Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 140
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: This morning members on both sides of the House had the opportunity to meet with members of the Health Sciences Association of British Columbia and celebrate the extraordinary work that they do. My colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions gave a very eloquent statement, and I spoke as well.
It’s my pleasure today to welcome the president of the HSA, Val Avery, and a number of members of the association who I’m going to list now. I’m not going to list them by profession, but I am going to have a long list, which is, if you know me very well, my favourite form of poetry, as well.
Of course, the president, Val Avery, is here. I’m going to introduce Nasim Ali Akbarli; Mandi Ayers; Marg Beddis; John Christopherson; Tammy Cranston; Anne Davis, also a member of the Island Heath board, and I thank her for her service; Jas Giddha; Cheryl Greenhalgh; Tonya Harford; Nancy Hay; Derrick Hoyt, who has a very, very good business card; Edith MacHattie; Alysone Martel; Janice Morrison; Jing Ng; Joe Sebastian; Brendan Shields; Easter Tocol, who is from my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway; and Trevor Whyte, who graces the front page, if you received it today, of the HSA pamphlet.
I personally have an autographed copy. If members would like to get a copy, they can either get it on eBay later today, or if they meet with Trevor, I invite them to get a copy then.
I hope all members will wish all of our friends from the Health Sciences Association welcome.
N. Letnick: I’d also like to echo the Minister of Health’s welcome to all the members of HSA, in particular Tammy Cranston, who is a constituent from Kelowna–Lake Country and a diagnostic neurophysiology technologist at Kelowna General Hospital, where she’s been working since 1988.
Would the House please make all of them welcome, in particular Tammy.
Hon. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to join the Minster of Health in welcoming HSA today, in particular Cheryl Greenhalgh, who works as a medical radiation technologist at Royal Columbian Hospital and who is secretary-treasurer of the HSA.
I just want to be clear that the Minister of Health spoke in poetry, and I spoke in prose.
Hon. S. Robinson: I have three co-op students who are here watching question period today. Two of them are working in the residential tenancy branch. William Eltherington is an undergraduate student in economics at the University of Victoria. Kate Fairley is an undergraduate student in political science at the University of Victoria as well. They are co-op students working with the residential tenancy branch, and they are working on projects related to the rental task force.
I also have Breeanna Jantzen joining us here today. She’s a master’s student in the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University, my alma mater. She is working on youth homelessness for the housing policy branch.
Would everyone please make them all welcome.
J. Thornthwaite: I have two guests from North Vancouver today. One is Alysone Martel, who is a fellow dietitian and was here at the HSA breakfast today. John Christopherson also works with the HSA, but his claim to fame, for me, is that he’s married to a very good friend of mine, Tricia Andrew. Could we please make them all welcome.
Hon. B. Ralston: Prominent among the HSA delegation is my wife, Miriam Sobrino. Very nice to see her here in Victoria, and I hope that the House will welcome her.
B. Stewart: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two people from Kelowna West that have been very active, since relocating to British Columbia from Alberta some 40-plus years ago, in investing and living and contributing to the community. Jim and Anne Edgson have driven here because they got the bug of watching QP on TV at home and they thought: “What better place to come and experience the real thing?” I want to welcome Jim and Anne here for their tour of the parliament today.
Hon. G. Heyman: I want to join in welcoming a constituent of mine, Joe Sebastian, who’s here with the Health Sciences Association delegation. He’s worked at Vancouver General since 2000 and is a board member representing 2,600 HSA members in Vancouver and Richmond.
It also gives me great pleasure to welcome 12 hard-working employees of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy here in Victoria — from the correspondence unit, Sara Nicoll, Siobhan Baird, Alicia Moreau, Lindsay Kliska; and from the information and record management team, Patricia Fortin, Jonathan Lokhorst, Vicki Desaulnier. The environmental protection division is represented by Vickie Jackson, Ashley Buttman and Jennifer Jonker; and from the deputy minister’s office, Karla Kennedy and Deborah Carroll.
I hope that the House will make them very, very welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the precinct someone who is a very good friend and a wonderful person. Her name is Tonya Harford. She’s a nuclear medicine technologist at Burnaby Hospital.
I would ask the House to make her most very welcome.
T. Redies: I’d like to welcome the daughter of a former constituent of mine, Michelle Di Tomaso, and her partner, Dr. Paula Gordon, who are with Dense Breasts Canada. They’re here today to speak to women about the particular challenges around dense breasts and breast cancer. Would the House please make Michelle and Paula welcome.
J. Isaacs: I would also like to introduce a guest this morning from HSA. Nasim Ali Akbarli is a constituent of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and is a member of the multidisciplinary health care team at Royal Columbian Hospital, where she has worked as a cytogenetic technologist since 2012. Please welcome Nasim and all of her guests.
B. Ma: I, too, have the pleasure of introducing Alysone Martel and John Christopherson from North Vancouver with the HSA. In particular, I’d like to say a few words about John, because he is a constituent in North Vancouver–Lonsdale and works as a social worker at the Vancouver cancer centre.
John is the HSA regional director for several specialized health care providers located in Metro Vancouver, including B.C. Cancer Agency facilities, Canadian Blood Services and B.C. Children’s and Women’s Hospital.
Would the House please join me in making them both feel very welcome.
Hon. K. Chen: Today is a very special day. First of all, I would like to wish a very young, talented and hard-working professional, my ministerial assistant Jasleen Arora, a very happy birthday.
Today is also Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank all of the child care professionals and providers in the sector, all of the dedicated staff from my office and all of the ministry staff who have worked so hard to roll out our government’s child care initiatives as we are committed to work together to build a better, more affordable and quality universal child care system in B.C. I would really like to thank all of them for their hard work and passion to support families and children in B.C.
D. Routley: Yesterday there were some guests in the House. They were meant to be introduced, but the introduction wasn’t made. I’d like to correct that today and welcome to the House, belatedly — of some of the most spectacular recreation boating — the protecting agency and servants of the province.
