very important for those educated buyers who want to go directly to the listing agent. They know that they can negotiate a better price because there’s only one side of the commission that has to be negotiated.

Sometimes, for example, a realtor might have a slew of clients that they’re working with. They get a listing. What’s happening right now is that one of their clients….

Let’s suppose that I’m a realtor in Comox and I listed a house and had 15 clients who were going to come to that house. Then one of my people wants to buy that house. Well, I go and find my other friend to be a realtor for them, and I now have to get off of both sides of this because I’m in a conflict because that was originally my client. Now I’ve assigned that client over to someone else, but I’m still the listing agent. I can’t even be the listing agent for that house.

[3:40 p.m.]

There are many, many problems that have arisen from this application. I recognize again that the government has inherited this mess from the previous government. As it played out, I don’t, frankly, think the previous government had thought it was going to play out the way it has either. But we have a situation now where they have an impending deadline that’s going to likely lead to chaos.

I know, again, that the minister is setting up a review process. Why this is important is that there is a recognition that there can be potential conflicts of interest that arise in limited dual agencies. This is why, for example, in the province of Alberta, they’ve created something called a transactional agency, where they’ve created a different type of response for dealing with limited dual agencies in the case of potential conflicts. The review that B.C. is doing might, for example, come and recommend an approach like this.

The problem with not delaying is that if the B.C. review says, “We can see that it’s better to follow this transactional agency approach, like they do in Alberta,” we’ve already gone and switched the whole system in B.C., and now we’re going to switch it back. This is chaos upon chaos. Surely the prudent response would be to pick up the phone or use regulatory powers under section 89.2 and say to the office of the superintendent: “Until such time as this review has been completed, we recognize the potential conflict that may arise in limited dual agencies. There are solutions on the table. We don’t want to fix it twice, so let us delay the application of limited dual agency until, say, the fall, at which point we’ll re-look at it then.”

My question is: will the minister consider either picking up the phone and suggesting a delay on this or using what she seems reluctant to do: regulatory powers under section 89.2?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I just want to clarify one piece, because this again comes to the details of the dual-agency rule that’s in place. Because of the consultation that occurred, because of the discussion that has been going on since November when the rule came out, there actually is a clarification. The example that the member used — where someone is selling a place, they’re representing it, they had a former client, the person came, and they would have to exclude themselves from both those sales — is actually not accurate.

With the rule clarified, they do have an ability, where both parties agree, that they understand that’s there, that the person can continue to represent one of the parties. They don’t actually have to exclude themselves from that sale completely. I just wanted to make sure that people are aware of that. That is an important piece.

Again, when I take a look at that rule clarification, when I take a look at the exception that’s been put in place for dual agency in remote and rural communities, it’s hard not to say that there was a consultation process and exceptions made because of that consultation process — therefore, listening to the concerns that were raised to be put in here.

I think the other piece, just to clarify for the member, is that the review that’s going on is not a review of the rules. Right now the superintendent, according to the legislation, has the ability to set those rules. The review that’s going on is to clarify roles and responsibilities. Who is responsible for what? Where are there problems in place? Where does that need to be addressed? So the review wouldn’t, in fact, touch the rules one way or the other, because that’s not part of the review process. It’s a review around roles and responsibilities and clarification there.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to thank the minister for her comments. I recognize that there were some…. This is part of the problem, actually. There’ve been numerous changes. Things are changing on the fly.

With respect to the upcoming review, we must not forget section 89.2. Ultimately, neither of these other bodies has the rules. Ultimately, the rules fall squarely in the jurisdiction of the minister, who has regulatory power to say what they can and cannot do, in terms of the rules. I think that the minister needs to own some of these rules, because they are within her regulatory power, and I hope that we see that happen in the months ahead.

S. Bond: I want to pursue a bit of this line of questioning as well. I thank my colleagues who have raised the issues. Certainly, my co-critic and I have some concerns as well.

I want to very respectfully point out to the minister, as she continues to talk about the process of due diligence, that we would agree there needs to be due diligence. What we would argue with is the fact that it didn’t take place.

I would also support what the Leader of the Third Party said. Our government did accept the recommendations, but I can also be very clear that the former Finance Minister directed the superintendent to consult broadly with the industry and the public. And what exactly happened? Well, we find things emerging.

The minister says that listening did take place. Well, apparently not to the right people, because double recusal — which is the issue that there has now been an adjustment on — should never have been a suggestion in the first place. Real estate agents would have said right off the bat that that does not make sense. It’s not just about geographic in that case; it is a principle in the trust that’s built with real estate agents. Suggesting that if you know someone, you can’t make a transaction — for real estate agents, that’s what their job is all about. It’s about knowing everyone. It’s about knowing their community. It’s about connecting.

I heard the Leader of the Third Party point out that we accepted the recommendations. Yes, we did, but there was no regulatory description around how those recommendations would be implemented. The key factor was consultation. The real estate industry does not feel — and I would tend to agree with them — that there has been due diligence. To point out….

[3:50 p.m.]

Double recusal is one of those issues, but here’s another one. The minister has referred to the underserved, remote location issue. Well, I certainly can’t explain it today, and I live in a region of British Columbia which, in some of my communities, I would fully expect would fit under this designation. But I have no confidence that that’s the case.

The council has suggested that the exemption should be interpreted extremely narrowly. They have said that “impractical” means not capable of being done, as opposed to simply being very difficult. So we’re still determining the rules of the game and expecting real estate agents to be able to manage that.

I have met with literally dozens of real estate agents in Prince George, and they’ve been very respectful, but they’re very concerned. I think the minister has it within her authority to simply say that there are too many missing details, that this has taken place too quickly, that there has not been enough consultation or discussion.

It’s time to put this on hold until the government, along with the office of the superintendent of real estate, can actually sort it out. Today, when the document that was posted was actually retracted, it wasn’t a grammatical error. It was a misinterpretation of policy, according to people who are depending on being able to understand this.

So it’s broader than we expected, certainly from my perspective. I take responsibility for being part of a cabinet that said: “Yes, we’re going to accept those recommendations.” This has gone farther. There has been a lack of thorough consultation with the very people who this impacts.

Not only that, but the minister spoke to the Real Estate Council’s responsibility for education. No one can educate until they understand what those changes look like. Forms are still coming out on a daily basis. We’re saying here on behalf of, certainly, our colleagues at the Northern Real Estate Board and across the province that it is time to say: “Let’s just take a minute here — an additional few minutes — and figure out how to do this properly.” And then perhaps….

I should also add that many, many of the recommendations real estate agents agree with. There is work that can be done and should be done. Let’s concentrate on the ones they agree with, and let’s work our way through definitions like “underserved remote locations.”

The minister has referred to that numerous times this afternoon. I’m wondering, then, if she could name for me the communities in British Columbia that would be considered underserved or remote.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Again, just to come back to the consultation. I think this is an important point around the balance, as we’ve been talking about this afternoon, between the independence and stepping in and using regulatory powers, which I know the member in particular is very concerned about, using regulatory powers, and has raised that a number of times. I think it’s just important to know that there is a balance there. I think the balance is important to go through.

Was consultation done? All real estate boards, through the spring of 2017, were in fact consulted, including the Northern Real Estate Board, and met with a number of times. There were multiple public consultations — several thousand responses back on the public consultation that occurred over the spring. So there in fact was consultation.

I think the other piece that is just as important…. I’ve mentioned it, but I think it’s important to mention again, that the council — the council, remember, is the body that regulates and disciplines real estate agents — has assured the superintendent that people will be ready to implement this, that they will be ready, and it will move ahead. I think that’s important to note.

The member asked about definition. In fact, the rule was put in place to deal with those exceptional circumstances. It doesn’t define a particular place because that, in fact, limits the number of exceptional circumstances that may occur. The rule was put in place to ensure that people in remote and rural communities have the opportunity to be represented, to be well represented.

There are 25,000 agents in the province — just so people have a number in their mind of what we’re dealing with. There aren’t a huge number of communities that have one or two real estate agents. This rule was put in place to be utilized, to actually be utilized and to be able to address precisely the kinds of concerns that are coming forward.

If we continue to hear concerns, will I continue to raise those issues with the superintendent? Yes, I will, and with the Real Estate Council, because I think that’s the structure that’s put in place, and that’s important to do.

S. Bond: Well, it’s interesting to note that the definition now is either one or two, because I think that’s probably fairly new or emerging information.

I want to make an observation. I respect the minister’s decision that she may not want to use regulatory power. I guess what I’m a bit disappointed in is that the office of the superintendent of real estate doesn’t recognize that there are significant issues here — in essence, waiting for the minister to say: “Whoops. Let’s put a hold on this.”

I think that today, and for the past weeks and months, there have been continuous messages. I’m the first to admit: people don’t like change. But on the other hand, I would assume that at the end of this, we want an outcome that leaves the office of the superintendent with credibility, with an ability to work with real estate agents across the province. And I would today urge the minister to maybe not use regulatory power or authority but perhaps have a conversation, to say: “We could do this better.”

[4:00 p.m.]

The people who are actually having an issue with this are people who live in areas where this will be extraordinarily challenging, although my co-critic will talk about the urban issues in a moment.

There is a place for best practice and for consultation driving improvements when a program is being implemented. I would urge a sober second look at this, to say: this is new, it is big, and it changes people’s approach to how they do their job. I cannot imagine why there cannot be a pause that is potentially initiated…. Perhaps if the minister’s not comfortable doing it, then perhaps the office of the superintendent should be thinking about that.

With those comments, I’m going to ask my co-critic to raise her questions.

T. Redies: Minister, we’ve been speaking about some public consultation, but I’m very curious to understand what the real direction of that public consultation was.

I have a document here from a company called Insights West that has been employed to do a survey of British Columbians and what they feel about real estate and, in particular, dual agency. So 91 percent of British Columbians either strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement: “I want to keep the right to choose who represents me in the sale of my property”; 90 percent of British Columbians either strongly agree or somewhat agree with “I want to keep the right to choose who represents me in the purchase of a property”; and 86 percent: “If I engage the services of a realtor to help me buy a property, I expect the same realtor to show me their own listings as well as those of other realtors.” We’re not talking about numbers in the 40s or 50s. This is a fairly strong expression of what consumers expect when they are doing real estate transactions.

The other thing I wanted to raise, too, is just the whole consumer experience around the additional paperwork that is now being required. It’s just been dumped on realtors today. They’re looking at it. I’m getting many emails on this. Look, this is a terrible consumer experience. These documents are four or five pages long. There are already a lot of documents that have to be signed in a real estate transaction, so this is basically making the consumer experience worse.

I have to agree with my colleague from Prince George–Valemount and my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Given the number of issues, whether it’s the clarity around the rules or the fact that realtors are only just today getting information about what they need to do between now and June 15 and don’t have sufficient time….

You’ve got insight here that suggests that consumers don’t want these types of regulations. Really, to avoid a mess in the industry, an industry that’s already facing a lot of issues — different rules at the federal level around real estate, different provincial rules and different municipal rules…. This is an important industry. It’s important to British Columbians. Surely it deserves a sober second look.

I can’t see any impediment or rationale why, with all of these issues, the superintendent and the Minister of Finance could not delay implementation until some of these things are properly resolved. Otherwise, I fear that we’re going to have a mess on our hands. The real estate industry has enough issues as it is.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the discussion. Certainly, as I said, I’ve heard many of the concerns that members have raised — as I’ve said before.

But I think it is important to also recognize that there was a large consultation done, a large discussion that occurred and ongoing conversations that are happening. I think it’s also important to acknowledge that the superintendents office continues to work with the B.C. Real Estate Association. The council of the association who represents all of those boards continues to have discussions and is also open to monitoring as we go along. I think those pieces are important to recognize.

The member mentioned the forms and the additional responsibility there. There’s also…. As the member may know, one of the recommendations in the 28 recommendations that also came forward was to make sure that forms are written in plain language, that there’s a better opportunity for consumers. That’s been part of the work that’s occurred as well.

Again, when I look at the balance of the two pieces, when I look at the facts, the information that I have to deal with that comes forward from the superintendent, from the Real Estate Council, from the bodies that actually monitor and are responsible for setting the rules, I think the process is here.

[4:10 p.m.]

Are there improvements that need to be made? Is there more information that needs to go out? Is there a need for consultation, discussions and ongoing dialogue to continue to happen? Yes, there is, and I’ll certainly continue to encourage that.

E. Ross: Dual agency is a big issue in my riding as well, and the realtors that come into my office are just saying that it’s a solution for a problem that exists in Vancouver, not in Skeena, and that it’s creating a hardship. I do appreciate the minister’s comments around further consultation being needed, and my colleagues here explained the situation very well.

My questions — there are two different areas: the hotel tax, as well as the revenue benefit alliance sharing agreement proposal.

Just to clarify what’s going on in the riding right now, the Skeena riding just got notice that the chinook fishery will be closed down for recreational fishing on the Skeena River, and there’s talk about cohos and chums being next. This is going to be a huge hit to the tourism industry in Terrace. My constituents understand the hotel tax is voluntary, but they’ve asked me to clarify whether or not the hotel tax will continue be used to promote tourism, because Skeena is going to really, badly need it this year.

Hon. C. James: To the member: thank you for raising the question. Yes, MRDT is continuing — otherwise known as the hotel tax, which is what most people still call it. Even though it has a new name, most people still refer to it as the hotel tax. Yes, it will continue. It’s been a very valuable program, and I think the member points that out. There are additional communities that have come in over the last couple of years. It is a critical piece.

The issue of using that tax. The tax will expand because of the discussions and the agreement we have in place with Airbnb, where they will start paying the MRDT. They’ll start paying the hotel tax. They’ll start paying PST as well. So we’ll collect additional resources around the MRDT through that process.

It is entirely voluntary. It’s a discussion that would need to occur with the tourism community and the municipality. Most municipalities are saying that they’re quite happy with the dollars that they have now. They’re quite happy to spend them on tourism. They have a plan in place, and that’s what they’re going to carry out. That’s perfectly fine. If there are communities that want to have that discussion with their tourism industry about utilizing it for housing, then we’ve opened the door, enabled them to have that conversation.

I’ll give you the example of Tofino, where they’ve got a real crisis around employees. They can’t find enough employees for the tourism industry. They want to have a conversation with tourism to see if there are opportunities to look at some kind of temporary housing or an ability to bring people in on the season. This gives them a chance to have that.

Yes, it’s going to continue, and yes, it will be focused on tourism.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I got referred to these estimates for the questions I had regarding the revenue benefit alliance proposal, put together by the mayors from Haida Gwaii to Kitimat, basically. I was just curious about the $300,000 that was given to the revenue benefit alliance to reach out to stakeholders ahead of negotiations.

I’m just trying to understand the relevance of $300,000 for the mayors to go out and to talk to stakeholders, including businesses and First Nations. Is there a relevant point to be had when talking about this $300,000 in relation to revenue-sharing with the Crown?

Hon. C. James: I’ll come back to the question in a second. I just wanted to ask, just because we want to make sure we’re utilizing staff in the best way we can: are there further questions around the real estate area that are still to come?

Interjection.

Hon. C. James: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. We’ll just be a second on the issue.

[4:15 p.m.]

We’ve certainly had meetings and opportunities, through government, to engage with the Northwest Resource Benefits Alliance. Their focus and their discussion, as the member would know well, was to produce a business case that proposes revenue-sharing.

What we felt, when we had discussions with them and when we took a look at the business case, is that there was a need for broader consultation with the broader community to make sure that there was buy-in, to make sure that people felt that it was a broad plan for the entire region, as it is being focused, to continue to do the good work and make sure that there was support across the community.

The resources they received from government were to help them to be able to do that work, to be able to extend their reach when it came to their business case and to be able to show the support. As the member knows well, they’re really focused on infrastructure that’s necessary for economic development or infrastructure that may be needed for communities that are impacted by economic development that occurs outside the municipal boundaries.

We felt that it was worthwhile work that they’re doing, a worthwhile business case, and that they just needed to do a broader consultation to show buy-in from the entire region.

E. Ross: I’m assuming, then — to prove that there is buy-in or to prove that there is intent to have buy-in — that there will be some sort of follow-up report coming from this, from the RBA, to the Crown. I assume that’s going to be made public as well.

Hon. C. James: It may be a refinement of the existing business case. So once they go out, get the feedback, talk with groups and organizations and do a broader outreach, they will look at refining that. Then that will come back to government.

We’re also meeting with them along the way to make sure that they’re moving in the direction and to make sure that we’re having those discussions as we go along. Staff are meeting with them in the next few weeks. Just as their original business case went public, I’m guessing that their refined business case would go public as well.

E. Ross: The question was: how do you ensure that the RBA got buy-in from the stakeholders? I thought that there would be a report of some kind to prove that the outreach did happen and that they got the buy-in that was suggested here.