The president of the Boating B.C. Association, Don Prittie, is a lifetime recreational boating advocate and represents the recreational boating sector, which employs over 17,000 people across B.C. and contributes $2.2 billion to the provincial economy each year.
The government has proclaimed this week as B.C. Boating Week, and Don had joined us to celebrate the occasion as we head into the Victoria Day long weekend, the traditional kickoff of the B.C. boating season. This week the association is highlighting the significance of the recreational boating sector, showcasing the many opportunities for anyone to get on the water and reinforcing what it means to be a responsible boater.
Belatedly I’d like the House to help us welcome and thank Mr. Prittie and the organization he represents.
I’d also like to welcome to the House two very good friends from Nanaimo, Sandra Zuccolini-Larocque and her husband, Mike Larocque. I first met Sandra and Mike through an organization called SECA, the South End Community Association in Nanaimo, which does fantastic work in restoring and making once again a thriving neighbourhood where there were many challenges.
Sandra’s family goes back to the coal mining days in Nanaimo, and she’s been a loyal south Nanaimo public servant, really, for all of her life. She’s really been a volunteer and a dedicated person to all of the people around her. Currently they’re defending and fighting for the Morden mine, a provincial historical park, which is one of the finest examples of preserved history on Vancouver Island.
Can the House help me welcome and thank Sandra and Mike.
Hon. M. Mungall: Joining the delegation of the Health Sciences Association is Janice Morrison, who’s their vice-president and a constituent of mine, representing the members in the Kootenays. She’s also a city councillor. I ask that the House please make her very welcome.
L. Reid: Hon. colleagues, I’d like you to join with me in welcoming Antoinette De Wit to the gallery today. She penned many a missive on behalf of the government over the years as former director of the Premier’s correspondence branch. I’d ask the House to please make her very, very welcome.
S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is a dear friend, Laura West. When I first moved to Victoria nearly 30 years ago, I worked for Laura at Bagga Pasta in Fairfield. Laura was more than a boss; she was a friend and a mentor. I got to know her family very well — including Katie, who was at the time ten years old and now works in Minister Mungall’s office — and Laura’s husband, Ross.
I’m delighted to see Laura here today, and I want her to know that she was an important part of my journey to this House. She was always supportive, encouraging and someone I could rely on for guidance. Would the House please make her feel most welcome.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a friend from Smithers visiting today. She’s up in the gallery behind me — Mandi Ayers. She’s a lab technician at the Bulkley Valley District Hospital and a director on the Health Sciences Association board for region 10 and a good friend.
Mandi, I look forward to having a glass of wine with you next week when we’re both back in the constituency.
Would the members please make her welcome.
G. Kyllo: I’m proud today to have joining us a good friend from Sicamous, Joe McCulloch. Joe is the operations manager for the district of Sicamous. He moved from Glasgow about two years ago. He and his lovely wife Leanne and their three children — Millie, Holly and Angus — have really made Sicamous their home. We couldn’t be happier to have them with us.
Joining Joe today is his dad, Bobby. Bobby and Marie are also visiting, from Glasgow. Bobby, actually, is currently working at the Glasgow city council, teaching road safety to young school children. In his spare time, he enjoys riding his Springer Harley-Davidson. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Derrick Hoyt, a pathologist’s assistant at Royal Jubilee Hospital and a constituent in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Derrick is a board member of the HSA, who are visiting us here in the gallery today.
What people may not know is he’s also formerly known as the “Pride of Cranbrook.” While still active today as a coach and a judge, Derrick was a bronze medallist in the welterweight division in the 1978 Commonwealth Games and was a Canadian champion for two years in the light welterweight category.
Would the House please make him feel very welcome here today.
Hon. M. Mark: I, too, would like to welcome one of my constituents, a member of the Health Sciences Association, who’s visiting us in the gallery today. She is a social worker at Lions Gate Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital. She is on the board of directors and represents 3,000 members for the Lower Mainland. Would the House please welcome Nancy Hay to the chambers.
A. Kang: I also had the pleasure of meeting many members of the HSA over breakfast this morning and, also, of witnessing the Minister of Health’s spectacular poetic performance.
In particular, in the gallery today, I would like to recognize and welcome my good friend Jing Ng, a member of the HSA and a constituent of mine. Jing is a pharmacist at Burnaby General Hospital and is part of HSA’s steward team here today. I would like the House to make her feel very welcome.
J. Brar: I also would like to participate in a brief session of introductions. I would like to welcome Marg Beddis, who is a constituent of mine. She’s a dietitian. She has been working since 1991. She’s a good friend and exceptional supporter. I would ask the House to please make her feel welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST
HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA AND
BIPHOBIA
J. Thornthwaite: Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Created in 2004, it has become a rallying and mobilization point for the LGBTQ community across the globe. It is now celebrated in more than 130 countries, including 37 where same-sex acts are still illegal.
As activists around the world have said, this is not one central trademark brand, and everyone is free to communicate as they wish. It is a global celebration of sexual and gender diversities.
Out in Schools is a program that brings films into classrooms with the goal to engage youth, through film, in the promotion of safer and more inclusive learning environments, free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia and bullying. Their programs have not only been proven to reduce bullying for LGBTQ youth but also for non-LGBTQ youth in the entire school. Out in Schools has reached more than 100,000 youth across B.C. since its inception and continues to fight homophobia and transphobia across the province. Help them celebrate their 30th birthday on June 2.
I would also like to congratulate Andrea Yeo, a trail-blazer teacher at Seycove Secondary School in North Vancouver, for her ongoing work on SOGI policies as far back as 2006.
On this day, May 17, 2018, we congratulate ourselves on how far we’ve come but recognize that there is much more to do to increase tolerance and acceptance of all youth, no matter their sexual orientation, race, sex or religion.