In terms of the RBA itself, this government, as well as the previous government, mentioned to the RBA existing priorities all over B.C. as well as existing programs that communities could take advantage of in relation to the revenue benefits negotiations going forward with the government. There have been many, many proposals and discussions about what kind of model should be used for revenue-sharing with the Crown.

[4:20 p.m.]

I understand that the Crown has got many priorities, but I’m just wondering if the Crown has considered any type of modelling. Let’s say it’s based on the Peace River model revenue-sharing agreement, or where is the money going to come from? I also heard the proposal that the revenues coming from the northern areas, where the revenue is actually generated in the first place, should actually return in some manner.

Has the Crown considered any types of plans or models that the RBA could consider, as well, going forward in negotiations?

Hon. C. James: I think the reason the dialogue and the discussion is happening is because there isn’t one size that fits all. I think every region is so different that to come up with one model for revenue-sharing wouldn’t fit necessarily in different regions.

I think we see that right now with, as the member mentioned, the Peace River trust. There’s the Columbia Basin Trust. There are existing trust funds regionally that are also provided. So I think there isn’t one-size-fits-all.

It’s part of the reason that we wanted to engage with the Northwest Resource Benefits Alliance because it gives an opportunity then, as the member says, to make sure that there’s accountability as we go along in regular meetings — not waiting for a final report to be written a year from now and then wonder why they didn’t necessarily follow reaching out or do the work that needed to be done. That’s why we’re using the model that we’re using. We’re continuing to have those discussions.

I think there is no question that if we see economic development occurring in the northwest, that will benefit the region. There are taxation abilities already that are in place, so some of those benefits will automatically come because of economic development that occurs in regions.

Is there a broader benefit-sharing agreement, as the alliance is talking about? I think that, again, is part of the conversation and part of the development of this report in the region that will assist government as we take a look at models that work in different regions and different parts of the province.

T. Redies: Minister, I’d like to go back to where we left off yesterday with respect to the speculation tax. In particular, we were speaking about the minister’s reference that 99 percent of British Columbians will not be impacted by the speculation tax. However, we pointed out that 99 percent of British Columbians don’t own second homes.

My question to the minister is: how many homes are now affected based on the changes to the speculation tax? What percentage of those homes are owned by British Columbians?

Hon. C. James: The estimate of vacant properties that will be subject to the tax, as the member says — taking a look at the specifics around the implementation of the speculation tax — is 32,000 homes, vacant properties that could be subject to the tax.

[4:25 p.m.]

The annual tax revenue…. I know there’ve been questions around what the tax revenue would look like. We have estimated that what you will see paid by non-B.C. Canadians and/or foreigners, people from outside the country, would be $140 million. And paid by British Columbians, 30 percent, would be $60 million. That comes to the $200 million that is in the budget documents.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that information. It’s actually double what I think was originally indicated by the ministry for how many houses would be affected, based on some of the newspaper articles that I’ve read. We’re actually talking about 32,000 homes now.

Minister, you’ve given us the revenue numbers, but what I would actually like clarity on is the number of homes owned by British Columbians that are going to be affected by this tax.

Hon. C. James: In those numbers, there are 20,000 B.C.-owned homes and 12,000 non-B.C.-owned vacant homes. Why the numbers, and why the difference in the numbers when you’re looking at the amount, compared to the number of houses?

You have to remember that there are a number of exemptions for British Columbia residents. The $400,000, remember, is an exemption, so that will make a big difference on a number of those. There’s a lower rate for B.C. residents, so that, again, makes a big difference. Then I think it’s just important to note, again, with all of these, that there’s an opportunity for all of these individuals to rent out their homes as an exemption from the tax as well.

T. Redies: It’s quite different from what the minister was saying before — that 99 percent of British Columbians will not be affected. This tax will affect 67 percent of people who own second homes and that are British Columbians. So 67 percent of the homes affected are actually owned by British Columbians. It’s disproportionately….

Again, I get that the revenues are different, but the minister has been saying that 99 percent of British Columbians will not be affected. That’s a bit misleading because, frankly, the majority of people who are going to be affected by this tax are actually B.C. homeowners. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. James: I’m not sure where the member is getting her numbers. But there are roughly two million homes in British Columbia, and 1 percent of those gives us the number that we’re talking about — 20,000.

T. Redies: Maybe I’ll spell it out. Obviously, it wasn’t clear enough. The minister said that 32,000 homes would be affected. Of those, 20,000 are owned by British Columbians.

[4:30 p.m.]

In terms of the number of homes that are affected by this tax, 67 percent are owned by British Columbians. Only a third are owned by foreigners. So this tax is disproportionately impacting British Columbians who own second homes in this province.

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important, again, to note the numbers and to note the facts, which are that 99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the speculation tax. That’s a fact. That is a fact. Two million homes, and 1 percent gives you the numbers we see. So 99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the speculation tax.

Of those that will be subjected to the speculation tax…. This is a tax that is being put in place to address housing affordability. So yes, if people, British Columbians or others, own two or three or four houses, and they’re leaving them vacant and simply using them for speculation — not utilizing them to rent them out so that they provide homes in British Columbia — then yes, they will be subjected to the speculation tax. That’s the purpose of the speculation tax.

Now, they have the opportunity to rent the house out. They have the opportunity, through the exemption, to take the first $400,000 as their exemption. They have the opportunity for a lower rate. But are we encouraging British Columbians and others who have homes in our province and who are using them for speculation, not renting them out and not providing a support to housing affordability, to pay the tax? Yes, we are.

S. Bond: I think the minister is missing the point of our discussion here by saying that 99 percent of British Columbians are not going to be affected by the speculation tax. Of course they’re not, because this is about speculation. I would assume the minister would at least agree with us that when the average person thinks about who a speculator is, it is not British Columbians who have worked hard and have purchased a second home.

I would like the minister to describe for us, please, how this process deals with the issue of speculation, particularly by foreign investors. As my colleague has pointed out, the vast majority of people who are going to be impacted by this minister’s speculation tax are British Columbians who, not for one minute, would have considered themselves speculators.

In fact, yesterday this minister referred to speculation as people using housing and considering it as like using the stock market. I would suggest that the vast number of, the 62 percent of, British Columbians who are going to be captured in this tax do not see themselves as speculators. They do not see themselves as using their second home, which they have worked hard to earn or to purchase, as part of using the stock market.

Could the minister explain how British Columbians will be the most significantly impacted group when we’re talking about speculation?

Hon. C. James: I think this may be another issue, as we’re finding during the estimates debate, where we’ll agree to disagree. In fact, if there are individuals who own multiple properties in urban areas…. Let’s remember, again, that these are very defined areas.

[4:35 p.m.]

These are very defined areas around unaffordability and very defined areas around a low vacancy rate, a housing crisis, in British Columbia — a housing crisis left to us by the previous government and a housing crisis that has caused economic challenges in British Columbia for businesses, for recruitment, for retention. I’ve talked before, and I will talk again, about the number of businesses who approach me to talk about housing being their biggest crisis. Boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other groups and organizations have identified this as an issue that needs to be addressed.

On the economic side, on the social side, on the community side, it is the topic of conversation for everyone — and particularly the areas that we have addressed in the speculation tax because these areas are the least affordable. They’re in a crisis situation.

You see daily articles and comments from individuals who are struggling to be able to find affordable housing, who are close to being homeless. That includes families who have income but can’t find housing.

Are people who hold multiple properties in urban areas and leaving them empty benefiting from substantial appreciation in home prices? Yes, they are. Is that a form of speculation when you’re hollowing out communities, when you’re taking housing out of the market, when you’re not utilizing it in an area? Yes, it is.

We are going to continue to stand up for British Columbians. We’ve seen the thousands of people who support the direction that we are taking around the speculation tax, who support ensuring that people have an opportunity to be able to have affordable housing.

If individuals are concerned about the speculation tax, they have the ability to not pay the speculation tax by renting their property out for six months of the year. They have the chance to be able to do that and not pay the speculation tax in these extreme areas where there are high unaffordability issues and struggling vacancy rates. And that’s working on behalf of families and working on behalf of the economy in British Columbia.

S. Bond: I’m sure that there are British Columbians who believe that a speculation tax would be effective. I’m sure they just don’t understand that in the case of this speculation tax, the vast majority of “speculators” that the minister has targeted are British Columbians.

I think there is a far more accurate title for this. I think it’s a very interesting choice — calling this a speculation tax to try to deal with housing issues. No one in this room is disagreeing that we have a housing issue, a housing crisis. What we’re disagreeing with is the fact that this minister has labelled a tax a speculation tax, which would much more accurately be described as an asset tax.

These are British Columbians who have purchased, potentially, a second home. Does that qualify them for being a speculator? I don’t think so, not automatically. Yet that is exactly what this asset tax does to British Columbians.

Let me ask this question. Was it understood by the minister and the ministry that so many British Columbians would be caught by this speculation tax?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, the numbers that I provided to the members are the numbers that we utilized when looking at the speculation tax and putting the speculation tax in place. So 99 percent of British Columbians are exempt from paying the speculation tax.

There are 1 percent of British Columbians who own multiple properties in these particular areas — I’ve given the numbers — and they have the opportunity, as individuals who have benefited from the increasing housing market and who have benefited by leaving it empty, to rent it out. They have an opportunity to pay a lower tax rate than others are paying — a quarter of the rate. They have a $400,000 exemption, as well, that they have an opportunity to address. The largest amount of revenue coming in is coming in from non–British Columbians.

I think the last piece that I just want to touch on is the impact in a community if, for example, half of the vacant homes right now were put on the market to be able to provide homes for people in British Columbia — for the teachers and the construction workers and the doctors and the individuals who work in communities right now, the tech workers who can’t find housing, who are struggling to find housing. Many of them who have income to be able to find housing aren’t able to find affordable housing.

To be able to look at even half of those units coming back onto the market — the difference that that would make in communities. The stories of hollowed-out communities, the condo buildings, for example, where people will go walking in the evening and see a third or more of a building completely dark because those are vacant units that were simply bought for speculation and are left to continue to increase in value but not provide support to the affordability crisis.

Is this a measure that we believe is part of a 30-point plan? I want to come back to that again, about how important it is to recognize that this is one tool in a number of tools that we are bringing forward to address housing affordability in this province.

It is one tool that I believe will have an impact in putting places back and providing an opportunity for people to be able to find housing in communities that are struggling with almost a zero vacancy rate. I believe it is an important tool to ensure that we begin to address the housing crisis, along with the other parts of our 30-point plan.

T. Redies: As my colleague from Prince George–Valemount indicated, we understand there is a housing crisis. Our problem with how this speculation tax has been implemented is that it seems extremely disrespectful to British Columbians.

The minister…. Let me first start. The Premier, at the Vancouver Board of Trade, indicated that if you pay tax in B.C., you are not speculating from outside B.C. If you have a home in Vancouver and a home in Penticton that you visit in the summer or to ski in the winter, that would not fall in with the out-of-province speculation tax. The minister herself, on February 22, said: “If you pay income tax in British Columbia, you are not captured. If you’re from outside the province and you leave your home vacant, you will be taxed.”

[4:45 p.m.]

Today we find out that 67 percent of the homes that will be affected by this tax are actually owned by British Columbians. It is having a significant impact on British Columbians. And the minister keeps saying that it’s only 1 percent of British Columbians. As I’ve said numerous times, 99 percent of British Columbians don’t own second homes. We agree with that. But the ones that do…. The majority of the second homes that are owned in this province are owned by British Columbians, and they’re used for vacations, which is not always conducive to rent.

So is the minister saying that people are not allowed to have vacation rentals? Is the government now going to tell them, if they’ve invested money in real estate for their families, for their future generations, how to use that property?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that I want to remind the members of again are the areas that this speculation tax is taking place in: Metro Vancouver, Kelowna, Nanaimo and the CRD — high-unaffordability areas. Very low vacancy, almost zero vacancy rates in these particular areas. Expensive housing in these particular areas.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

The member mentioned people who buy summer homes. There are very few people I know in the last number of years who have looked at buying summer homes as second homes — to leave them vacant for the year — in these communities. These are very high-economic areas that have seen escalations in housing prices over the last number of years.

[4:50 p.m.]

The reason we are bringing in the tax the way we are bringing it in is because the purpose is to ensure that we provide more affordable housing and more housing in communities where people are struggling. So when you have a community right now — and all of these four areas have been identified — where people can’t live in the community they work in, we have a problem. We have a problem.

I’ll just give an example. I was in my neighbourhood out walking a few days ago. I met a couple from Kelowna who said: “Keep going. People can’t afford to live in the community that we live in, so we’re not able to find workers.” These people were small business owners. They aren’t able to find workers in their community because people can’t afford to live in their community.

We have to do everything we can to provide an opportunity for people to be able to have places to live in their community. What that means is mobility across the market. I’m sure the members have heard these same conversations from real estate people, who work in the real estate market, that will say that the critical piece that’s needed to have a healthy real estate market is the ability for people to have mobility, to be able to move across — so people, when they have a higher income and they are making a little bit more money, have an opportunity to be able to get into the market. That provides, then, an affordable place for people to be able to move into.

That kind of mobility just isn’t there in these almost zero vacancy rates in these communities. So are we using all the tools we have? Yes, we are.

I think it’s important to note, again, that we are talking about people with second or third or fourth homes that they leave vacant. That’s why it’s important for us to recognize that we believe that they can contribute a little more. They have the ability — or they have the right, if they wish — to pay the speculation tax. They also have the ability to rent their place out.

There were examples in Kelowna, for example, where people are renting their places to students during the school year and then living in them the other six months. That worked out well for the students in Kelowna. That worked out well for the individuals.

There are lots of examples where this can work, and in the kind of crisis that we’re in, we believe it’s important to use all the tools that we can.

S. Bond: There are a number of ways to deal with the housing crisis. We don’t disagree with that. One of them would be supply. But assuming that British Columbians who work incredibly hard to purchase a second home with precisely the intent of it being a vacation home…. The minister and the government have now decided that because someone owns a second home, the government is now going to tell them that they have to rent it out to students: “And by the way, take your vacation during the period that you don’t have a student renting your home.”

British Columbians work hard. If they’re fortunate enough to own a second home, many of them are vacation homes. They don’t purchase the home as a speculator. They purchase it as a hard-working British Columbian.

What we’ve discovered today is that over 62½, 63 percent of the very homes that this minister has attached to speculation tax belong to British Columbians who have worked hard. Now, from our perspective, that is an asset tax by definition, not a speculation tax. It would be interesting to hear the minister’s perception.

The question that I’ve asked, and my colleague has asked numerous times, that we would appreciate understanding is…. The minister and the Premier of British Columbia stood up and told British Columbians: “If you pay tax in British Columbia, you will not be captured by this tax.” Today we find out that the vast majority of people who are captured under the speculation tax are British Columbians who own houses.

To the minister, what happened? Why did the Premier and the minister say to British Columbians, “If you pay taxes here, you will not be captured by this tax,” but lo and behold, those people are captured. What happened?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I know I’ll sound like a broken record, but I think it’s important to state and not to understate the kind of crisis that we’re in, in British Columbia when it comes to housing, particularly in these areas. The fact that the opportunity for people to be able to put that housing into the market, to be able to be supported….

The member said that these individuals work hard. Well, I can tell the member that the individuals who are struggling to find housing work hard. They work hard in their communities as well. There are individuals who couldn’t even dream of having one home, never mind an additional home that they leave vacant; who couldn’t even imagine, with the struggles that they’re having with housing, being able to contemplate what they would do to address a second home or a third home. Those individuals work hard as well, and those individuals help drive our economy in these communities.

The issue of summer homes, again, was addressed through the implementation details that were brought out on the speculation tax, where there is a $400,000 credit that all British Columbians get, a lower rate for all British Columbians, and targeting the specific areas that the tax applies to, which excluded most British Columbians. As I’ve said before, 99 percent of British Columbians are excluded and will not be part of the speculation tax and have excluded summer homes and opportunities for people. So that is an issue that has already been addressed.

On the supply issue. The member raised the issue of supply. I think it’s important to note, again, as I’ve said, that this is part of a 30-point plan that includes addressing demand, addressing supply and addressing security. All of those pieces are important in the housing market. While the member says she recognizes that there’s a housing crisis, there was not much done about the housing crisis, which is why we’re in the situation that we’re in now. We needed to take action because there wasn’t a comprehensive housing strategy that was put in place in British Columbia.

[5:00 p.m.]

We are acting because of that crisis. We are acting because British Columbians expect us to and because we have a responsibility as government, an obligation, to address the housing crisis in our province.

When it comes to supply, $6 billion over ten years; 14,000 housing units; 2,500 shelter units, modular housing, to address people who are homeless; $548 million over ten years for Indigenous housing. When I talked about security…. That’s just a shortlist of supply.

We’re in great discussions right now — for example, through the new housing hub that we’ve put in place in B.C. Housing — with the United Church that has come forward with vacant land and are building partnerships for affordable housing. It’s an exciting initiative that is going to be addressed because we’re taking on a comprehensive approach when it comes to housing.

On the issue of security, there was a crisis that we may lose existing affordable housing units if the money wasn’t provided to be able to upgrade those units. That’s something we’re doing as part of our comprehensive housing strategy — addressing those units, providing the kind of upgrading that is needed so we don’t lose the kind of affordable housing that we already have in place; increasing support for SAFER, for the seniors rental assistance program, the existing rental assistance program. Again, it’s providing more security to individuals so that they can hang on to the affordable housing that they have.

I am very proud of the comprehensive approach we put in place. I’m very proud of the initiatives that we’re taking and the steps that we’re taking to address the kind of crisis that we see in British Columbia that does impact families, that does impact seniors. But also, it impacts our economic opportunities that we have in British Columbia when companies tell us that they can’t invest in British Columbia, they can’t move to British Columbia, they can’t find and attract the kinds of employees they need in British Columbia because of the kind of crisis that we’ve seen.

We’ve been very deliberate in the areas that we’ve targeted with the speculation tax to touch on those critical areas when it comes to economic development, affordability and vacancy rates.

S. Bond: Well, thank you for that. Obviously, we’ll agree to disagree with the minister.

There was a housing strategy. Our comments and questions today relate specifically to the speculation tax. This minister and the Premier stood up and told British Columbians that if they paid tax in this province, they would not be captured by the speculation tax.

My question was a simple one to the minister. What happened between February 22, when she stood and told British Columbians…? I have the quote here: “If you pay income tax in British Columbia, you are not captured.” The Premier then said: “If you pay tax in B.C., you are not speculating from outside B.C.”

So 62-plus percent of the people captured in this tax have homes here in British Columbia. The minister said one thing and did something else. I would really appreciate hearing an answer.

The other thing that I’m a bit puzzled by is that the minister stands and contends that if a British Columbian owns two houses, they should consider renting out their house for a period of time during a year. Could the minister confirm that, in fact, owners can’t just rent out their house for six months because, in fact, this government eliminated fixed-term tenancies from the RTA? Could the minister clarify that for us? It’s one thing to suggest they rent for a period of time. Could the minister confirm that, actually, they can’t because of fixed-term leases?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There is still the opportunity for a fixed-term lease. The issue that has been raised in the Housing Ministry and has come forward for changes is the issue of a landlord utilizing the fixed-term lease to say to an individual: “The lease is ended. I’m having a member move back into the house.” They don’t utilize that. They then rent it to a person the next month and up the rent, so utilizing it as an opportunity. But that doesn’t make a change to an individual signing a six-month lease on a property. That opportunity is there still.

[5:10 p.m.]

On the issue of British Columbians, I come back again to the statement — as I’ve said and will continue to remind people, because it is the fact — that 99 percent of British Columbians are not captured by this tax. The 1 percent who own second or third homes, who do not rent them out and who are only in those four particular areas, yes, will be subjected to the speculation tax but have the opportunity, as I said before, to rent out their property for at least six months, to put it back into the rental pool and to provide opportunities for British Columbians.

T. Redies: Minister, I’d like to speak to the 12,000 other homeowners that are going to be affected. Could you please break down how many of those 12,000 are people who are from outside of Canada and how many are people who are Canadians that live outside of B.C.? And could you also provide the revenue that is attached to both of those groups?

Hon. C. James: Of the 12,000 homes — and this is again a rough estimate, but it’s the estimate that we used — 2,000 would be out-of-province Canadians, and 10,000 would be foreign-owned.

T. Redies: It’s interesting that the minister is suggesting 10,000 of these properties are actually foreign-owned. Statistics Canada, in their latest study, suggests that only 7.8 percent of properties in the Lower Mainland are owned by non-residents, and in the Okanagan, it’s 1.8 percent.

[5:15 p.m.]

Is the minister confident that these numbers are correct and that her revenue projections will actually be correct?

Hon. C. James: In fact, our estimate is lower than StatsCan. We used a lower number than StatsCan. I’ve talked about being conservative in our estimates, and that’s part of the conservatism that is built into the budget. So yes, we are confident in the numbers and confident, as I said, in the prudence that was built in, in the estimates that we put into the budget.

T. Redies: I’d like to turn now to the $400,000 tax credit that the minister brought up earlier. As a result of the backlash on this tax, the government introduced an upfront tax credit for properties up to $400,000, or $2,000, meaning that properties under $400,000 will not be taxed anymore with the speculation tax.

But Minister, I did a search of properties in Vancouver on March 29, 2018, to see how many properties there were under $400,000. Do you know how many there were? Two. If you widen the scope to include greater Vancouver, the Lower Mainland area, you can find 78 properties. If you go to Nanaimo, it was 49 properties, including mobile homes. In Kelowna and West Kelowna, it was a bit better. There were about 300 homes for sale under $400,000, but that also includes quarter ownership and manufactured homes.

I guess the point that I’m making here is that in the four locations that I searched on March 28, I found, essentially, about 360 properties that were under $400,000, which is not a lot.

My question to the minister is: just how was this $400,000 arrived at? It looks like the vast majority of people who own properties or second homes are not going to be covered in full by the tax credit but, indeed, will be paying much more tax.

Hon. C. James: I think it’s just important to clarify for the member that there wasn’t the expectation that the $400,000 would exclude people. The expectation is the $400,000 is a credit. It’s a tax credit, so the credit gets applied to individuals’ homes.

[5:20 p.m.]

The reason we looked at it — I think I described this when I talked about the implementation of the speculation tax — is that’s part of looking at options and part of listening to British Columbians. That, in fact, is exactly what we are doing.

I take disagreement with the member’s comment around pressure. In fact, if you’re consulting, you are listening to people who are giving you feedback around what you are moving ahead with in government, and that’s exactly what we did. We listened to British Columbians.

I used the example earlier, in our discussion yesterday, about the issue of summer homes — that there were a number of cabins. There were a number of measures you could take, a number of options that you could take in looking at excluding people’s cabins. You could look at the areas that the tax was being applied to. You could take a look at the amount that most cabins were, on average. You could take a look at the amount of time that they use it. There are a number of different measures that you could take. That’s why, as I said, we came up with defining the geographic areas: to be able to address the cabin issue, rather than look at some other kind of measure.

In this example, again, we wanted to make sure that we were excluding people who had summer homes that were affordable. This, again, is about incenting people. That’s the balance that you’re looking at: incenting people to change their approach around utilizing housing, providing it in these high areas as part of the rental pool and also making sure that British Columbians who have a second home still will receive a credit towards the tax, which is why we applied the $400,000.

T. Redies: The minister just indicated that they used the $400,000 threshold so they wouldn’t cover cabins and summer places. But I just explained to the minister that a search of four locations that are being hit by the speculation tax only turned up 367 properties that were actually under $400,000.

I’m not sure…. I guess this is going to be an area that we’re going to continue to disagree on, but the reality is that hard-working British Columbians who have saved their money, have invested in real estate, have put aside money so they could have vacation homes, have striven and done well in this province are now being asked to pay tax on their assets and their savings.

The other thing that I want to raise with the minister, and I’m not sure if she and her staff realize this, is this tax is actually regressive. The reason it’s regressive is that even though the amount of the tax has been lowered to 0.5 percent for British Columbians, and there is this tax credit of $2,000, the reality is that if you pay more income tax in British Columbia, you will pay less of the speculation tax, as I understand it. For a lot of people who are retired and still have vacation homes, the threshold is about $55,000 in income — which, of course, most seniors don’t make.

My question is to the minister. Did she and her staff not understand that the way they have set this up, it’s actually regressive to people who are on lower incomes, and fixed incomes especially?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to note that this is a property tax. It’s not a credit based on income. It’s a very different kind of approach than the member was describing. It’s not a credit based on income. The $400,000 is a credit that everyone receives, so that’s not an issue from that perspective.

I want to touch on the member’s comments that she made. She described people investing in real estate. That’s exactly the issue here. That’s exactly the challenge that we’re facing in our province: that there are many people who have utilized the housing market for a stock market.

They’ve utilized it to buy additional properties, to be able to see an escalation in the prices, have not contributed back and have created the hollowing out of neighbourhoods. We would not be in the kind of crisis we’re in, in British Columbia, if you weren’t seeing that kind of additional challenge in the market.

That’s exactly, I think, as the member described, the point of looking at this kind of opportunity. I can tell you that the British Columbians — the 99 percent, as we agree in this House — who do not own second homes would dream of having the opportunity to be able to have one affordable home and would be struggling to be able to find affordable homes. I think that’s an important piece to remember when we look at this.

With that, Chair, I wonder if we could just take a five-minute recess and then come back to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. This committee sits in recess.

The committee recessed from 5:27 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

T. Redies: I just want to go back to what the minister was saying and really try and give her some insight that we have had, on this side of the House, from many, many people about the speculation tax.

Many of the people that I have spoken to are business owners and self-employed. They don’t have large public pensions. They will have access to CPP and OAS, but many of them have invested in other real estate as a form of pension for their future, with the plans to sell their vacation homes once they need the funds. They don’t have access to large, expensive public sector pensions.

I guess my question is: why does the government think it’s fair to tax people for saving, investing and good judgment? Is this not just a tax on effort? What message does this actually say to the strivers and achievers in our province about how this government values achievement?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the important piece to recognize here is the escalation we have seen in the real estate market over the last number of years. You know, take a look at a 0.5 percent tax on a house where you may have seen — and this is probably a conservative increase over the last number of years — a 15 percent increase in the value of your home that you bought a number of years ago, to use the member’s example of somebody who bought a home and is looking at selling it for their retirement or for their pension. These kinds of returns, the kinds of increases in the value of homes, is well beyond anything that people will be looking at when it comes to the speculation tax.

Just to use the example. There’s a $1 million vacant property that the individual isn’t renting out. They have a $1 million house that’s gone up, as I said — escalated. If you’re in the Lower Mainland, the escalation is about 45 percent. So they’ve seen a huge increase in the value of their home. They get the $400,000 credit on that $1 million home, so their net tax is $3,000. If they have a $500,000 vacant property, again, they get the $400,000 credit. That’s a $500 net tax that they end up paying as British Columbians. In fact, they can pay no tax if they rent it out.

So for individuals who have a vacant home who bought it as an investment for their future, for their pension, they could rent it out and actually increase their income and see the continued value of their home go up, plus be bringing in more income for themselves. If they were looking at needing income, by renting it out that provides additional income as well. So that’s a possibility for individuals.

But when you look at the escalation in house prices, I think that speaks for itself when we take a look at the value of homes and the value in these particular areas.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions, just to follow up on this theme. I thank the members for Prince George–Valemount and Surrey–White Rock for canvassing this issue. A couple of these questions have been addressed, but I’d like to develop the narrative just very briefly.

I’ll start off by saying I understand the issue that the minister is addressing. The housing market has got out of control through wanton speculation. I do understand that it is the government’s prerogative to choose the means and ways to deal with it.

The approach the government has taken is not the approach we would have taken. Nevertheless, we agree to disagree on this, and we do support government’s efforts. I will say that our approach would have been to actually address taxation after the sale of a property, when people had the ability to pay, as opposed to up front with respect to a paper value.

With that said, I also want to thank and commend the minister for listening to the concerns that we’ve brought to her from a number of areas and issues. I just want to canvass two more of these areas and see what she says.

The first question to the minister is this. With respect to the intention of the speculation tax, is the intention to reduce the number of homes being left empty by encouraging people to sell or rent, or is it to generate revenue?

Hon. C. James: I think the member has hit on a very important point. I would be thrilled if we saw all of these properties become rental properties and some people not having to pay the tax, because that would be, in fact, the achievement of providing more housing in these communities that have an almost zero vacancy rate.

I think, as I said earlier, we have been conservative in our numbers when it comes to the tax revenue coming in, because we don’t expect that everyone will look at renting their places out. We have been conservative in those numbers for precisely that reason, because the hope and the encouragement is that people will actually utilize their empty, vacant properties to be able to increase the supply of housing in communities.

[5:45 p.m.]

A. Weaver: The follow-up question, then, is with respect to the budget. The question is: why is the government anticipating flat revenues from the speculation tax? Shouldn’t they be expecting a diminishing amount over time if the speculation tax were to take the effects that the government is hoping it would take?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think it’s important to note — and we’ve talked about this on other taxes — that it’s important to be able to see behavioral change to be able to build into the budget. I expect that there will be adjustments after the tax is in place and after we start seeing behaviour. If adjustments need to be made in the budget, the adjustments will be made in the budget.

We certainly expect that there are more vacant homes that are going to be not rented out that will continue to bring in tax revenue, but adjustments that need to occur can occur. That’s why we build improvements in the budget as we go along.

A. Weaver: I’d like to switch, then, to land that’s proposed to be under development. Now, I’ve heard a number of concerns. I’ve met with a number of developers, both here in Victoria, in Vancouver and other areas, with respect to the problem that could arise if the speculation tax is applied to undeveloped land.

The scenario you might imagine is that a builder has acquired some land. He’s now waiting — in some cases, a couple of years — for a permitting process to go through with the local municipality. The speculation tax starts to get involved. The actual builder or developer has to face one of two choices: do they pay this up front, and then that, ultimately, would be passed along to the buyer — which actually goes against government’s mission and mandate to try to create affordable housing — or do they walk away from the project because it’s just not worth the hassle?

My question with this is: will the speculation tax, as implemented, be dealt with in a way similar to the way that Vancouver has addressed the vacancy tax, by ensuring that developers aren’t liable to pay the tax in specific cases where land is being collected and put in a process for development?

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member. We certainly have been engaged in those discussions. The member points out the Vancouver model. I think one of the discussions…. We’ve been working with UDI, with the Canadian Home Builders Association, the urban land initiative. There are a number of groups that we’ve been working with to look at exactly the kinds of challenges that the member raised.

There are different development timelines in different communities. Some require an upfront consultation with the community before the development permit is even issued. Others require the development permit and then out to do the consultation.

So we’re looking at all of that as part of the implementation, and there will be an answer shortly. We’re working with those groups to make sure that we capture all of those kinds of examples that the member raised.

A. Weaver: I have two final questions. The last one on this topic: one of the key things, of course, in the industry is uncertainty. Uncertainty creates turmoil in businesses. I know some examples of projects that are on hold because of this uncertainty. My question is: when can developers expect certainty on whether or not they will be subject to this tax?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. We certainly recognize that. People are eager to know all of the final details. We want to make sure we finish up these consultations and take into account all of the examples. So “soon” is what I would say. I certainly hope that before the summer we’ll have all of this wrapped up and have the details out.

[5:50 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My final question is with respect to secondary suites. Now, I’m not sure whether these are covered or not. My question is: if the intention of the speculation tax is to actually reduce the number of homes being left empty, are these situations included now, or is there a way of exempting them from the speculation tax?

Let us suppose that I am somebody who lives in Victoria or Vancouver and I have a secondary home in Kelowna and that secondary home stands vacant. But now I put a secondary suite in that secondary home, and I recognize there’s an opportunity — an opportunity for income, safety for my house because I’ve got now somebody living in that secondary suite, and also, I might perhaps eliminate the speculation tax.

Would a person who is subject to the speculation tax be exempt from the speculation tax if they were to create a secondary suite in their house that would not otherwise have existed were there not the speculation tax in place?

Hon. C. James: Certainly, it’s consistent with the intent, which is to make sure that people are renting their places out, so that would apply. They would be renting their place out.

S. Bond: First of all, I want to sort of summarize just a couple of key points here, because they are important. You know, today we have learned that despite the statements of the minister and the Premier to British Columbians — that if you pay tax in British Columbia, you would not be captured — we find that the vast majority of people captured are British Columbians.

As I shared with the minister, I believe that this tax would be more accurately considered an asset tax. This is really saying to British Columbians: “If you work hard and you have a second home, (a) we’re going to tax you, or (b) you’re going to rent out that home, because the government thinks that’s going to be a solution to the housing crisis.” We think there are some pretty significant flaws in the tax, the way that it’s been designed and the way it’s been presented to British Columbians.

I do appreciate that the minister…. I agree completely that supply is an issue, and I raised that question earlier. I’m wondering what the minister’s reaction is to the concern that has been expressed in several parts of British Columbia. But let’s talk about the issue of supply. I’m going to refer to a developer in West Kelowna who directly attributes discontinuing his project in British Columbia to the speculation tax.

Let’s talk about supply, because this project…. So we’ve got a speculation tax that’s going to tax British Columbians if they have a vacation home. But what it has done to date — and there are others, but this one in particular…. I will quote: “One of the developers behind a West Kelowna residential project says they are stopping work on the 1,000-unit project.” Can the minister tell us what modelling was done, and did she and the ministry look at the potentially unintended consequences of this tax?