J. Routledge: I, too, draw attention to the fact that today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. It was created in 2004 to draw attention to the violence and discrimination experienced by LGBTI people around the world. On May 17, we reflect on the alarming situation faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, and all those who do not conform to majority sexual and gender norms.
On this day, let’s think about the fact that there are 13 UN member states where people can still be put to death for participating in consensual same-sex activity. Let’s think about the fact that 19 percent of B.C. high school students do not identify as exclusively heterosexual, and they are seven times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth.
Why today? May 17 was the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. May 17 is a day of mobilization on a global scale, but it is also a day to celebrate.
I celebrate the fact that Svend Robinson, a graduate from Burnaby North Secondary and a Burnaby MP was the first Member of Parliament in Canadian history to come out as gay while in office.
I celebrate the fact that in spite of hateful emails and at least one death threat, the Burnaby school board unanimously approved an anti-homophobia policy in 2011.
I celebrate that sexual orientation and gender identity classroom policies and procedures have been proven to reduce discrimination, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts amongst all students.
In conclusion, May 17 is an acknowledgment that there is much more to do. I want to thank the brave activists who keep fighting for a better, more inclusive world.
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
L. Reid: I am delighted to rise today and talk about KPU, Kwantlen Polytechnic University — a special purpose teaching university located in Richmond. Teaching comes first; research, as resources allow, of especially applied research. This is experiential, real-world learning in every program.
They have an applied program mix, as per their polytechnic university mandate, which is unique in Canada. There is a strong access mandate with much student mobility.
Their mission reads as follows. KPU offers “all learners opportunities to achieve success in a diverse range of programs that blend the theory and practice, critical understanding and social and ethical awareness necessary for good citizenship and rewarding careers.”
I am proud of this university and its programs, which span seven faculties: arts, business, health, science and horticulture, trades and technology, and academic and career advancement.
The faculty of design has a new home in the Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design. It has been a joy to see that building grow from the design phase through opening day in January of this year.
Heartfelt congratulations to all involved in bringing the very best programming to our students. I believe the best social program in the world is a job, and you can’t help but get the best start at a B.C. post-secondary institution.
TAE KWON DO TOURNAMENT
AND
FESTIVAL
A. Kang: Annyeonghaseyo. Did you know that it wasn’t until the 1940s that tae kwon do emerged as a martial art? On Saturday, May 19, the B.C. Taekwondo Federation and the consul general of the Republic of Korea will co-host the second Consul General Cup and Taekwondo Festival.
Tae kwon do is a sport that was once Seoul-y practised in Korea but has since grown to be become a world-recognized Olympic sport. Tae kwon do requires discipline and self-control, and it teaches the importance of living a healthy and balanced lifestyle.
It is so popular that it even has worldwide appeal, featured in big screen TV or movies, starring actors like Jean-Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan. Just within British Columbia, there are approximately 100 tae kwon do schools and 20,000 athletes currently practising tae kwon do. The B.C. Taekwondo Federation is the only tae kwon do association in B.C. hosting a membership of over 15,000 people.
The second Consul General Cup will be taking place at the Richmond Curling Club, with an expectation of approximately 1,000 in attendance. There will also be five age categories and three divisions, including poomsae, board-breaking and sparring.
This is an event that will be sure to provide family entertainment for everyone. Not only will the festival feature Korean culture, art, food, tourism and exhibition booths, one of the objectives of this festival is to support cultural exchange, promote interaction between local residents and the Korean-Canadian communities in B.C. as well as enhance the understanding of two countries and strengthen our relationships.
A special thanks goes out to my very good friend, the consul general of the Republic of Korea, Gunn Kim, for all his hard work and co-hosting this event. Good luck to all of the competitors this weekend.
SHARED BUSINESS SERVICES
INITIATIVE ON SALTSPRING
ISLAND
A. Olsen: Anyone who has enjoyed the world-famous Saltspring Island Cheese, Saltspring Wild Cider or Saltspring Soapworks, all produced on Saltspring Island, can attest to the quality and ingenuity of the island’s business owners and artisans. Without these businesses, their competition and the risk-taking entrepreneurs behind them, the island as we know it could not exist.
Two locals are using their knowledge and time to give back. Holly MacDonald and Francine Carlin of the Salt Spring Island Community Economic Development Commission are volunteer commissioners who have a vision for how small businesses and non-profits could band together to increase efficiency.
Recently they won a rural dividend grant to explore what a shared business service would look like on Saltspring Island. This service could take on the administrative work of many organizations, leaving time for the farmers, potters, weavers and knitters of Saltspring to focus on what they do best — contributing to the vibrant and diverse marketplace of the island.
A major aspect of the island’s charm is the selection of unique businesses, which, in many cases, are run by families who simply love what they do. Getting the support they need to prosper and prospering on an island isn’t always easy, but with the help of provincial funding, Holly and Francine would help provide access to IT, marketing and hiring services that are often out of reach for a small business. A shared business services plan also allows for the development of a cohesive ecosystem, providing the longevity and sustainability of Saltspring business.
I’m so inspired by the work of Holly and Francine to create models which allow for local businesses to flourish, and I’m very pleased that the government has agreed to fund this initiative and look forward to seeing the benefits that everyone experiences when innovative ideas are supported by the province.
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
S. Chandra Herbert: Well, today I want to invite all members of this House and everyone across B.C. to celebrate Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. Join me in giving a big, big thank-you to all those who are ensuring that our province’s babies, toddlers, kids, little ones, rug rats — whatever you want to call them — are well taken care of.
It’s hard work raising kids, whether you’d be staying at home to take on this work — and it is work — or working as a professional child care provider. It’s critical work, and it is in much demand. I want to give them all a huge thanks, with a special thanks to my husband, Romi, for looking after my little one, Dev, at home.
Child care providers help shape young lives in truly remarkable ways. Every day they make a true difference to the future growth of our children and our province, and we know parents across B.C. value and depend on this critical work. The passion and dedication shown by these workers is truly an inspiration, and I know any member that visits a child care centre will find this to be true each and every day of the week.