In other words, used as an example of a 30-point housing strategy, we see project after project deciding that because of this speculation tax, they are not in a position to add capacity, to add supply to provide the very homes that British Columbians need and want. The fact of the matter is this minister is relying on British Columbians renting out their second house instead of looking at the downside impact of losing, in this project alone, 1,000 units directly attributed to the speculation tax.

Could the minister provide us with examples of how she and the ministry considered the downstream impacts of this tax, probably more aptly called an asset tax, on adding supply in the province?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m not going to — nor would I — talk about the business model that an individual may be using when it comes to a development project. What I do know is that there is a tremendous appetite for housing in Kelowna and that when it comes to vacancy rate, you have almost a zero vacancy rate — a 0.2 percent vacancy rate right now in Kelowna. So there is an incredible need, an incredible desire, for housing in Kelowna. It is a real crisis.

I recognize that there are people who have benefited from the status quo. There are people who have benefited from seeing speculators buy into the market and seeing housing increase exponentially. There are people who have done well and don’t want to see change. But I also recognize that there are many developers who are building housing where British Columbians are moving in, are thrilled to be able to have the housing and are not impacted. So I think, as I said, I’m not going to judge somebody’s business model. That’s up to an individual — how they’re going to manage their business model.

I think it’s important to note that encouraging affordable housing and encouraging building housing in British Columbia is precisely what we’re doing when we take a look at the supply issue. When you look at the housing hub that we’ve created through B.C. Housing, we have created an opportunity to actually bring together the private sector with government, faith groups, community organizations and people who have land in communities, who want to actually look at developing housing for the real need that’s in communities. It’s an exciting opportunity to be able to do that.

We welcome the private sector, developers and others who want to look at building housing for British Columbians, because that’s a crisis right now in our province. It’s something we want to continue to encourage.

S. Bond: Well, with all due respect to the minister, the comment about Kelowna needing additional housing is exactly correct. Let’s look to see what the people who are in the know about that in Kelowna would say, including the mayor of Kelowna. I would just quote that the mayor of Kelowna said that the tax could have “dire, unintended consequences” for his community.

[6:00 p.m.]

A councillor for West Kelowna indicated, “I can see that there will be some foreclosures if this continues,” and: “Just the news that this may happen or is going to happen has scared off a lot of developers.” I can read the list, and there is a list. It’s in the very places that this minister says are in crisis.

The speculation tax already — asset tax — is having an enormous impact in one of the most challenging areas of British Columbia related to accessibility and liveability. The mayor’s concerned. The region’s concerned. We’ve seen people walk away. In fact, a 110-lot, $500 million development in Kelowna — cancelled due to the tax.

I’m sure the minister doesn’t think that 110 less homes in Kelowna helps affordability, but apparently taxing British Columbians for their vacation house does. On behalf of the residents of, perhaps, Kelowna and West Kelowna, where the mayor and other elected officials are clearly demonstrating to this minister that this tax has unintended consequences — in fact, it’s driving the people who are willing to add supply…. Private sector people who are willing to build projects in British Columbia are choosing not to build because of this speculation tax.

Has the minister reconsidered the unintended consequences that her asset tax is creating?

Hon. C. James: I would say to the member…. The member used the issue of dire consequences. There are dire consequences in Kelowna right now — dire consequences right now in trying to find people to be able to work in a community that they can’t afford to live in, dire consequences for businesses who are unable to find employees who can’t find affordable housing.

If you don’t have nurses in a community, you are going to have a real problem when it comes to investment, when it comes to businesses, when it comes to running your community. If city workers can’t afford to live in the community and you don’t have people who are providing that kind of infrastructure in a community, you have a dire consequence. There is a dire consequence now in Kelowna when you have an almost zero vacancy rate and the challenges that are there.

Again, I haven’t talked to this individual business. I’ve certainly talked to the mayor, council and individual members, community members in Kelowna. If the speculation tax is the worry for this developer, it appears, then, that they are building housing for non-residents or vacation properties. That doesn’t provide support for housing in that community.

If you are looking at adding supply for British Columbians, you don’t pay the speculation tax. It’s not an issue. If you’re buying for British Columbians who want to live in the community, it’s not an issue. If people are buying a second home as a vacation home, then yes, they’ll pay the speculation tax. But if you’re marketing and building for people who live and work in the community, in the surrounding communities, then the speculation tax isn’t an issue.

As I said, there are people who have benefited from the status quo, who have benefited from the kind of increasing in the market, and it’s up to individual businesspeople to make those kinds of choices around their business plan and around what model they want to look at.

But if someone is building housing in a zero percent vacancy rate community and that housing is accessible to people who live there who are looking for a first home and not a second home for a vacation home, then that’s exactly the kind of housing that is needed right now in Kelowna and would increase support for the economy, because people then would have an opportunity to be able to work and live in their community.

[6:05 p.m.]

T. Redies: We’ve been talking a lot about the speculation tax, but it’s not just the speculation tax. It’s all of the taxes. It’s the quantum of the taxes.

Just to speak to the real estate development issue and the fact that developers are now figuring out that from a business perspective, it doesn’t make sense to build in British Columbia. I think a lot of that is to do with the quantum of taxes that developers are experiencing. Just the other day, this government approved an additional DCC charge for TransLink.

I’m very surprised that the other side of the House doesn’t seem to understand that when you keep adding taxes onto business people, and particularly real estate development…. First off, those costs will ultimately get passed on to the consumer who buys the condos, number one, if they can. Then if it gets so high, real estate developers start withdrawing from the market, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing in West Kelowna and Kelowna.

I want to move now to property tax revenue. I guess a general question and then a specific question.

Property tax revenue is expected to grow 9.3 percent annually over the government’s three-year plan, which would include the additional school taxes on properties over $3 million and the speculation tax. Could the minister provide us with the breakdown of how much of that property tax revenue is actually going to be raised because of the new over $3 million property school tax?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Page 8 has the taxation pieces in the budget. So the speculation tax — 87 in the first year, 200 and 200. I think the members know that. The school tax, on the increase in the tax there, $50 million in the first year, 200 and 200 in each subsequent year. The remainder of the property tax is the usual formula that’s used, which is new development and inflation.

Again, if the member wants to look at a further breakdown, you can look on page 131 in the budget document as well.

T. Redies: Thank you for that, Minister. Isn’t it a bit interesting that the enhanced school tax and the speculation tax are both expected to bring in $200 million? Is that just a remarkable coincidence? I believe, actually, it was also in your platform, if I’m not mistaken — or in the minister’s party’s platform — that the number was $200 million. I’m just curious how both taxes can be $200 million. Is that just a coincidence?

Hon. C. James: In fact, it is a coincidence that the taxes ended up being $200 million.

T. Redies: Minister, 24 percent of homes in Vancouver are assessed at over $3 million. Does the minister know how many of those homeowners are on fixed incomes? What are you going to do for people who are adversely affected just because they’ve lived in the same house for 30 or 40 years?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member asked a question about individuals who may have bought their home a number of years ago, who were living in the home and who may be of lower income, if you didn’t count the value of the House. But I think the piece that’s important to note is the escalation in housing prices. If you’re someone who bought your house a number of years ago and you’re taking a look at the value of your home….

[6:20 p.m.]

I’ll just give an example, because I think that’s the easiest way, certainly, to describe it. Remember that it applies to the value over $3 million, not the first $3 million. That’s the regular tax. The increase in the tax applies to the value over $3 million. If you are the owner of a home that is worth $3.5 million, you would owe an additional $1,000 in tax. You have the ability to defer your taxes. There is a property tax deferment program, and that applies to homeowners who are 55 or older. It also provides opportunities to defer for surviving spouses or people with disabilities. Families with children also have an opportunity to defer.

If you take a look at the value of that home in Vancouver — if you have that $3.5 million home — you have seen the value of homes in Vancouver go up 41 percent. On a $3 million home, for example, that would be a gain of $1.23 million. So you are paying an additional $1,000 — you have the opportunity to defer it — but you have gained, in the value of your home, $1.23 million.

T. Redies: Yes, I’m familiar with the deferral program. I think it’s a bit dismissive of the minister — particularly from a government that talked about removing tolls off of the bridges — to be dismissive of a $1,000 additional cost to persons on fixed incomes.

I also question the strategy around creating taxes that are so high that people have to defer them. That doesn’t make sense. What the minister is implying is…. Just because these people lived here and have got significant increases in their property valuation, she’s suggesting, I guess, that they should sell and leave their family home of 30 to 40 years. I don’t think that’s going to be very acceptable to British Columbians.

I’d like to raise a particular example, with the minister, of a constituent that came into my office — somebody who owns a property in South Surrey–White Rock but also has an old home in Kitsilano. They have held it for 30-odd years. They held it because their children went to school at UBC. After their children graduated from UBC, they’ve been renting the property out.

They came to me and said: “Look, this is going to cost us an extra couple of thousand dollars a year, which we don’t have. So what we’re going to be forced to do is to sell this property, because we can’t afford to keep it.” What happens to old properties on the west side? They get demolished, and a big, expensive house gets put in its place, taking properties out of the rental pool.

I guess my question to the minister is…. It just doesn’t seem that this has been thought through well. You’re basically implying that people who have owned homes for 30 or 40 years on the west side don’t deserve to live there anymore. They can defer their taxes, which doesn’t make a lot of sense from the government’s revenue perspective.

Really, what’s going to happen is that the neighbourhoods that were supposed to be accessible for British Columbians are probably going to be demolished and only be accessible to the very wealthy. What is going to happen to the people who are teachers, just average British Columbians who live on the west side in a lot of those older homes and that are now suddenly paying a lot more money in tax? What this tax is going to do is chase those people out of the west side, and you’ll have the self-fulfilling prophecy that the west side can only be lived in by people with large incomes.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Obviously, I don’t have the specifics that the member is talking about. But just the example or the details the member described…. If the people are renting it out, it is an investment property. Therefore, they have the ability to be able to, through their investment property, usually cover the costs they’re looking at.

If the house, as I said, is worth $3.5 million, they’re going to owe an additional $1,000 for the year. That doesn’t include the gain that they’ve had in the value of the home, which has gone up. As I said, if they’re living in the greater Vancouver area, it’s gone up over 40 percent over the years. So they’ve gained in value in that home. They do have an increased value in that home and rental revenue.

If it’s their primary residence, then, again, they have the opportunity to defer their taxes. Even with the gain in the housing price that they’ve been able to achieve by living in that house, the additional property tax is small compared to the amount of value. As I said, a $3 million home has a gain of over $1 million just in the last five years. That’s a huge gain in value for a tax that will cost them $1,000.

T. Redies: I appreciate what the minister is saying about the increase in value. With this particular constituent, they are asset-rich, cash-poor. They’re on a fixed income. What they charge now in rent and the costs, basically, are a break-even. The additional costs are going to be $2,000 or $3,000 for them on an annual basis. On their fixed income, it’s punitive.

So what they’re saying is that because of that, they’re going to have to sell the property. Or I don’t know if the minister is suggesting they should increase the rentals by $2,000 or $3,000, which doesn’t seem to be very fair to the people who are living in this property. It’s certainly not going to help with their affordability issue.

This particular constituent will be required to sell the property, and yes, they’ll make a great gain. But the point being is that it’s a rental property that’s going to be taken out of the market, because what typically happens here, as we all know, is that these small houses get bought. They get demolished, and a big, expensive house goes up in that neighbourhood.

I’m just illustrating some of the unintended consequences of the tax that I think will chase people out of the neighbourhood that you’re trying to make more accessible and affordable.

I’m not going to belabour this point. What I do want to ask the minister next is on the speculation tax and the new school tax. Is that money going to be dedicated directly to affordable housing, or is it just going into general revenue?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The money goes into general revenue. But as the member can see, if you look on page 20 of the budget, at the housing initiatives that are in this budget over the next three years — $1.621 billion. The amount coming in on the revenue, as the member mentioned, on speculation tax and housing is under that. There are additional resources that are being put into housing across the budget.

T. Redies: All right. Thank you for that answer, Minister.

We have a school tax that is being called a school tax that is not going towards schools. It’s going towards general revenue. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: I think the important piece to remind the member is there has been no change to the school tax. The school tax has been in place since it was put in place, no different than the previous government. The school tax is applied.

Its original intent was that it would create dollars and resources that go into education. We spend much more. The member will know this, as well, from days of being a school trustee — that much more was spent in the area of education than ever came in on the school tax, and that is continuing.

The dollars go into general revenue. We make the decisions each year around investments in education and, again, proud to say this year that, in fact, we made historic investments in education in the budget, which included an additional number of teachers — 3,700 teachers that went into education.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

[6:35 p.m.]

I guess, from our perspective, what we’re seeing is the government raising taxes, it going into general revenue, but the government trying to pass this off as somehow it’s going to go to schools or somehow it’s a speculator’s tax when, in fact, actually it’s taxing British Columbians who have worked hard and put money into vacation homes.

I think that it’s disrespectful to British Columbians to be calling these taxes anything other than what is really just an asset grab by this government. I’m not going to belabour that point anymore.

What I would like to ask the minister is…. Your budget in February indicated that you’re now expecting a 26.8 percent fall in housing starts in 2018. But your September budget suggested it was going to be a 20.8 percent fall in housing starts. What happened? Is this because of all these new taxes that you’re actually predicting that housing starts are going to fall — because of the actions that you’re taking?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Really, what the numbers are related to is a timing issue around when we had more information on the housing. The September budget — the member is quite right — had 2017 housing starts at 38,300. The February budget had those housing starts at 43,664. The September budget had 2018 housing numbers at 30,328, and in the February budget, those numbers were 31,965.

The numbers did go up, but it appears that the numbers have dropped because the number in the February budget is so much more than the number was in the September budget, because of timing and having more information on the increase in the housing units. That’s why the numbers appear the way that they do.

S. Bond: I want to just pursue the minister’s description of the school tax for a moment. A narrative has developed over the last number of months and has been, frankly, confirmed today. If you have an asset in British Columbia, and you’ve worked very hard to actually, first of all, contribute to the economy and managed to save and have a second home, the government thinks you should pay and that you should be part of their housing solution.

We’ve had an agreement here today. We get that there are issues with housing. We think it’s inherently unfair that British Columbians who work hard every day and get a second home suddenly are considered speculators. Today we learned that 63 percent of the people that life-long will be caught in the speculation tax are actually British Columbians.

Secondly, we raised the issue of people who are property-rich, asset-rich, but perhaps are living on fixed incomes. That was dismissed and considered an argument on behalf of the 1 percent. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are British Columbians who lived in a home for 30 or 40 years. Maybe they inherited that home. Now because of the rising value of that home, this minister is saying: “They just have to pay an extra $1,000.” That is very ironic, coming from a government that has staked their future on the issue of affordability.

Because you live in a home that has increased in value, it may well seem to most British Columbians like it’s the 1 percent. There are still people who live in those homes who do not have the ability to simply adjust to an additional tax.

The other issue that we have now determined this afternoon is…. We understand the school tax system. I know the minister does. She was a school trustee and chair, and so am I. The fact of the matter is that this minister said today that this school tax, those funds, would be consciously directed to affordable housing. Today we’ve learned that British Columbians are going to be taxed to pay for an affordable housing agenda.

Can the minister confirm what modelling was done when it comes to the cost of the 30-point plan? How much of the two taxes that we’ve discussed today is being directly attached to an affordable housing strategy?

[6:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, this will be the last response.

Hon. C. James: Okay. I will finish up my question and then adjourn.

I want to start off just with a premise that the member raised, which is the issue of housing, the affordable housing issue. The housing plan, in fact, is the responsibility of all of us in British Columbia. Addressing the crisis in affordability belongs to every British Columbian. When I take a look at the pressures that are on the system, when I take a look at the pressures for families, for seniors, when I take a look at the costs that are there for taxpayers, for government and for businesses….

The cost of homelessness. I think all of us have seen the articles and the research that’s been done around the cost of someone who is homeless and the savings that can be found by ensuring that that person has a home. The stress and the strain on a family, a working family, and the incredible challenges that they face when it comes to housing…. We all, I believe, have a responsibility.

Perhaps that’s the difference in opinion around this issue. It’s that I believe we all have a responsibility to address the housing crisis. It is a responsibility for us economically. It is a responsibility for us socially. It is a responsibility for us when it comes to providing for what we need in the workforce, when it comes to growing a sustainable economy in every corner of British Columbia.

When it comes to revenue, the member knows very well, having been in government, that money goes into general revenue, and then it is the government’s responsibility to make those policy decisions. That is our job as government — to make those decisions and to be held accountable for the decisions that we make in government about where general revenue gets spent.

As I said, with the dollars coming in on the school tax, much more goes out. Again, the member will know this, having been a school trustee: much more goes out in education spending than comes in on the school tax. That has not changed over the last number of years, and that will not change in this way. It is government’s decisions that make the choice about where those dollars get spent.

The member raised the issue of someone who has an asset that has increased in value, an asset of a house. I used the example of a $3 million house that would have gone up and would have seen a gain of $1.23 million just in five years. They’ve seen that house go up by $1.23 million, so they have the ability to be able to look at deferment of taxes and still see a huge gain in their assets. They’re not losing in their assets. They’re, in fact, gaining in their assets when you look at the cost of the housing and the amount of housing that’s gone up. Deferring taxes, in fact, leaves them still further ahead for many, many, many years, if you’re looking at a $1.23 million increase in the value of housing.

Do I believe that we all have a responsibility to address the affordable housing? Yes, I do. Perhaps that is a difference that I am proud to stand up and talk about. I’m proud to stand up as a government, because I believe that if we don’t address the housing crisis, we will not address a long-term, sustainable plan for economic growth in British Columbia.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); N. Simons in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $140,681,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to open with a statement?

Hon. L. Popham: I would. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the opposition across the way.

This is going to be an exciting few hours. I would just like to say that the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture is on a health leave, and we wish her the best. I will be taking her place, so be gentle with me.

I’d like to introduce my deputy minister, Sandra Carroll; Assistant Deputy Minister Claire Avison; and Assistant Deputy Minister Tracy Campbell; as well as my team, Dean Sekyer and Sasha Hobbs.

I wanted just to also take the opportunity to thank the ministry staff for their great assistance to me — this is more than they probably bargained for — and their professionalism and dedication to the B.C. public service. I would like to recognize everyone at the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture for the outstanding job that they do on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia every day.

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture has a broad mandate that makes an impact on every community in our province, everything from creativity to diversity and some of our economy’s most important job providers. I look forward to the process of estimates. Let the games begin.

D. Clovechok: It’s great to get this rodeo started.

First of all, I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for sitting in. We know this isn’t your file, so it is going to be an interesting dance that we’re going to be going through. I also want to recognize the staff. We’re going to be relying on you very heavily throughout this process, as we always do. The last time we did estimates, you were outstanding. I’m looking forward to that, and I want to recognize you for that publicly. We also want to wish the minister all the very best in her health and in her recovery. Hopefully, that’s coming along very well for her.

[2:55 p.m.]

That said, we’ve got some pretty difficult questions for this minister. Tourism is an incredibly important industry, as you’ve already noted. It’s also an industry that we feel has come under attack in the last while, so we’re going to be sending some interesting thoughts your way. We look forward to this. We appreciate the opportunity and again thank the minister for sitting in on this. We really appreciate that.

M. Stilwell: I echo the comments from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. We do have a lot to get through in a very short amount of time. It seems that there’s always a crunch time when it comes to estimates, so I’m just going to get right into some of the questions.

Starting off with some basic questions on how the ministry’s been functioning since the minister has been away with her illness. I’m just curious how the ministry has been functioning since the acting minister has taken responsibility for the portfolio.

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question. Lucky for me, I guess, I was the critic of this ministry for just about a year. I’m familiar with a lot of the files. That being said, the cabinet documents flow through me, just as they would in a regular business with the minister in charge, and I am the statutory decision–maker. It’s business as usual.

M. Stilwell: So the ministry is not in caretaker mode. The acting minister is making decisions on behalf of the minister, who is absent. Has the minister had anything that she has had to sign off on as of yet in her time as acting minister?

Hon. L. Popham: The question was: what have I done as acting minister? What have been my activities? I can tell the member that I’ve signed off on proclamations and board appointments. I’ve also provided direction when needed and participated in creative week here at the Legislature, which was fantastic. B.C. Book Day is very close to my heart, so I was really happy to take part in that and, of course, participated in the bid for the NAIG.

M. Stilwell: When the minister says that she signed off on board appointments, was the minister at all part of the discussions leading into that, or has she been completely absent from any ministry discussions in her time away?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The question was: what have I been doing, and have I been acting minister or have I been acting like the minister?

I have been doing all of the duties that the minister would when it comes to appointments. The minister was involved in some appointments before she was on health leave, but as she’s been on health leave, I have been signing off on those.

M. Stilwell: The question was actually: has the minister had discussions with the other minister in regards to board appointments, or was that completely on her own free will?

Hon. L. Popham: The only discussions that I’ve had with the minister are around her health. Other than that, I have been briefed by her deputy and staff.

M. Stilwell: Does the minister know…? For future reference, I’m going to go with acting minister for the Minister of Agriculture, and Minister Beare will be just the minister, otherwise this will be complicated all day.

Did the minister have the bios presented to her for the board appointments? Did she review them and make any suggestions to either yourself or staff?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: All appointments were in progress when I became acting minister. Work had been done by the minister, and I would’ve reviewed the bios when I signed off on them, on the final sign-off.

M. Stilwell: Could the acting minister please advise us which boards and who was appointed?

Hon. L. Popham: Staff are going through the list right now, and we’ll be happy to provide the member with that list.

M. Stilwell: Perfect. I love the efficiency. Thank you.

On that note, we live in an age of technology, and as the acting minister knows, cabinet documents are on PDF Expert. We have access to them pretty much everywhere we go, on our iPads. Can the acting minister say whether the minister is accessing those files and reviewing any issue notes, decision notes, and staying up to speed in her absence?

Hon. L. Popham: The deputy’s office has not been sending electronic files to the minister, so not to our knowledge has there been an access into any files.

M. Stilwell: Do we have an expected date of when the minister will return to her regular duties?

Hon. L. Popham: We are hoping that she will be back the week of May 24. But, of course, that will need a doctor’s sign-off.

M. Stilwell: We hope she’s back then, too, and hope that the continued progression with health goes well.

I’m going to move on to another topic, a topic of my personal favourite — sport. We’re just going to look into sport a little bit. As the acting minister may well know, the MLA for Delta North is responsible for sport policy renewal. Can the acting minister provide an update on the work that the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism has, as far as his work pertaining to the Sport file?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Things are going well with the parliamentary secretary. The secretary has been directed to consult with B.C.’s amateur and recreational sports organizations to identify strategies to expand access to sport and support for amateur and recreational sport activities. So the first phase of that is going very well.

I can let the member know who the consultations have been done with so far: ViaSport, B.C. Games, Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, Sport B.C., B.C. Sports Hall of Fame and Museum, B.C. School Sports, B.C. Recreation and Parks Association and SportMedBC.

M. Stilwell: Those consultations — were they done individually with each of those organizations or in a group setting?

Hon. L. Popham: The answer to that is it’s been done both ways — group settings and individual.

M. Stilwell: And the feedback that the parliamentary secretary received from those meetings — how was it documented?

Hon. L. Popham: The meetings are documented with meeting notes. Those are summarized, and they’re sent back to the groups for feedback. Then once that feedback is complete, they send it back to the ministry.

M. Stilwell: The acting minister mentioned in her previous response that the results of the strategy were going well. I’m just wondering if she could clearly define — that’s pretty broad based — what her definition of “going well” is.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: How we are defining success, so far, is that there is active participation by the groups involved. We’re getting very good feedback, and we’re collecting good data. That’s data around sports — the numbers growing in some areas or changing in some areas.

Then, of course, there’s the discussion around the elements of a new strategy that’s being built. Overall, it sounds like the sport system in British Columbia is healthy. It’s doing well. It’s been defined in three ways, three areas that we’re looking at.

One of those is participation; then sport development, which includes coaching; and then any opportunities for hosting sporting events. Those are sort of the three areas that we’re looking at. Of course, access, inclusion and diversity are always foremost in our mind.

M. Stilwell: Can the minister provide the data where she says there are sports that are both excelling and some declining? Which sports are declining, and do they have a reason why?

Hon. L. Popham: We have about five years’ worth of participation data that we’ve been tracking. It’s an exhaustive list. We’d be happy to share that with the member.

I can let the member know that overall we have about 660,000 participating in sport in B.C. That number has remained basically the same, although there is a little bit of up and a little bit of down — but generally the same.

[3:20 p.m.]

There are sports that are growing in participation, and then there are sports that are declining. I can let the member know just a few examples. Sports that are growing in B.C. are rugby, lacrosse, sports climbing and cheerleading. The declining sports seem to be, at this point, pool diving and lawn bowling.

M. Stilwell: Seriously, tell me that’s not true. Those are some of my favourite sports, except for the pool diving. It’s not a good one for me. Sorry.

I’m curious. Out of the 660,000 people participating in sport, is that recreational, club level? Is that local participation in your RDN activities? What constitutes that number of 660,000?

Hon. L. Popham: First of all, let me make a distinction. We have sport and we have recreation in B.C. These numbers are simply sport. We don’t even know how many people are out there recreating around the province. It’s untold numbers.

As for sport, the 660,000 that we know of…. We know of these because we fund the sporting groups. So this is organized amateur sports. That being said, there are also a lot of privately funded sport organizations, and we don’t have access to those numbers. The numbers we have access to are because we fund those sporting activities and organizations.

M. Stilwell: Looking at the service plan, and according to the service plan for 2018-2019, the minister’s preferred performance measure is: “Ensure British Columbians from every background have the opportunity to participate in sport and reach their full potential.” I’m wondering how the parliamentary secretary’s consultation process with B.C.’s amateur and recreational sport organizations is having an impact on that.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’m going to talk about two areas, two programs, that we’re happy about.

There is a KidSport organization. This offers financial assistance. We also have ISPARC, which is an Indigenous sport association.

As an example of the effectiveness of these programs, I’ll give you an example of ISPARC. Over the last ten or 12 years, the increase in participation in ISPARC has gone from 7,000 to 27,000, so it’s very, very effective — proud of that.

There are other ways that people can access funds to become active in sport. Those are grant programs. We have grant programs for gender equity and accessibility. But we always use a diversity and inclusion lens through all of our programs.

M. Stilwell: The acting minister mentioned KidSport. Could the acting minister provide me with the details of how much funding the province provides to KidSport and — I’m not sure she’ll have the information for this — in comparison to how much KidSport receives from fundraising and private donations in communities across British Columbia?

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question.

Our government is proud to contribute $400,000 to KidSport in B.C. Our contribution leverages a 4-to-1 return.

M. Stilwell: Does the minister have the numbers for KidSport of the increase in applications for kids requiring assistance looking for grants?

Hon. L. Popham: We will get that information for the member.

M. Stilwell: Perfect, because that information will follow up with my next question in regards to this government’s desire to focus on affordability.

Obviously, sport has become increasingly unaffordable for many families. Our organizations like KidSport have seen increased demand for their funding opportunities. I’m wondering what commitment this government is willing to make in the future for funding more to KidSport to provide those families in need.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question. The strategy that’s being worked on right now is looking at ways of how to get more participation in that regard and also how to leverage more money from the money that we’re providing. There may be some other types of efficiencies on how things are delivered. So it may not necessarily be about more money but about how the money is better used.

I can tell the member that KidSport B.C. is currently working with Parksville-Qualicum and Prince Rupert to establish new chapters. I think the strategy, I’m sure, will give us some steps forward in that regard, but I don’t have any to report at this time.

M. Stilwell: Conveniently, I am one of the active driving forces behind the Parksville-Qualicum branch of KidSport. The Minister mentioned that it’s a 4-to-1 ratio that the government leverages. I’m just wondering if she can define how that happens. When it’s really KidSport that has community chapters around the province, that has dedicated volunteers who go out, raise funds, have events and galas and work tirelessly to raise that money, how does the government see that they have somehow influenced that?

Hon. L. Popham: The member is absolutely right: where would we be without the incredible volunteers that work with KidSport?

The money that the province provides establishes a base. It keeps the lights on and allows the community groups and volunteers to go out and leverage. But it wouldn’t operate without the volunteers. And communities, of course, are so much richer with that sports volunteer participation. Absolutely, the member is right. The $400,000 goes out to keep the lights on, but it’s the volunteers who keep the energy up.

M. Stilwell: Is the minister, then, saying that the money provided to KidSport to keep the lights on in fact doesn’t actually go to help any children gain access to sport programs?

Hon. L. Popham: In the case where a community doesn’t have a community chapter, the provincial chapter of KidSport provides direct funding to families that need that assistance.

M. Stilwell: Does the government anticipate funding KidSport more, to ensure that more chapters around the province open chapters?

[3:35 p.m.]

Obviously, there are communities across this province that are struggling with families’ affordability for sport programs. We all know that healthy, active living and the love of sport can only help decrease health care costs in the long run. What investment will this government be making?

Hon. L. Popham: I can confirm for the member that this year there’s a $400,000 commitment, but we will be looking at options to increase participation.

M. Stilwell: Increase participation with no new dollars.

Hon. L. Popham: We are waiting for the strategy to come forward before any further decisions on that are made.

M. Stilwell: The acting minister had mentioned that they would potentially look at other efficiencies within the ministry. Do those efficiencies turn out to be cuts to programs or funding to kids accessing sport programs?

Hon. L. Popham: I understand the member’s question. What I can tell the member is that the data that’s collected helps drive decisions on efficiencies. As we see declines in some sports and increases in other sports for participation, the funding is moved around.

M. Stilwell: I know we kind of went off on a tangent there. That’s how this tends to happen. You ask one question; it leads you to another.

I’m just going to go back to the performance measures and the implementation of the performance measures. Is there a timeline for the implementation of the performance measures?

Hon. L. Popham: The performance measures are released each year. This coming fall we will be releasing the strategy, and that will include updated performance measurements. The decisions at that point, as well, will be data-driven.

M. Stilwell: Just flipping back now to ISPARC. It’s been successful. There’s been great uptake with it.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if maybe the minister wants to take a brief opportunity to educate people at home of what ISPARC is, how many people they have actually supported since taking form and what the plans are to increase participation for Indigenous youth.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member for providing the opportunity to do so. It’s a very successful program, so it’s really great to talk about it.

Just historically, in 2006, three founding organizations — the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, the First Nations Health Authority and the Métis Nation B.C. — formed a non-profit organization called the Indigenous Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council, or ISPARC. ISPARC works with sport, health and education sectors to improve the health outcomes of Indigenous people across the province by supporting active communities and expanding access to sport and recreational activities.

The ministry invests $1.4 million annually in ISPARC to implement the Aboriginal sport, recreation and physical activity strategy; the annual Premier’s Awards for Aboriginal Youth Excellence in Sport; and Team B.C.’s participation in the North American Indigenous Games.

The funding directly supports the implementation of regional action plans in six zones across the province, including community-based youth sport development camps; coach, official and leader training and certification; community equipment grants; provincial championships and athlete development camps to prepare Team B.C. for competitions, such as the North American Indigenous Games; the Premier’s Awards for Aboriginal Youth Excellence in Sport; and Indigenous sport opportunities in the mainstream sport sector.

M. Stilwell: Could the acting minister please clarify that the ISPARC serves both Indigenous people on reserve and off reserve?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, it does.

M. Stilwell: Is there any difference in what services or access those individuals would have, whether they’re living on or off reserve?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. We’re not aware of any differences, but if by chance an issue would come up, ISPARC would have the ability to deal with that.

M. Stilwell: One difference that I could outright, perhaps, see would be the facilities that would be on reserve for Indigenous youth — what access they would have, living on reserve, versus youth who are living off reserve and have access to community facilities that the government has funded.

Is there any plan in place for this government to help assist on reserve, to increase facilities or funding for equipment and those kinds of things, to benefit the Indigenous youth that live on reserve?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: ISPARC provides program support and some equipment for athletes, but it doesn’t provide infrastructure support.

M. Stilwell: So there is no forward thought, from this government, on a way to assist those living on reserve to have greater access to those kinds of facilities.

Hon. L. Popham: The ministry is working with staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to develop a community capital infrastructure fund to upgrade and build sports facilities, playgrounds, local community centres, and arts and culture spaces. This would apply to on and off reserve.

M. Stilwell: In regards to athletes with a disability living on reserve…. Obviously, there would be a fair amount of barriers for them as well. Is there any particular plan in place on how to reach out to those individuals and how to increase participation for individuals with a disability to get involved in sport on reserve?

Hon. L. Popham: Government invests over $800,000 annually in disability sports organizations that deliver programs and services to over 12,000 members. When moving forward with decisions on investments, the ministry always uses an access, inclusion and diversity lens.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. Stilwell: So there’s no real plan on how to reach out to those individuals living on reserve to help them gain access to sport programs.

Hon. L. Popham: As ISPARC is a key stakeholder in our strategy consultations, we’re working with ISPARC. We would expect ISPARC to bring this topic up. But since the member brought it up, we will certainly flag it for the strategy group.

M. Stilwell: I appreciate that, to both the minister and the team sitting behind her — that they proactively try to engage those individuals.

As an athlete with a disability myself, I know just how valuable sport is, especially for those people living with a disability, to help gain their independence. So the more you can do, the better. Longtime health outcomes will improve….