Words are one thing, and thanks are hugely important. Action is another, to truly embody the thanks that we give them. I know many members will have met with child care providers, will have met with parents looking for child care and know the challenge and stress that this can cause.
To truly appreciate our child care providers, I believe we need to act on what they and the parents who rely on them are telling us. They tell me that the recent investments in child care are helping. As one child care provider told me: “It feels like we’ve finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel. We’re finally being heard.” As one parent told me: “Keep going. We need more affordable child care and great people, very importantly, to run it.”
One child care provider put it to me really succinctly. In order to have good child care, you need good people with good training and good wages to support them to do that work. I agree with her completely, and clearly there is work to be done.
We need more child care providers. We’re working on it, but today I just want to give huge thanks to them for their truly inspirational work. Thank you on behalf of all legislatures and all British Columbians.
Oral Questions
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
J. Thornthwaite: As families head into the long weekend, gas prices are up more than 32 cents per litre from this time last year.
On March 21, the Premier said: “We are monitoring gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a range of options, and we will look at those options should prices remain high.”
This government has options to provide temporary tax relief. Will the Minister of Energy give British Columbians a break at the pump?
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the sincerity of the member’s question. All of us in this House are hearing from our constituents — very, very concerned as we go into the travelling months, the summer months here in British Columbia. Gas prices are unacceptably high. Unfortunately, this is happening right across North America. It’s critically important here in British Columbia and higher than any other part of the continent. We also have to keep in mind that the challenge is one of supply and demand. The Leader of the Opposition has said as much. I agree with him.
If there is evidence of collusion, if there is evidence of price gouging, we certainly want to hear about that from the members of the opposition or the travelling public. We’re doing our due diligence to make sure that the industry is providing the lowest costs possible for consumers as we go into the summer months.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: British Columbians are paying the highest gas prices of anywhere across North America. Hard-working people in this province pay enough and deserve a break at the pumps. The Premier said, “We will take steps if necessary,” but he hasn’t done a thing except pick fights over pipelines and increase taxes.
This minister has options, as the Premier admitted two months ago. Why isn’t she acting?
Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the passion and enthusiasm of the question was more partisan than worrying about the concerns of British Columbians, but I’ll take it as it was delivered in the first question and respond again and say that I agree with the member. I think all members understand that the costs are unacceptably high for the travelling public at this time. As a free market party, or an alleged free market party, on the other side, they would understand that prices rise when supply is diminished, and supply has been diminished because of cutbacks at the Parkland refinery, the last refinery in the Lower Mainland, and our inability to bring on new sources of supply to meet increasing demand.
The government on this side of the House has been doing our level best to address affordability issues. The travelling public, for example, no longer has to pay the only tolls that were put in place by that side of the House. Whether they’re crossing the Port Mann Bridge, whether they’re crossing the Golden Ears Bridge, they no longer have to pay B.C. Liberal tolls.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a second supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: On May 7, 2007, this now Premier said: “…consumers have had enough. They’re fed up. They’re being gouged. They’re being hosed at the pumps, and they want their legislators to do something about it.” That’s from this Premier. Well, the Premier and the minister can now do something about it, like temporarily reduce the provincial motor fuel tax or even the carbon tax.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
J. Thornthwaite: The Premier could actually do something about it. He could temporarily reduce the motor vehicle tax or the carbon tax. Why doesn’t this Premier do something to help British Columbians in affordability instead of hosing people at the pumps?
Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the member from North Vancouver hasn’t heard the memo from the Leader of the Official Opposition, who said just a couple of weeks ago: “I do not see a need to change the carbon tax policy at this point.” In the very same interview, the Leader of the Opposition said: “I think it’s fair to say that the provincial government has a limited role in this, because gasoline taxes have been set for a long time.”
Although we do not believe that at this time there are many options available to us, we have asked our deputy ministers to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect the travelling public. We have, for example, cut in half medical services premiums, putting another $900 in the pockets of individuals and $1,800 in the pockets of families. Affordability is our focus.
Again, I appreciate that when you leave the government side and you travel across the floor the distance of 12 or so feet, the passion about free market economics seems to disappear. Instead, those who said, “We can’t get involved in the economy,” are now saying: “Why aren’t you getting involved in the economy?”
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES
D. Clovechok: Well, from the Premier, that’s interesting rhetoric. The Premier knows that he could give British Columbians a break. He has the ability to do that, but he doesn’t care.
He has known from day one that he cannot block the Trans Mountain expansion. He knows that. But again, he doesn’t care and continues to pick fights with other Canadians. The hike in gas prices that we are seeing now is only the beginning.
How high do these prices have to go before this Energy Minister does something to help British Columbians?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m surprised that the free market party on the other side doesn’t understand the difference between…. A pipeline proposal that is designed to move diluted bitumen and export it to other jurisdictions has zero — zero — to do with the cost of gas in British Columbia.
Rather than pick fights with other Canadians, I have been doing quite the opposite. Since we formed government….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, may we hear the response.
Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Since we formed government, we have been working in the courts following the rule of law. We enjoined two court cases that were already underway, and we entered a third one at the request of the government of Alberta, who said they felt that our attempt to put in place a regulation to protect the interests of British Columbia, to defend our coast, was going to be counter to constitutionality.
We said: “Let’s go and ask someone about that. Let’s go to the top. Let’s go to the Supreme Court.” The federal government said: “No, no, no, we don’t want to test our jurisdiction, because we might not have it.”
Now we find ourselves in the B.C. Court of Appeal, following the rule of law, doing what civilized people do, asking a third party to determine whether we have the jurisdiction to protect and defend the interests of British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.
D. Clovechok: Wow, what a whopper that was. How disempowering it must be, Mr. Speaker, for a question to be asked to a minister and not to be able to answer that question.