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Hon. L. Popham: I just wanted to say to the member that the member is a shining example of how sport has influenced her life. Any chance that the member has to be a champion out there for people, I fully support that and appreciate it.

M. Stilwell: Thank you.

On that note, the next question might be difficult for the acting minister to respond to, because I actually planned the question for the minister, just in her understanding of her role in promoting greater sport participation and development in schools.

Obviously, the minister is not here, but did you have any discussions with her in regards to what her plan is and what her passion or where her values and beliefs are for sport participation in schools?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. I have not personally had any discussions with the minister around her passion leading up to being acting minister. Her health crisis happened quite quickly, so there was no ability for her to brief me on that. But I can tell you that the minister is well known for her passion around this area. She was a school trustee and, in that role, she championed access for kids into sport.

I know that she is very interested in getting access for kids in communities, into facilities that may not have full-time use, looking at opportunities to open up those facilities — like gyms and fields, when they’re not being used — to kids. She’s got a young daughter, and I know that that’s probably a lot of what drives her: being interested in getting her daughter into sports. I know that she’s passionate to give every opportunity for kids to start young and to make it a lifelong commitment, to make sure that people are active.

I was lucky, as a young child, that my father pushed me into sports. I ski raced for Mount Washington for a number of years near the member’s home turf. As far as being a lifelong athlete, I would hardly consider myself an athlete now, but I’m certainly active. I believe that’s because I was active as a child.

M. Stilwell: What action has the minister taken to promote equitable accessibility for school gyms?

Hon. L. Popham: There is an after-school program that is running — the after-school sports and arts initiative, ASSAI. This program is an innovative, community-driven program that delivers after-school sport and arts programming in selected school districts.

The program focuses on children and youth, K through 8, who are typically facing barriers to sport or arts participation. These barriers could include financial, transportation, family circumstances or cultural, physical or cognitive disabilities. Currently ASSAI is delivered in 19 school districts, covering 37 communities and over 130 schools.

M. Stilwell: Is there a location where that list can be accessed, so that I don’t have to have you read it out?

Hon. L. Popham: We’ll provide that list.

M. Stilwell: Thank you. How is the ministry, or the minister, working to alleviate the undue financial burden that sometimes comes along for PSOs and LSOs in improving accessibility issues in school classrooms and gymnasiums?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Within ASSAI, $145,000 is specifically targeted to support children with disabilities to get access to sport. One of those examples is a program called Bridging the Gap, which supports wheelchair basketball.

M. Stilwell: I’m very familiar with Bridging the Gap, but I think it was more the access to school classes and gymnasiums in the accessibility upgrades that they may need, whether it’s ramps or wider bathrooms and those kinds of accessible changes that often can put a financial strain on PSOs and LSOs, in order to integrate those with disabilities into their programs. What is the plan, or how is the ministry trying to alleviate those strains?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question, a great question. There are community gaming grants that offer grants for capital that can assist with things like creating ramps or creating new doors to remove some accessibility issues. There is also a partnership, working with the Ministry of Education, to try and assess where the problems may lie.

For example, we do know that there are empty gymnasiums that are not being used — not because they don’t want to use them, but they actually can’t use them due to accessibility issues. Definitely looking at that. I appreciate the member bringing it up. That’s something that is being assessed. And of course, working with the Ministry of Education, it’s an important topic.

M. Stilwell: In regards to Accessibility 2024, obviously that is the goal of government. It remains the goal of government, I would hope, with the change of government. What is the ministry doing proactively to ensure that they meet those targets and maybe, preferably, exceed them?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: We are well aware of reaching the targets in Accessibility 2024. Because schools fall within the Ministry of Education, we’re working with the Minister of Education in this regard. We don’t have those targets built into our ministry, but we know of the targets that the government has for Accessibility 2024 and are doing our best to advocate for that.

M. Stilwell: On another line of questions, as we know, B.C. overachieves by composing 34 percent of Canada’s national team members even though B.C. makes up just 13 percent of Canada’s total population, which is fantastic international success. I like to be a part of that statistic. Will the percentage of B.C. athletes on national teams remain a ministry performance measure going forward?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member. The answer is we’re absolutely continuing that. And just so the member knows, we consider the member an elite athlete.

M. Stilwell: Will the 30 percent target remain the same?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. Stilwell: The latest service plan hints that upon completion of the parliamentary secretary’s consultations with B.C. amateur and recreational sport organizations, the performance measure will no longer be used and will fall in favour of a new performance measure. I’m just wanting to clarify that this doesn’t mean that the ministry is no longer interested in continuing to push for excellence in this area.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: This performance measure will not be removed, but what we will be doing is adding in even more performance measures. One of those would be the dropout rate for girls. Girls seem to drop out of sport at age 14. So that will be included. We’re not getting rid of any performance measures. We’ll be creating more of them.

M. Stilwell: Continuing to push for excellence is always a good thing in my books. I’m just wondering what funding this ministry will provide to athletes, coaches, officials who reach the highest level in Canada and the world.

Hon. L. Popham: Our government provides significant support to targeted athletes and coaches through annual investment in the Canadian Sport Institute Pacific in the amount of $1.63 million. That will not be going away. That will be staying the same.

M. Stilwell: Will there be an increase to the funding? Can we anticipate more funding coming?

Hon. L. Popham: That will also depend on what the strategy says. So we’ll be waiting to see the strategy before those decisions are made.

M. Stilwell: I look forward to seeing that strategy too, because I do believe that if we are going to continue to strive for excellence, the status quo is not going to get us where we need to go.

Does the minister fear that not having access to new funding sources may have our athletes, coaches and officials fall behind?

Hon. L. Popham: Obviously, it would be nice to have an unlimited amount of money to support our amazing elite athletes. When we’re looking at the strategy, developing the strategy, part of that is looking at new and innovative ways of getting funding going in that direction. There are a lot of ways that can be done — for example, trusts, individual donations and philanthropy.

We’re looking at the best and most efficient ways to get to a new way of doing things as far as the financial commitments that we’re making. In the meantime, we’re not walking away from any financial commitments we’ve made as a province, but we are looking at innovative ways to increase that funding.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Let’s take a six-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

M. Stilwell: I just have one more line of questioning. Again, it’s like you always kind of trickle down, your mind starts going, and you start thinking of things that are important.

One of the things that struck me as important is coaching and the importance of having good, experienced, skilled coaches. They are oftentimes the first point of contact for athletes at every age, especially at younger ages in school-age children, where those coaches are the ones who are the first point of contact. They’re the ones who inspire the kid to get active and get engaged and find that love of sport. They share their skills and their expertise and their experiences with those children.

I’m just wondering if there has been any discussion with the Ministry of Education or with the BCTF on how they could embrace and how they should embrace coaching as a component of a teacher’s resumé or skill set.

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question. Coming from a sports background myself, I completely understand it. When I was racing for Mount Washington, we had a lot of problems finding coaches at that point and had to go as far as New Zealand to bring coaches in. So it’s a great question.

The ViaSport organization recently announced some funding to pursue female coaches for female teams, which I think was a really good initiative. But we don’t specifically put money towards coaching.

The idea of working with the Ministry of Education is a great idea, so we will pursue that. Thank you, Member.

[4:30 p.m.]

I also would like to say that, as we know, in the school system, there are so many teachers who volunteer their time for coaching right now, so a huge shout-out to those teachers who do that job. It’s important for our kids. And thanks to the member for the idea.

M. Stilwell: I’m glad that the minister sees the benefit of tying these skill sets in for teachers. Like I mentioned, children in our schools…. Often, for many of them, their only experience with sport, because of affordability restrictions, is sport in school.

To be able to have teachers who have coaching certification and that qualified skill set to add to their resumé will obviously help them in other areas of their career. It’s certainly a means to foster that lifelong love of sport and healthy living. I just want to ensure that I have a commitment from the minister that she’ll be an advocate for making this change.

Hon. L. Popham: We’ve certainly taken the member’s idea, and I will present it to the minister when the minister returns. We will make sure that we have conversations with the Ministry of Education.

M. Stilwell: I just wanted to say, in the acting minister’s words today: be the champion. Be that champion. I know you’re a champion for agriculture, but be a champion.

D. Clovechok: To the minister and the staff, I just want to say that the speediness of your answers is very appreciated. It’s certainly something that for the first time I have an experience of, so thank you for how quickly this is going. We appreciate that.

I’m going to be asking some questions today and moving into tomorrow that are multiministerial questions, but how they directly relate to tourism. My colleague from Kootenay East here…. You’ve got a couple of Kootenay boys who are going to be asking these questions. It’s around the grizzly bear hunt. Although I know that it’s a FLNRO issue and that legislation came from that ministry, it’s had an impact on the tourism industry directly. So I would ask that you keep in mind that these are being framed in a tourism perspective, not in a FLNRO perspective.

I’m wondering if you could let me know if the Tourism Ministry has done an estimate as to the loss of revenue that will have been a direct result from the cancellation of the grizzly bear hunt.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. As we know from reading around opinions from areas of the world that we’re trying to attract tourists, grizzly bear hunting was not rating very high on the tourism scale. So a decision was made — it was a really big decision by our government — to ban grizzly bear hunting. One of the reasons is because we saw that grizzly bear viewing, which occurs largely in the Great Bear Rainforest, was bringing in tourism dollars at approximately $15 million per year. We know that this is growing, from the statistics that we’re reading.

[4:35 p.m.]

The grizzly bear hunt, which was estimated to bring in between $6 million and $7 million annually, was something that we had to consider. But we took the perspective that the tourism dollars had the ability to increase, and we wanted to take the direction to support that.

D. Clovechok: The bear viewing is important, and I agree that it generates a lot of money. But $6 million to about $7.6 million was generated through guide-outfitters, through selling tags and hunting grizzly bears. So the decision was made, and it’s been made. How has the minister worked to address the concerns of guide-outfitters, hunters and trappers over the lost tourism revenues? There have been significant losses.

Hon. L. Popham: I completely appreciate the question from the member. We know that there is an impact on the guide-outfitters with this decision, so we’ve been working with the Ministry of FLNRORD to ensure the needs of those tourism businesses are being considered as the transition happens.

I can tell the member that there has been…. This year the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. will receive $72,000 in funding through the Destination B.C.’s co-op marketing partnerships program. That’s in order to assist them as this transition happens. I know that guide-outfitters also hunt other things other than grizzly bears, so this is specifically to address the hardship that they may feel with the grizzly bear hunt being banned.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for the opportunities. I just want to piggyback off my colleague here on what he was talking about. I guess I want to get down to brass tacks on what the ministry accepts as being a viable tourism industry in areas like Kootenay East.

We talk about the ban on the grizzly bear hunt, and the minister just stated a second ago that, through consultation, it was not rated high. I would actually challenge that. If the minister came to Kootenay East, it would be very high.

Actually, I guess the first question — I just want to set the tone — I’ll ask the minister: can she give me her definition of what a trophy hunt is?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The member asked me what my definition of a trophy hunt was. I would say that a trophy hunt would be a hunt that was done for trophy and sport rather than sustenance. The ban on trophy hunting focuses in on that. Of course, there are the First Nations that have the ability to continue their ceremonial hunt.

T. Shypitka: I’ll come back to that in a second.

Now that we’ve lost the trophy hunt — what ministries call the trophy hunt…. I choose not to use that definition. When we hunt grizzlies in Kootenay East, there are a lot of factors — the number one is management of our animals. When we have carrying capacities exceeded by a certain species, such as grizzly bear, we have a lot of human-wildlife conflict. To manage that properly, we have hunts to bring things back into balance.

Now, some people say: “Let nature take its course. Things are self-regulating in the wildlife world.” But I can tell the minister, quite honestly, there’s nothing natural about a conservation officer coming away and blowing away a grizzly bear and throwing his body into a landfill. This is not natural, and this is also a waste.

So what we try to do, where we’re from in our part of the province, is to manage it responsibly, and through that, we can create tourism. We can create revenue, and we can create and sustain lifestyle, traditions — things that have been going on for quite some time in our province — not only through Indigenous people but also non-Indigenous people as well.

This is something we’re proud of there. It has created quite an economy, a little local economy through tourism. We’d like to see that maintained. Does the minister recognize that the loss of revenue, due to the ban on grizzly bear hunting…? Is that something that they like to do? Or is it something that has been…?

The consultation, from everything I’ve heard, was about 3,200 emails. That, to me, isn’t consultation. Maybe the minister can tell me what that consultation was, where it was actually centred at, who was involved. Was there consultation done in the local areas, such as Kootenay East or Columbia River–Revelstoke? Where were these consultations held, and what stakeholders were involved?

Hon. L. Popham: I appreciate the member’s question around bear management and the consultation and how decisions were made. But I’m going to disappoint the member, I think, and let the member know that specific questions related to the consultation and policy change need to be referred to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

T. Shypitka: I’ll attack this from a different angle then.

The minister talked about the importance of bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest. Possibly what the minister is alluding to is that there are also equal opportunities in areas such as Kootenay East for bear viewing.

But that’s not the case. B.C. is very diverse. We have a lot of different geographical areas, different ecosystems, different sets of terrain. The Great Bear Rainforest is not near as mountainous as where we live in Kootenay East. Therefore, bear viewing is just not practical or possible because a lot of these bears roam in very difficult terrain to get to. So bear viewing isn’t quite the same as bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest.

With that opportunity lost, is there anything left for guide-outfitters to recapture? I heard a number of $72,000. Well, that’s literally two hunts. That’s two grizzly bear hunts. That’s direct money. That’s not even the indirect money that comes from these hunts as well. It’s not near enough money in the pot for these guide-outfitters to survive.

I know one guy, in particular, who’s shutting his practice down because he relies heavily on some of these hunts. It’s kind of the bread and butter, and it kind of keeps him going. He’s got all the other hunts, like the minster alluded to. There are other types of animals — cougar — that can be managed in a responsible way, but losing the grizzly bear is definitely a game changer for some of these people.

Does the minister have anything else other than the $72,000 to be divvied up amongst many, many guide-outfitters? Is there anything else coming down the pipe for these guide-outfitters?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I absolutely understand what the member is asking and the concerns that he has. Coming from his community, the decision to ban the grizzly bear hunt does come at a cost to guide-outfitters. We acknowledge that. There is a difficult transition for them.

The $72,000 was specifically made available for marketing opportunities, to develop marketing for other parts of the business. I don’t think it was specifically to make up for the hunt, for each individual guide-outfitter company. That was put in place to help develop a marketing plan or to use for marketing.

From the perspective of this ministry, there is full engagement with the guide-outfitters as we seek to understand and provide a transition plan. Those conversations are also happening in the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. I’m not sure how much comfort that gives the member, but there is a live conversation happening.

T. Shypitka: Through our talks through the Legislature, we all hear about how important science-based decisions are and how collecting data and everything to make an actual, educated, science-based decision is important. I think the minister can agree with that; I think we all can agree with that in this room. Unfortunately, the decision on the grizzly bear ban was anything but. It was a consultation, not science-based. It was more or less a voters poll on whether or not it was socially acceptable, not scientifically acceptable.

Would the minister consider — to bring this very important part of tourism back to areas such as Kootenay East — that they look at a scientific-driven model to see if we need some predators or some other species that need to be managed, no different than elk, deer or moose or anything like that. It’s part of a bigger picture here. Would the minister consider science-based data to drive and to exempt areas such as Kootenay East to be given the right to manage responsibly and to bring these guide-outfitters a little bit of hope? That if population numbers are dictating a managed approach, then that would be what would be recommended by the ministry, in certain areas, based on science, to bring back the hunt of grizzly bears — more than anything, for safety?

I mean, there were numerous…. I’ve had three friends actually mauled in the last year, by grizzly bears. In Kimberley last year there was a grizzly that went right inside a guy’s basement. It just went through the window into his basement. He shot it in his downstairs. Now, people don’t understand that a lot in urban areas, but in rural areas, it happens all the time.

We had another situation in Sparwood, where a park was closed, a school was closed, for a couple of days because there were two grizzlies in the playground. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my children on the swing sets when there are a couple of grizzly bears sitting there. It’s just not going to fly.

These are serious safety issues, management issues. I can go on and on about livestock being slaughtered by grizzlies and cattlemen losing their livestock. I believe these are real concerns. So if science can dictate that we need to address it and manage these populations responsibly, would the minister be receptive to bringing back the grizzly bear hunt?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for that, to the member. There are huge differences between rural B.C. and urban B.C., for sure. I understand what the member is saying. I think that one of the good things about the estimates process is that members are able to bring forward concerns specific to their regions. I think it’s really, really important.

[4:50 p.m.]

Unfortunately, I’m going to disappoint the member and tell the member that the policy discussions or policy changes will need to go through the Forests, Lands and Natural Resources and Rural Development Ministry. That ministry is open to conversations, as well, as we try and figure out this transition.

T. Shypitka: Yeah. I recognize that this would have to be a decision through the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development. But what I’m asking of the minister is: as she is somebody that is to promote tourism, would this not be an acceptable something that she would wrap her arms around to bring back tourism, a certain sector of tourism, to Kootenay East and Columbia River–Revelstoke and some other ridings. I know the Peace has got some issues up there as well. Would this not be something she would support?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks, to the member. I appreciate his creative question-asking. That’s good. I know why he’s doing that. But I’m going to have to refer the question to the Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Ministry.

Currently, the ministry is developing a renewed wildlife management strategy for all the wildlife, including bears. So I would direct the member to make his concerns known to that ministry.

T. Shypitka: The Ministry of Forests — separate mandates than the Ministry of Tourism. That’s very clear in the mandate letters. To refer to the Ministry of Forests means that the minister is now taking on the mandate of the Ministry of Forests, which doesn’t jibe well with the Ministry of Tourism in this situation.

My question is very simple. As the Minister of Tourism, who is responsible for promoting tourism…. If she sees an opportunity through proper science-based data to manage wildlife properly and to bring another element back into tourism in the Kootenays, would she not embrace that? Would she not think that was a good idea based on data — science data that we’ve all agreed on is important? It’s a driver for decision-making. I think we all can agree with that. Would she, as a minister, not think that’s a good idea and promote it?

Hon. L. Popham: I can say that in September 2017, our government made a decision to ban grizzly bear trophy hunting, and that’s the direction I support.

[4:55 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: What I’ve heard is the Ministry of Tourism feels that it’s more important to have the mandates of the Ministry of Forests replace the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism.

I think, with that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague.

Hon. L. Popham: I’d just like to respond to the member that I support the direction of government. We have a mandate in the Ministry of Tourism that I fully support as well.

D. Clovechok: Let’s kind of wrap this thing around my tourism mind, because that’s where I spent most of my career. Will the minister admit that there’s been significant loss of tourism revenue due to the cancellation of a grizzly bear hunt?

Hon. L. Popham: We have had reports from the guide-outfitters that there have been some losses with regards to trophy hunting of grizzly bears being restricted. I can tell the member that Destination B.C. is investing in that region to come up with other tourism opportunities, but grizzly bear hunting for trophies is not one of them.

D. Clovechok: So $75,000, if I’m correct — I believe that’s what you said that Destination B.C…. Was it $72,000 or $75,000? I can’t remember. It’s $72,000.

Coming from a guide-outfitters perspective — and that’s who I have to speak on behalf of here today — $7.6 million is an enormous amount of revenue for a very small group of people, a very small number of people who engage in that tourism business. If I reflect back to…. God forbid that we have similar fires this summer. We certainly hope that we don’t. Destination B.C. was given $200,000 per DMO to deal with those fire situations. That’s a significant amount of money. It wasn’t enough as far as I was concerned, but money is money.

So $75,000 for across the province to help market…. I’m not sure what the government thinks that they’re going to market with $75,000. If you could help me understand: from a tourism perspective, what is it that you’re marketing with $75,000? Because that doesn’t buy much more than a couple of tents.

[5:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member. I think what the member is asking, or maybe implying, is that our tourism ministry has only supported $72,000. Actually, specific to the Kootenay Rockies, there is an over $1 million investment for marketing that area.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: this $1 million that you speak of…. So I’m clear, that’s $1 million that has been earmarked to help do what with guide-outfitters? Where is that money? Where is that found? Who is responsible for that money, and who are they consulting with? Are they consulting with guide-outfitters? What’s the purpose of that $1 million, and how is that going to be applied to the job loss that we’re actually talking about here?

That’s why I said it’s a multiministerial issue here. The Minister of Jobs could be here just as easily. But from a tourism perspective, we have lost jobs because of this decision, so how are we going to deal with those losses of jobs from a tourism perspective? Is that $1 million earmarked for that? Is that for retraining? What’s it for?

Hon. L. Popham: That money is coming through Destination B.C. to market the Kootenay Rockies area specifically, to attract clients into that area for every activity that a tourist may want to partake in.

D. Clovechok: So it’s general money. Has that $1 million been earmarked because of the grizzly bear hunt, or is that just…? Did that come from this decision? I guess that’s what I’m asking.

Hon. L. Popham: That is the allocation for that area in the Tourism budget. The $72,000 was given to the guide-outfitters to help begin to address the issue. We understand there is a transition issue for them. The over $1 million from Destination B.C. is to market the entire region of the Kootenay Rockies. That is to attract clients and tourists there, hoping that they’ll partake in other activities.

Obviously, all input is good input on what would be considered a good transition plan. If the member has ideas, such as retraining or other support that may help the guide-outfitter industry, I would direct the member to give that to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

D. Clovechok: Just a little bit ago you said that the Ministry of Tourism is in full engagement with this file.

Hon. L. Popham: Forests.

D. Clovechok: Or Forests, Lands…. I stand corrected on that.

From a tourism perspective, then, let’s talk a little bit about the Auditor General report on grizzly bear management. This is a safety issue. It cited that increased human-bear interaction leads to greater instances of conflict and consequently the destruction of more bears.

Has the minister taken this into consideration when projecting the impacts on tourism revenue of increased bear-viewing ecotourism, particularly in rural British Columbia? Have you had those consultations with bear viewers? I mean, if there’s going to be increased bear viewing that you’re trying to support on the coast — because it won’t work where I live — have you addressed those safety issues? And what are the revenues that are potentially going to come from that increased bear watching?

[5:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Of course, questions are to be directed through the Chair. Thank you.

D. Clovechok: Yes, of course.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. Safety concerns — obviously, it’s an important issue. We are working with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations around the recommendations that came from the Auditor General’s report. We have a working group that is looking at all those recommendations, and the safety concerns are part of that.

D. Clovechok: Through you, Chair, to the minister, just the last question I have, then. To let the guide-outfitters know, at this point, then, from a tourism perspective, although tourism jobs have been lost…. Almost $7.6 million of revenue has been taken from this province because of this — out of their pockets, out of their livelihoods, out of their families’ well-being. So at this point, then, there is nothing from the tourism perspective that you can foresee in terms of retraining these people.

Marketing tourism in any region is great, but this, potentially, is not going to help these guide-outfitters. You know, if you bring more people in to water-ski or to golf or to whatever you have, that’s great. We appreciate it. Thank you. But for the guide-outfitters….

There’s nothing there for them right now, from your government’s perspective, in terms of helping them with that transition that you speak of. I’m really not clear on what that even means, from your ministry’s perspective. What does that transition look like? Is there anything for them here so that they can say to their families, “We’re going to get an opportunity here to retrain,” or do something like that.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a difficult discussion to have. I understand what the member is talking about. It’s tough — a transition. It’s a difficult time. But the fact is that the government has taken a position that there will be no more trophy hunts on grizzly bears. What that means is that as we look at marketing the area and possibly growing other areas of tourism, there may be new opportunities that turn up.

Those are discussions that we need to have and are having with the guide-outfitters as we talk about a transition plan. But if the member, as I said previously, has those ideas around retraining, specifically, in a certain area, I think the member should present those to the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources. We would welcome input as well as, you know, growing the tourism sector. If there are other areas the member thinks would be a new market, for example, perhaps focusing on figuring out what the skill set is for that new market, we’d be very open to hearing about it.

[5:10 p.m.]

I would offer to the member, always, an open door to the ministry to come in and discuss that. I’m sure the member is in contact with guide-outfitters in his area, so even, perhaps, having a conversation with those guide-outfitters about what that would look like….

The tough news is that the grizzly bear trophy hunt is not coming back under our leadership, so we do need to figure out something else. But I welcome the member to participate in that.

D. Clovechok: We will move along from this very, very shortly, then.

I agree with you. It’s a very difficult issue. But again, from the perspective of a guide-outfitter, who has now lost, potentially, $7.6 million of revenue, this kind of falls short of what they were hoping to hear.

You said that the ministry has been in consultation with guide-outfitters. I’d just like to know the extent of that consultation. How often has that happened? Where has it happened? What were the outcomes of those consultations with those guide-outfitters around that transitioning process?

I know that the Bear Watch folks…. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to them. I’ve talked to my guide-outfitters about that potential. That doesn’t happen where we live. The grizzly populations there don’t have the protein that bears on the coast do. As a result of that, when Brian McKersie had four of them in his top field yesterday morning…. Nobody wants to watch them, because they’re looking to kill you.

What have those consultations been?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The minister did meet with the B.C. Guide Outfitters Association just before she went off on health leave. There have been meetings with individual guide-outfitters that have contacted the ministry, but the majority of the consultation will land in the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much. I know it’s a very difficult issue, and I thank you for your time and your patience. But we definitely wanted to make sure that it’s on the record that there are men and women in this province who have lost a considerable amount of revenue because of this decision, cause and effect, sequential thinking, etc., and so on.

That has had a direct effect on their families and whether they are playing hockey or doing the sports or whatever have you. We wanted to make sure that it was crystal clear that this has had an economic impact on the tourism business where the member for Kootenay East and myself live, as well as in the north. So thank you for that.

We’ll shift now to something different, back to tourism — in a tourism sense, right? One of the things that is growing throughout this world is international tourism into Canada. I spent the better part of my career in tourism, so I understand this.

[5:15 p.m.]

Recently the minister, the Premier and several other folks ended up heading for China. We’re going to ask some questions around that trip. To begin with, I guess I’d like to just ask: what are the targets for tourism in China?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. We have a target of increasing the volume of visitors by 10 percent. That would be an increase of $630 million.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer. I would appreciate knowing, too, if the Minister feels that she’s on track for meeting these targets and what the strategies are that are going to be employed to get those targets.

Hon. L. Popham: I misspoke on my last answer; I just wanted to clear it up. That’s what you get when you’re an acting minister, I guess.

Our target increase of visitors — we would like to increase it by 10 percent. That means the increase would be 336,000 visitors. The total spend — this wouldn’t be the increase — of visitors coming from China is $630 million. So that’s not the increase. I just wanted to make sure that was clear because I even confused myself.

[5:20 p.m.]

As far as the strategy to get more visitors from China here, it happens that 2018 is the Canada-China Year of Tourism, so there’s a strategy that’s built into that. From our perspective, we work with Canada tourism and B.C. tourism, our own tourism ministry, to partner and focus on three different things. One of them is that we work with key tour operators. We work with travel media and social media and on-line advertising to try and attract people here.

D. Clovechok: We’re wondering if you could provide us with how many people from the ministry went on that trip to China. What were the total costs of that trip?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The Tourism Ministry was part of a larger delegation, including the Premier. The Minister and the Deputy Minister attended, on the tour. The costs for the Minister and the Deputy Minister were each $9,000.

D. Clovechok: What areas of tourism, while they were in China, did they actually promote? What aspects of the industry?

Hon. L. Popham: There was a visit to Guangzhou and Beijing. In Guangzhou, there was a showcase of B.C.’s outdoor tourism experiences, and in Beijing, there was a focus on ski opportunities for ski tourism. There was also, generally, a focus on museum tourism.

D. Clovechok: The Minister signed a deal between WeChat and Destination B.C. The question we have is: does the Minister have any quarrels with the alleged suspicions of privacy breaches and human rights concerns with regards to the relationship between WeChat and the People’s Republic of China?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Destination B.C. is not aware of any complications that Wechat would give them. But what we do know is that WeChat is an incredible platform for marketing our tourism destinations.

D. Clovechok: Mr. Chair, to the minister: could you…? I can’t say that. Could the minister — see, I caught myself — provide us the details of the agreement with WeChat?

Hon. L. Popham: We don’t have that agreement here, but we would be happy to get that for you.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you very much for that — appreciate it.

I’m wondering, then, if you don’t have the agreement here…. But I’m going to ask this follow-up question. First question: will the agreement be released to the public, once you have it, or has it already been released to the public? How much is this agreement costing? And then, what are the benefits for Destination B.C. in the long run?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes, we will release that document. But I would like to talk about the benefits of that agreement. What WeChat allows us to do is to tap into 900 million active users, so we feel that that is an excellent partnership in order to promote our province.

D. Clovechok: I’d just be really curious what, from the China…. I think you may have already told me this. I think it might have been $600 million, but some of the numbers…. What’s the estimated revenue growth from this new promotional year that’s coming up with China?

Hon. L. Popham: We estimate about $63 million.

D. Clovechok: I just would like to know also: was there a strategic reason — or a conflict in calendar — for the trade mission not attending Korea or Japan while they were over there?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: A great question. The minister decided to focus on China specifically because of 2018 being the Canada-China Year of Tourism. We used our time wisely and focused in on the Chinese tourism market.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: does the ministry have any specific targets for Korea and Japan?

Hon. L. Popham: As far as our targets for Japan, it’s around 2 percent. Then as far as Korea goes, we haven’t actually invested in the Korea tourism market. We call it a monitor market, so we’re watching it carefully, but at this point we’re not invested in it.

D. Clovechok: I think we’ll shift gears now. Thank you for those answers. I appreciate all the help from the staff as well.

The next series of questions that we have are kind of multiministerial, again, but we’re going to focus it onto tourism. Certainly, the speculation tax was a tax that was created through the Ministry of Finance — under their overview, of course — but as with anything with cause and effect, this particular tax that’s proposed has had significant impacts on the tourism industry in British Columbia, even outside of the designated areas. We’re going to be asking some questions around that speculation tax, with the focus on tourism, specifically.

Can the minister explain how she expects the speculation tax will impact tourism in the areas that it’s been designated at this point?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a great question. I recently met with the Victoria tourism industry and had a very good discussion. At this point, we are referring all questions about that to the Minister of Finance. In fact, over our discussion that we had, there were many great points brought up from the tourism industry here in Victoria, and we’ve passed those along to the Minister of Finance.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: I certainly appreciate that it is the Minister of Finance’s tax, but it also has significant implications on tourism. It is a tourism-related question. So passing that to the Minister of Finance, who doesn’t have that file, doesn’t make any sense to me.

[5:35 p.m.]

In any event, we’re just very interested in terms of a tourism focus here. Did the minister have any conversations prior to the announcement of the speculation tax, from a tourism perspective, with any of the tourism marketing organizations or any tourism organizations to get their input as to what impact they felt this tax may have on their business?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Because the tax does fall under the Ministry of Finance, I can’t speak to the consultation that was done by the Minister of Finance. What I can tell you is that we value the tourism industry significantly in this province. It creates over $17 billion worth of revenue.

Because of that, we continue to meet with representatives and stakeholders within the tourism industry. We continue to filter the information and the feedback into the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: The minister will note that questions and answers are to be through the Chair.

D. Clovechok: As an advocate of tourism in British Columbia, the ministry…. That’s their job. As the minister, she should be the top advocate for that. I’m wondering if you could explain to us…. I’m going to give you a specific example.

In a community that’s outside but just right on the border of my riding is a resort known as St. Eugene Mission. Because of all of the things that are going on in the speculation tax, they lost a golf tournament that has been there, traditionally, for over a decade — thousands of dollars in terms of trickle-down. Not only a full complement of golfers, but it’s only ten or 15 minutes from Cranbrook, so there’s a lot of money associated with it.

They’ve taken it to Montana. Those are the economic consequences of such a tax as the speculation tax. Even though it’s not where I live, it’s still there. I guess what I’d like to know is: how is the ministry advocating on behalf of those businesses that are six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away from this capital? How are they advocating for the loss of business and the uncertainty in the tourism industry that this tax has created?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I didn’t know that the member had a background in tourism. It’s interesting to hear that. We’ll have to have a chat at some point. We’ll have to have coffee at some point.

The minister and myself as acting minister are huge advocates for the tourism industry and for tourism here in British Columbia. When we meet with stakeholders, we make sure that we understand their message. If it has something to do with a tax policy, we would send that to the Minister of Finance.

As far as how information is brought to us, we are in contact with the Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association. As far as the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., who’s on the ground…. This information is getting filtered to our ministry, to our staff and to ourselves. As I said, when we hear messages, we make sure that we understand them and that we send them on.

D. Clovechok: I’m just wondering if the ministry has done…. This is a definite tourism question. In the tourism business, you’ve got to do this work to understand where you’re going. Has the minister done any modelling to predict how the speculation tax will siphon disposable income away from tourism and recreation in those designated areas that it’s supposedly going to?

Hon. L. Popham: Our ministry has not done that.

D. Clovechok: Does your ministry plan on doing that?

Hon. L. Popham: We will be working with the Minister of Finance as details are finalized on this tax and as we understand the implications. But the Ministry of Tourism does not do modelling.

[5:45 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Proposed in this speculation tax, in terms of two of the regions, are Kelowna and West Kelowna. According to the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, Albertans make about 10.2 percent of the buyers last year in the region, which obviously includes Kelowna and West Kelowna. I’d really be curious to know: has the ministry determined if the popularity of Okanagan tourism as a destination will suffer as a result of this new tax?