Today 100 B.C. businesses and Indigenous, labour and community leaders are flying to Alberta to express their support for the Trans Mountain expansion. They’re fighting for working British Columbians. High gas prices are a serious concern for thousands of British Columbians who can’t afford to keep paying more to gas up their cars, to buy groceries and to pay for other basic necessities.
The question to the Energy Minister: when will this government stop blocking an already approved pipeline and instead do something about the prices of British Columbians’ gas — I know you’re excited to get up, sir — being hosed at the pumps?
Hon. J. Horgan: I didn’t mean to interrupt the member’s rant. I apologize for standing and throwing him off his game.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, hon. Speaker, then why don’t we talk about an economist at the University of Calgary, which, last time I checked, was not in British Columbia but was in Alberta. This economist, Blake Shaffer, said that the reality is nothing to do with the pipeline. This is a normal operations…. It’s a supply issue, not a transportation issue.
The question around gas prices. If there is collusion, if there is gouging, we want to get to the bottom of it. But the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the group of free market advocates on that side of the House, said that he didn’t believe that the carbon tax was having an impact at this time. He also said that other taxes have been in place for a long, long time.
I appreciate that some members want to be in one place and other members want to be in another place. I guess that’s the luxury of opposition. On this side, we stand up to defend the coast and the interests of British Columbians.
CLOSING OF WAVEFRONT AND
SUPPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESSES
S. Furstenau: A few days ago news broke that Wavefront, a Vancouver-based incubator, ceased operations.
Wavefront plays a crucial role in supporting the growth of B.C.’s tech sector, one of the fastest-growing sectors in our economy. It helps get economies from the lab bench to the assembly line, and it supports companies across their life cycle. This is particularly impactful on businesses like VIATeC or Accelerate Okanagan, who themselves saw funding from Wavefront and used it to help local businesses. As a result, scores of B.C.-based companies in the start-up and growth phases are facing a more uncertain future.
My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Is the province aware of what has occurred with Wavefront? What steps has it taken to mitigate the impacts on B.C.’s tech sector?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the House Leader of the Third Party for her question. We are naturally disappointed that Wavefront shut its doors just last Friday. Full details of the reasons for that are still emerging, and it is disappointing for the tech sector in British Columbia.
This Vancouver-based agency, largely funded by the federal government, helped mobile and Internet of things companies go through the stage from start-up to scale-up and then, through the network of mobile providers that they had access to, encouraged them to grow. They helped over 100 companies test their applications and products so that they could expand and create good jobs in British Columbia.
The ministry is working with Innovate B.C. and the B.C. Tech Association to ensure that the cohort, those who entered in a group this spring, will be placed elsewhere and not lose the time and the commitment they’ve made to the projects that they have underway.
The world is moving to mobile. The projected demand for mobile…. Revenue is huge, and we want to make sure that British Columbia is a big part of that going forward.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate the answer from the minister about whom he’s working with.
Wavefront has been receiving federal funding, as he pointed out, and there’s potentially half a million dollars of federal money that is at risk unless action is taken. This is funding that has been useful to benefit tech companies in B.C. We can’t let this funding stream disappear. What this makes more clear than ever is that we need to ensure that funding that flows into B.C. is supporting sustainable and robust programming. This will minimize the impact on companies and the people they employ.
My question is, again, to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. What are we doing to make sure that the federal funding for this project is secure and that the impacts on start-ups are limited?
Hon. B. Ralston: Naturally, I want to express my disappointment, again, that Wavefront has shut its doors. We are working with those companies to find them new homes — the cohort of spring 2018.
It is an accelerator. There is an accelerator network that was a federally funded accelerator, through a federal program. There is a network of accelerators across the province that do great work in helping companies start up and scale up to create good jobs for people across the province. This is a responsibility of my ministry, and we are working with the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development — that’s the federal ministry — to make sure that the concerns that the member raises are addressed.
This is a great week, though — I think it’s important to mention — for technology in British Columbia. We just hosted the tech conference over in Vancouver. The Premier gave a rousing speech, expressing the strong support of this government for the tech sector and all the prosperity and jobs it can bring to not only the region of the Lower Mainland but throughout the province. The tech sector has a bright future, and we’re right behind it.
USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION
MINISTER AND
RESPONSE TO
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST
S. Bond: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education told the media that all her emails are kept by the office of her deputy minister. But she also said: “Any time a search comes through, I hand over my devices to staff.”
Let’s think about this for a minute. This is a minister of the Crown who said she has been briefed and understands her FOI responsibility, yet this explanation from the minister makes absolutely no sense.
To the Minister of Advanced Education, why on earth would she hand over her devices if that wasn’t where her records were being kept?
Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. This is an important issue. People want us, as elected officials, to live up to a high standard, and I hold myself to a high standard.
Yesterday we triple-checked my devices. On the February request for sent records, we found three sent emails from February that should have been provided. I have copies, and I’m happy to share them today. I’ve asked my team to take a proactive look at all other FOI requests from my office to ensure that we are always being comprehensive. I’d be happy to provide an update as soon as that is complete.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: We appreciate the minister standing in the House today and reminding us that, frankly, she had to be dragged screaming and kicking to the place where she was able to present some emails.
Let’s review what happened. First it was the minister responsible for FOI who made an apology, because she actually didn’t follow the rules, and today it’s this minister. So let’s remember exactly what happened.
This minister was asked for all of her emails, all of her text messages, and as we discovered, not one single record was returned. Today we actually hear: “Well, now there are three.” As we recall from the Minister of Citizens’ Services, she told us that there was one or two, and they were social media–related. We found out that was not accurate.
To the minister, it is time that she provides complete clarity. We want to know where all of the minister’s emails were, whether they were on her devices. If they were, she should release all of them and make sure that there are just three, as she’s made an apology for today. This minister has absolutely stood in this House and said: “No, I did everything properly. And by the way, now — oops — there were three.” Well, it’s time for the minister to stand up and to apologize to this House and to British Columbians for not following the rules that are expected of her as a minister of the Crown.
Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the opportunity to stand in these chambers as the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Training.
The point of question period for the members and the people, the residents who are at home watching, is to hold government to a high standard. I’m happy to provide the details of the three emails. All three emails are media clips or information bulletins. I recognize that we can’t show exhibit A, B or C, but they’re right here. All three emails are right here.
I’m happy to explain the three emails. One email forwarded a media clip of the Leader of the Opposition, who was my predecessor. One email sent information on the January labour force survey to remind myself, as a reminder. And an email forwarded a clip of the Premier to staff, saying I liked a line that he used in a speech.
As I said, I have copies, and I’m happy to share them today in the chambers. I’ve also asked my team…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. M. Mark: …to take a proactive look at all other responses to FOI requests from my office to ensure that we were comprehensive.
It’s important to follow the rules and best practices to ensure that they’re followed, and I continue to do so.
M. Hunt: Yesterday the Minister of Citizen’s Services said: “Each ministry works differently, and practices and procedures could vary.”
All the more reason why we need to hear the proper explanation from the Minister of Advanced Education on what the procedures are in her office. If the procedures have changed, we would like to ask the minister to please tell this House how the procedures are different in her office.
Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. Government information management policy is very clear. Some records need to be retained, and some are transitory and should be disposed of. The emails we delete are transitory. For example, I don’t think the public is interested in my travel arrangements to ensure that I have child care for my two daughters. That’s what I use my email for. It’s transitory. Or when we schedule meetings.
I think people at home and across British Columbia are more interested in knowing how we make decisions that impact them. Those are the records that are retained at the deputy minister’s office.
I’m happy to talk about adult basic education, a decision that we made when we formed government. I’m happy to talk about the 2,900 tech seats or what we did to open doors for former youth in care. But that’s not the question.
G. Kyllo: The excuses made by this government just don’t pass the smell test. Deputy ministers’ offices do not keep everyday emails of their ministers. But even if they did, this is irrelevant. The emails of the Minister of Advanced Education should have been released regardless of where they’re kept.
The minister stands in this House and indicates that during the entire month of February, there were three emails. For a minister of the Crown, the level of work that is being undertaken by the ministry…. I think British Columbians would like to know just what level of work is actually being undertaken by the Minister of Advanced Education.
Hon. J. Horgan: I think the partisanship is in the body of the question. Everyday emails are transitory. Decisions by government must be documented, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.
When we formed government, I set a very high standard. I am disappointed that we are not always meeting that standard, but I remain committed to ensuring that we’re doing our level best as a government to be open, to be transparent, to do due diligence and to have best practices when it comes to freedom of information.
This notion that because there were only three emails people aren’t working…. The Minister of Finance in the former government stood proudly in this place and said: “I don’t even know how to send an email.” At the time, there was an uproar about it, but the member is very capable. He is one of the longest-serving members in this House. I have a high regard for him. The fact that he doesn’t care to send emails does not diminish the work that he does or his commitment to British Columbia.
This notion that the Minister of Advanced Education is documenting decisions in an appropriate manner with her deputy minister, so the public can have that information, is wholly appropriate, and I applaud it.
GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING
POLICIES AND USE OF EMAIL
BY MINISTERS AND STAFF
M. Polak: I have with me, from the government records service transitory records guide, examples of non-transitory records. In fact, it does include the kinds of things that ministers would send in everyday emails.
For example, one that the minister just gave us. She said nobody would really be interested in her scheduling a meeting. What do I find here? Work schedules are part of what you are supposed to retain and provide for FOI. Assignments are what you’re supposed to provide. Directions to change a proposal. Directions to recommend a different course of action. Directives, instructions, advice.
In a $5 billion ministry, the idea that there are only three records…. Of course, now we hear that the minister didn’t understand that things like work schedules and assignments are part of what is supposed to be retained.
I will give the minister some free advice — that she ought to do more than a triple-check of her emails. I will say that the minister in charge of Citizens’ Services better take a look at how all ministers are handling their emails, because they are not, clearly, aware of what is non-transitory.
Will the Minister of Citizens’ Services investigate and report back to this House on the practices that are taking place in all ministries?
Hon. J. Horgan: I would put triple checking against triple deleting any day of the week.
I take this very seriously. All members of this House should take this very seriously. I have asked my deputy minister to ensure that best practices are being used across government. I have asked him to ensure that if training has been inappropriate, better training be put in place. If people aren’t getting the gist of the program, we’re going to have to find a better way to get through to them.
This is serious. I’m not diminishing the member’s question. But the notion that people on that side of the House, who deliberately went into servers once, twice, three times to eliminate records…. To compare that to a new minister who says, “You need to know where I’m getting my child care,” is preposterous.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
M. Polak: The fact of the matter is that the story in this House has continued to change. It was just yesterday that the Minister of Citizens’ Services repeatedly told us that these messages from the minister’s email were kept in the deputy minister’s office. That’s ridiculous. The only messages they keep are the formal exchanges that take place on decision notes. They don’t keep all the sent items of the minister. If the other side doesn’t understand that, which they don’t seem to, we are in real trouble.
This went further, to the minister first saying that there were no records in an FOI response, then saying that she had them in drop-down folders. I can appreciate that the Deputy Minister to the Premier is conducting an investigation, searching out what’s on servers for the systematic deletion that took place in his office, but I’m not seeing similar action being taken by this Minister of Citizens’ Services with respect to ministers.
Why doesn’t the minister reinstate the policy that requires all ministers and ministerial staff to keep their sent items?
Hon. J. Horgan: It’s delightful that the member reminds us of the Hail Mary pass that the previous government threw out after an investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which found that there was a systematic attempt to delete and eradicate records, not an inability to find records but a deliberate attempt to eradicate records.
The government of the day said: “I’ve got a good idea. Let’s tell everyone to hold on to their sent emails.” That’s not best practices. That’s desperation.