Hon. L. Popham: As I said, we continue to work with the Ministry of Finance, but this ministry does not do modelling.

D. Clovechok: I guess, from what I’ve heard so far on the speculation tax around tourism, you as a ministry will acknowledge that this tax will have detrimental effects on tourism. I guess that’s what I’m looking for, for the record — that this tax will have serious implications and is already having serious implications to the tourism industry, that we can tell the tourism industry that you recognize that that’s the case and that the ministry will be working on measures to address that.

Hon. L. Popham: No, I will not acknowledge that there is going to be devastation across B.C. in the tourism industry. I will not acknowledge that.

The details of the tax have not been finalized yet. They will be finalized in the fall. We understand the concerns of the tourism industry, because we’ve been on the ground listening to the tourism industry, and we have been giving that information through to the Minister of Finance.

[5:50 p.m.]

I hope that the member also may entertain acknowledging the reason why this tax is being brought in. We have a housing crisis, and this has to be dealt with in some way. This is the road that we are on that we think can address this issue. Of course, one of the things that could have been done is that a tax could have been announced and implemented right away, without any consultation, but we are doing that consultation, and we are listening to the concerns.

I think that if the member has concerns specifically around how the tax will be implemented, the member will have to take that to the Ministry of Finance.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that. I kind of figured that was the answer I was going to get anyway. Just to conclude, then, the ministry at this point will not acknowledge that this speculation tax has the potential to have significant impacts, in a negative way, on tourism in Kelowna and West Kelowna.

I totally understand the logic behind this tax, whether it’s in Vancouver or even the capital city here in Victoria, maybe, but certainly not in Kelowna and West Kelowna. What I’m asking is: is the ministry saying, then, that this proposed tax will not have tourism implications for Kelowna and West Kelowna?

Hon. L. Popham: No, I will not acknowledge that. What I’d like to say around the effects of housing and tourism is that the implications of not dealing with the housing crisis affects the tourism industry significantly.

In my other role, I spend time talking with the restaurant industry. The restaurant industry is incredible in British Columbia. It attracts tourists from everywhere. We are known for our restaurant industry. The people working in the restaurant industry cannot find housing in the places where they live. This is how bad the crisis is. We have help-wanted ads out there looking for people to work in the restaurant industry and many other service sector parts of the industry. They cannot find a place to live.

Right here in Victoria, we have a restaurant industry that is providing jobs for people that live across the Malahat in Mill Bay. That’s the commute that these workers face at the end of their shift, which we know, in the restaurant industry, can be at two or three in the morning. They are faced with having to travel that far out just to go home to their own bed to sleep in. If we don’t deal with this issue, that may be more devastating to the tourism industry. We don’t know what the implications are. What we’re doing is trying to address an issue, a housing crisis that affects everything.

My hope is that the member will continue to give feedback. The member was involved in tourism himself. I’m sure he has many contacts. Continue to send the feedback into us, at that level. The door is open. We’re looking for the feedback, and we will continue to give that information to the Minister of Finance. But I can tell the member this: not addressing this issue of the housing crisis will be devastating to the tourism industry.

D. Clovechok: I think we’ll move on, because we’re going to agree to disagree. Although housing is critical to the tourism industry, no question about it, the speculation tax is focused on speculative buyers. Taking those kinds of products out of the market — I totally get that, but not in Kelowna and West Kelowna.

We’ll move along. We’re going to talk about another tax and how it affects tourism.

M. Stilwell: Can’t get enough taxes around here these days, so we’ll just keep down that road and talk about the government’s new payroll tax. Obviously we have tourism operators and accommodation providers around this province that have been vocal about the employer’s health care tax and the massive increases that they are going to be seeing with the implementation of it. I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on how she’s been fighting for those operators in support of not having the tax.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I would imagine, at this point, that the member understands our definition of the employer health tax, but I’m going to reiterate it. I think we’ve heard a lot of it in the chamber these days, but I will endeavour to repeat it myself.

We designed the employer health tax to help protect small business. In tourism, 90 percent of tourism businesses are small business by definition. The threshold that was set was $500,000. That means that more than 85 percent of businesses in B.C. will not pay this tax, and fewer than 5 percent of businesses in B.C. will pay the full rate.

M. Stilwell: It’s great that the member acknowledges those small businesses. But what about the creative sector and the arts and culture non-profits who are going to see the implications of this new tax on their bottom line. Who has she met with, and when, to hear their concerns about this new tax?

Hon. L. Popham: We meet regularly with the stakeholders from the creative sector. To our knowledge, there has not been a concern raised.

M. Stilwell: Well, that’s interesting, because there was a newsletter sent from the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture.

I’m going to quote what the newsletter said:

“As this tax will adversely affect our sector, we have created a…short survey for you to participate in, the results of which will be sent to the Minister of Finance and other decision-making ministers….

“For larger organizations who will be most affected by this tax, please take the time to write your MLAs and let them know how this expense will impact you. In Ontario, the government implemented a tax exemption for charities when they implemented the employer health tax, so there is hope for a path forward. To contact your MLA, click here.”

[6:00 p.m.]

Given that the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture is initiating an anti-EHT letter campaign, it appears that the new tax will potentially hurt a lot of arts and culture organizations. So is the minister fighting on behalf of tourism, arts and culture industries, and especially the non-profits, to seek that exemption from this tax?

Hon. L. Popham: We haven’t seen anything coming forward to our ministry. That may have been directed at the Minister of Finance. If that’s the case, the Minister of Finance has been advised of their concerns, but we have not heard in our ministry.

M. Stilwell: But you recognize that the newsletter does call for “other decision-making ministers” who have a say to be acknowledged and to recognize that there is a concern and to be an advocate. As the minister, the job of the minister is to be an advocate for the industry.

My question was: what is the minister doing in order to advocate to be exempt from the tax to the Minister of Finance? The minister earlier said that often, those conversations…. You are forwarding those emails and forwarding that information to the Minister of Finance to ensure that it’s there, that they are notified and are aware of the situation.

You are aware. Will you now go to the Minister of Finance and advocate for the non-profits to be exempt?

The Chair: Of course, questions and answers are to be through the Chair.

Hon. L. Popham: Through the Chair. Of course, the Minister, and myself as acting Minister, would advocate on behalf of the sector. Currently, I haven’t seen that newsletter, specifically. But now that the member has brought it to our attention, we will certainly do a follow-up.

M. Stilwell: We — through you, Chair — would be happy to provide the minister with that letter so that she can do her homework and be able to be the best champion she can be for the industry.

I think that’s what we have on that topic. We’re going to switch gears one more time.

D. Clovechok: Just on that tax, as well, you referenced small business, which is the heart and soul….

The Chair: It’s “the minister referenced.”

D. Clovechok: The minister referenced that, and it’s the heart and soul. Where I live — and my colleague from Kootenay East and my colleague over here — small businesses are associated with tourism.

I’m wondering if the Ministry of Tourism did any consultation with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce as to what the implications might be if this tax is actually implemented in relationship to small business and tourism.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: We have not had those concerns brought forward to our ministry from the chamber, but the chamber may have — and most likely has, if there’s concern — brought them forward to the Minister of Finance.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister. We’ll move on from there.

Let’s go to the RMI, resort municipality initiative. Let’s talk a little bit about that, which is really important to where we live, as well. The minister has said that she met with the resort municipalities at UBCM, which is true, because I was in some of those meetings. She also had a meeting on December 12 with RMI communities — which is true, because I got the report back from the mayors that were there in my riding — to discuss a “full range of options, and a funding formula process for RMI will be part of the discussions.”

The question I have to the minister: why was this program not mentioned in the latest service plan or in the budget?

Hon. L. Popham: That’s correct. It wasn’t in the budget, but the money was secured in contingency. It was secured for year 2018-19.

D. Clovechok: Thank you. The next question on RMI: will resort municipalities receive the same funding, dollar for dollar, as the 2017-2018 funding formula, or is the funding formula going to remain the same? So the same funding formula. Is anything changing?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The budget is $10.5 million. It is part of a funding formula. The total fluctuates because it’s a formula. In the beginning of June, there will be a meeting with all of the chief administrative officers. This is an annual meeting that happens. At that meeting, there will be discussions around this.

[6:10 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister.

Next question. Are resort municipalities still expected to submit a multi-year resort development strategy to access the fiscal year’s RMI funding?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

D. Clovechok: That’s good to hear. Are resort municipalities still required to follow the 70-30 funding split — 70 percent for infrastructure, 30 percent for events and programs — with this year’s funding?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

D. Clovechok: These are the kinds of answers we like to hear. Let’s move it.

How many other communities is the minister deciding to allow into the program? Or is the minister thinking of considering that?

Hon. L. Popham: It’s the same 14.

D. Clovechok: Just so I’m clear on it, there are no other ones that are being considered at this time, to be added?

Hon. L. Popham: We’re in the process of reviewing that, but at this point, it’s just the 14.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much, Minister.

If it’s under review, are there any timelines that are associated with the potential addition of any new resort municipalities?

Hon. L. Popham: The timeline is the fall.

D. Clovechok: Will the addition of any new RMI communities have any impact on the existing dollars that are going to the existing RMIs?

Hon. L. Popham: It is in the process of being reviewed, and that would be part of next year’s budget allocation. So at this point, there is no answer.

D. Clovechok: Just to kind of push that one a little bit more, is there an anticipation, then, that if there are other communities added, it will change the funding formula so that the existing ones will get less than they’re getting now?

Let’s look at an anticipation of that happening — if it were to happen.

Hon. L. Popham: There will be options looked at over the next couple of months. The deadline, as I said, is in the fall. Then based on this review, new communities may join the program, but the discussion around any new allocations would happen for the next budget.

D. Clovechok: Did the ministry consult with Harrison Hot Springs about how the speculation tax would impact this community’s RMI funding?

Hon. L. Popham: We did consult with Harrison specifically around the RMI but not on the speculation tax.

[6:15 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Is there any reason why you didn’t?

Hon. L. Popham: We did not consult with any communities on the speculation tax. We did consultations on the RMI. The consultation on the speculation tax would have gone through the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: Just for members’ information, the Ministry of Finance budget estimates are currently occurring downstairs.

Back to the member.

Hon. L. Popham: You’re all going to leave me.

D. Clovechok: Oh, we’re not going anywhere.

Interjections.

The Chair: All right. We will be recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:16 p.m. to 6:21 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: We’re going to take a brief break, for today, anyway, on the RMI. We’ll come back to it tomorrow, but I’m going to pass this off to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague. To the minister, I just have a couple of questions — not very complicated. I’d like to know what the Tourism Minister is doing to support industry in removing the social housing regarding the MRDT and addressing other legislative gaps, such as businesses want to participate in the MRDT funding, but local governments in some instances have blocked this from happening. Does the minister have this on the docket? And if not, will the minister put this on the docket to make the necessary changes so that local governments cannot block industries that wish to participate in this?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The member, I’m sure, knows that the Cariboo region just got approved for having this. One of the requirements is that 51 percent of accommodators, representing 51 percent of accommodation units, must vote in favour of this tax. This requirement applies to the entire Cariboo region, not to individual communities within the region.

The Minister of Finance administers this tax. Any more questions would have to go through the Minister of Finance. But as it was just approved, I don’t see that it would be changed at this point.

D. Barnett: Well, I know it was just approved in the Cariboo regional district. But one of the municipalities would not pass a resolution that the tourism operators within one of the municipalities inside the Cariboo regional district…. They would not pass a resolution to support it. Therefore, that municipality and the tourism operators there could not opt in to the MRDT. What will the minister do to change the legislation to fix this?

Hon. L. Popham: I know the member understands this issue, but for other members who may not — and for me, as the acting minister, who’s trying to get it straight — you need the municipalities and the hoteliers to have an agreement. I don’t know why Quesnel is not part of it, but we will work with our stakeholders to allow the local government to understand why this is a good idea.

That being said, it is housed in the Ministry of Finance, so any changes that would have to happen would go through the Minister of Finance. But we would definitely be working with our stakeholders.

D. Barnett: Would the minister recommend to the Minister of Finance that this issue be resolved and that municipalities do not have the right to sign off if the operators are willing to do this on their own?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I understand what the member is saying. We do feel that this is a local, regional issue and would support and encourage the municipalities and the hoteliers to find an agreement.

Obviously, from our perspective, from the Ministry of Tourism, working together to benefit tourism in the area is something that we would support. Although it is a regional issue, we would absolutely be advocating with our tourism industry to display the benefits of having this agreement.

D. Barnett: Thank you for that. I will take that back to the industry.

Back to the 2017 wildfires. The Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association did an impact of 2017 wildfires on Cariboo-Chilcotin-Coast tourism businesses. Is the minister aware of this report, and is the minister prepared to assist with the loss of revenue and the recommendations that were put forward by the independent consultant?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member for bringing up the issue of the wildfires and what it’s going to take on the recovery side. She and I both understand the impacts that this has had and how devastating it was while the fires were continuing to rage through her region.

Those impacts and the recovery are not something that’s over because the season’s over. We will be going through recovery for a number of years, even as we approach another season, which may also be a fire season.

We’re aware of the report in this ministry. We’re aware of the recommendations. This ministry will be at the table as those recommendations are reviewed and, obviously, be advocating for strategies that bring people back into the region as far as the tourism goes.

The one thing that this ministry and the Agriculture Ministry have been in discussions about is the Buy B.C., Eat Drink Local campaign and how to highlight the restaurant industry through the Cariboo. Some of the Buy B.C. dollars and marketing dollars through the Ministry of Tourism are going towards making sure that we’re highlighting the restaurant industry but also the ranchers and the farmers that provide goods to the restaurant industry.

[6:35 p.m.]

Today it was B.C. Beef Day. We highlighted some of the cattlemen that are providing beef to the restaurant industry. We will be using that on social media and driving people there as much as we can.

D. Barnett: Minister, the four recommendations are…. Respondents indicated that the least important relief options would be operating permit payment deferrals, followed by communication payments deferrals and then business tax payment deferrals. But the three things that are very important, because the GDP loss from those fires was $63 million in the region…. The consultant came up with things that would help this industry, because it is going to be a long, long time before they ever get back to where they were, and many will close without help: direct financial aid, increased tourism marketing and property taxation relief.

Minister, is there anything within this package that they have recommended…? We don’t need to study it anymore. There are only two things that help business: they’re called customers and cash flow. How are we going to help get these people back being whole again?

Hon. L. Popham: I completely agree with the member that we need to get people up to the Cariboo. We need to get them visiting as part of the recovery.

[6:40 p.m.]

As the member will know, just specifically as an annual budget, the Cariboo region tourism association gets $676,000. Because of the wildfire situation and the focus from the ministry to market this destination post-fire, $200,000 was given specifically to post-fire marketing. Destination B.C. reallocated $1 million also, specifically around directing people up to these areas post-fire. We believe that those investments will create opportunities for people to go up and visit.

Part of the story that we have to tell as a province is that these areas were hard hit, but they’re amazing to visit — just making sure we remind people about the good things in those areas. That’s what’s going to drive people up there.

I already mentioned the restaurant strategy that we have. Restaurants being highlighted and using B.C. products on their menus is part of agritourism, and it’s critically important. We want people from urban B.C. to go up into rural B.C. so that they know where their food comes from and how amazing and how big our province is. So those dollars are specifically around that.

D. Barnett: To the minister, thank you. The $200,000 was given last September, and that has been utilized to try and promote the Cariboo-Chilcotin so we could survive through the winter. So I’m sure that that money was well spent. We now need more help to move forward.

The other concern I have…. I think it’s all and great. But how are we going to get them there, because of the price of gas? Is there going to be any assistance to the people trying to get to these remote areas, to support the tourism that is in such dire straits, because of the price of gas?

Hon. L. Popham: I am sympathetic to what the member is saying, but we don’t control the price of gas. As for subsidizing people for their gas bills to get to these places…. What we’re doing in the Ministry of Tourism is telling people why they need to go visit rural British Columbia and what it means to the communities in rural British Columbia, what it means to the families, when people drop in and they spend their dollars there. The more we can get that story out….

I have to tell the member that before I was an MLA, I hadn’t been into the Cariboo. Then I spent the first four years going into the Cariboo a lot and getting to learn about that area. It’s breathtaking, and I’ve been marketing it myself, personally, for years. I don’t know how much that’s worth, but I certainly tell a lot of good stories about not just the place but the people up there. I think we’ll continue to do that.

The Chair: Unless it’s short…. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, just noting the hour.

D. Barnett: Well, I guess we can note the hour and reserve my place to resume, or whatever I say, till tomorrow.

The Chair: Of course, absolutely. Thank you, Member.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:44 p.m.