I’ve asked my deputy minister to make sure that we have best practices across government, that transitory documents are well understood and that they’re not retained because there’s a consequence to retaining too much information. It costs money. That’s the whole point of managing records.
If the people on that side of the House had not been spending 16 years trying to hide from their record instead of trying to demonstrate their record to the public, they might still be on this side of the House.
USE OF EMAIL BY
PREMIER’S OFFICE
STAFF
L. Throness: The Deputy Minister to the Premier has admitted that employees in the Premier’s office mishandled electronic records. It’s unusual for a deputy minister to admit this and even more unusual that senior staff would delete every sent email for several months without being told to do so. So someone is responsible for this.
Who in the Premier’s office ordered senior staff to delete all sent emails?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m responsible. I’m responsible for what goes on in this government, and I take full responsibility for not meeting the test that I set for us as a government when we were sworn in, in July. It’s important, not just to me and the people on this side of the House but to British Columbians, that when we say we’re going to do something, we follow through on it.
The deputy minister in my office is ensuring that best practices are being observed with my staff. I expect that, and in fact, it’s going to happen.
I look forward to the questions coming back from the other side of the House a week’s time from today, where I can have more information to provide to them at that time.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Bill M216. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. In Committee C, the Birch Room, we call the continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL M216 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.
A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for recognizing me here. It gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak to Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. I’m particularly excited about this bill and the fact that we’re debating it at second reading, as it is a bill that my office and I worked on quite extensively to bring to fruition over the past several….
Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, Member. Kindly move second reading.
A. Weaver: I do apologize, hon. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Please continue.
A. Weaver: Let me start again. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. As I said, I’m particularly excited to be debating this bill, as it’s a bill that my office and I have worked on to bring to fruition for the past number of months.
We took the Attorney General up on his offer of legislative drafting services that all opposition members have been granted. We did this a few months ago. We are very grateful to the Attorney General for bringing in this new approach to politics here in the province of British Columbia. It’s very refreshing, and it allows us to ensure, when we bring legislation or amendments forward, that it’s done so in a manner that ensures that it’s legally enforceable and works within existing B.C. laws.
As you will see in going through this legislation, it’s a very, very complex piece that has many, many required changes in other sections in order for it to be enacted here in British Columbia. We could not have done that without the services of the legislative drafter. Again, we are very grateful to government for doing that. I think it bodes very well for this government as we move forward in the years ahead.
I’m glad to see it receiving second reading, and I’m hopeful that all members of this House can debate this bill in an earnest way as they consider the merits of supporting or not supporting it. What this bill does…. This is what I’d like to address to begin with. I want to spend a few minutes canvassing this. This bill adds a new part to the Business Corporations Act enabling companies to register as benefit companies.
This legislation is intended to encourage the adoption of business forms that have an expanded social and environmental mission, to provide a legal framework that supports and protects businesses that choose to take on this broadened mandate and to ensure that there is adequate transparency and accountability that benefit companies must adhere to.
This framework would provide greater certainty for companies and their investors as to the mandate of their directors and nature of the company. This bill is intended to be complementary to the existing community contribution company legislation passed by the previous government. The C3, as it’s called, framework is a model for social enterprise and is particularly useful for non-profits and charities who need a way to raise revenue.
However, we’ve heard loud and clear that it is too limiting for most for-profit companies to consider, so it’s been limited in its adoption here in the province of British Columbia. I’ll speak to the differences between these pieces of the legislation in greater detail in a few minutes.
In the present legislation, there are two key components to it. No. 1: there are requirements that companies must adhere to if they want to become benefit companies. No. 2: protections are in place that we include for these companies. I’ll canvass both of those briefly here.
First, benefit companies must commit to conducting their business in an environmentally, socially responsible and sustainable manner, which takes into account the well-being of persons affected by their conduct and endeavours to use a fair and proportionate share of available environmental, social and economic resources and capacities. They must also pursue one or more specific public benefits. They must set out their purposes in their articles, including specifying the public benefits the company is promoting.
Second, benefit companies must report their performance against a third-party standard, which must be developed by a person or entity that is unrelated to the benefit company. The reporting must be done annually and must be made publicly accessible. This is important to ensure transparency for suppliers, purchasers and customers that the company is indeed living up to its stated goals.
Companies incorporating for the first time as benefit companies must have the words “benefit company” or “B.Co.” as part of their name. Companies that alter their articles to become benefit companies do not need to change their name.
This bill also provides continuity and greater certainty for companies established with a broader mission. A company can only become or cease to be a benefit company if shareholders authorize it by a special resolution that requires at least a two-thirds shareholder majority.
The choice to become a benefit corporation is completely voluntary and has no impact on other existing corporations, corporate forms, taxes or government regulation. There are no financial benefits, and benefit companies are taxed at the regular corporate tax rate.
This legislation also includes important requirements and legal protections for directors and officers of benefit companies. It requires that directors and officers of a benefit company act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the persons materially affected by the company’s conduct. This bill requires that directors balance this broader requirement with the existing duty, already enshrined in corporate law, which specifies they act in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company.
It also includes key legal protections for directors. It clarifies that only shareholders can bring a challenge against a director. Their broader duties to public benefits do not open them up to broader liabilities, which is very important. It also specifies that shareholders may only seek injunctive relief against a director under this part, not monetary damages.
Why do we need this legislation in B.C.? First of all, I think it’s important, at this stage, to recognize the initiative of the previous government, and particularly the member for Surrey–White Rock at the time, Gordie Hogg, who brought forward and championed the community contribution company legislation in 2012. However, I view benefit company legislation and the C3 legislation as being complementary ways for government to support social enterprise and mission-driven companies.
The C3 structure provides a useful tool for non-profits and charities that need a way to raise revenue, but we’ve heard that it is far too limiting for most for-profit companies to consider. To become a C3, companies would have to fundamentally change their corporate structure and reduce their ability to attract investment. For example, the so-called asset lock for C3s limits the dividends a C3 can pay to its shareholders, and this cap is 40 percent of annual profits. Moreover, in cases of C3 dissolution, the majority of assets remaining after debts are settled must flow to a qualified entity, such as a charity or a cooperative.
I would fully support efforts of this government to build upon the work started by the previous administration to support C3s, including promoting the C3 brand, enhancing public knowledge of these types of companies and providing tax incentives and benefits for investments in C3s. But the restrictions on C3s mean that the majority of mainstream businesses, even those that have a social and environmental mission at their core, wouldn’t consider this structure.
We should provide another option for sustainable and responsible businesses in B.C. We’ve heard from many in the social impact space, including a number of businesses that chose to prioritize social and environmental benefits in addition to profit, about the important role that a benefit company legislation would play in growing this movement and supporting the work already underway across B.C.
It’s true that directors of companies in Canada already have more discretion to pursue a broader mandate beyond maximizing shareholder profits than they do in the United States. However, a number of issues arise for companies that try to embed this broader mandate in practice, since we lack a legal framework that explicitly supports these types of businesses.
For example, this legislation would provide clarity for directors and for shareholders about the mandate of the company. It would help directors avoid the risk of a shareholder challenge regarding the director’s duties to the company. And it would take the uncertainty out of the process of embedding a broader mandate within your articles.
It would provide certainty for impact investors looking to invest in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of the company. It would enable companies to attract capital while enabling them to stay true to their mission and protect the vision of the company’s founders as their company grows.
One concern we’ve heard over and over again is that as companies grow and new investors come on board or as founders consider secession planning, they are worried about losing their company’s initial mission. This legislation would provide greater protections for the original mission of a business. Moreover, this legislation would provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially recognized.
If B.C. had this legislation on the books, if companies were able to incorporate as benefit companies with an explicit social or environmental benefit baked right into their articles, it would send a strong signal that government supports this approach to business. We would encourage more companies to pursue a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable approach, creating beneficial outcomes for society as a whole. We can better leverage the power of the private sector to help us tackle the significant social and environmental challenges we face.
To conclude, this legislation is an opportunity for British Columbia to lead the nation in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges facing the 21st century.
This legislation is common elsewhere in the world. In the United States, for example, over 30 states have passed this type of legislation. Countries in Europe and South America already have it on the books or are actively considering it. Successful companies of all sizes have signed on, both here voluntarily and elsewhere through the legal approach that’s been provided to them.
I believe that becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit companies is an enormous opportunity to position the province as a leader in the new economy. B.C. is home to many socially responsible companies. It’s part of our stellar brand as one of the greenest and greatest places in the world to live.
But we are struggling to adjust and respond to massive technological, social and environmental shifts that the world is facing, from climate change to automation. We need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities that we lead in the development of solutions for.
Government and the non-profit sector cannot respond to these changes alone, nor should they have to. For-profit businesses have a huge role to play in our society. They are part of the solution and will continue to be so moving forward.
The companies that pursue a triple-bottom-line approach are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of businesses in the 21st century. They know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for not only this generation but also the next and the subsequent generations thereafter.
Our hope is that if other members in this House support this bill, we can play our part in supporting this growing movement internationally. We can encourage more B.C. companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business articles, empowering them to promote change in our province and helping us, collectively, solve the challenge that we all face.
Hon. S. Simpson: I want to thank the Third Party, the Green caucus, for bringing forward Bill M216, the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018.
This is a particular area of interest to me. My background, before coming to this place, included a significant amount of work in the area of community-based economic development and looking at how business and economic development opportunities build communities in ways that are greater than simply the bottom line of the particular corporate interest.
I also am very interested in these initiatives in the work that I do now: the work around social innovation, looking at social enterprise, social innovation and tools and ways that we bring all sectors and components of society forward to be able to start to deal with the complex issues that we face in society today, with the clear understanding that we have an obligation to all be working together to meet those social, environmental, cultural objectives. If we’re fine looking for tools to be able to do that, I am interested, certainly, in this piece of legislation adding another tool to that process.
I’ve had the opportunity over the last number of months, as I’ve been doing work on the Poverty Reduction file and building that plan, to have discussions with the business community and with others about the role that business plays in addressing those issues. It’s one component that the previous speaker, the Leader of the Third Party, spoke about in introducing this legislation.
Those consultations have included a business round table. We brought leaders from many business sectors together to talk about these objectives, about how we improve employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, about how business makes a meaningful contribution to support the reduction in inequality that we see in British Columbia — all, I would note, with a significant amount of enthusiasm on the part of those business sectors. They’ve looked for ways to accomplish that, and they’ve supported and talked about innovative ways that they can support those efforts.
I’ve also had the opportunity very recently to do a tour of social innovation and social enterprise in the Downtown Eastside. It was very instructive. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of businesses that are supporting non-profit partners. They are owned or wholly owned subsidiaries of non-profits that are, in fact, being able to create employment opportunities, create training opportunities and generate some levels of revenue to support important non-profit initiatives in that community.
All of those are businesses that are needing to compete in the business community, to go out and find ways to be successful as an enterprise, and look at the way they take, in those cases, the significant amount of their profit and return it back to the community. That’s an important and essential tool, I believe.
This particular piece of legislation is complementary to that work. It’s not the same, but it is complementary in the way that it talks about the creation of these companies that would allow these benefit companies, certainly, as a private market company, to make those commitments around contributions into the community, whether those are social, environmental or cultural contributions.
That is part of the mandate of the company, because they’ve made the conscious decision to do that and to be identified as a benefit company that has that commitment in their mandate. I think that that’s a worthwhile and valuable enterprise.
The other thing, in the conversations I’ve had…. And I’ve had the opportunities to have pretty extensive conversations with the Business Council of B.C. Members here who have looked at their work over the last number of years will know the work and the initiatives that they’ve advanced around shared prosperity. We’ve seen the Business Council move forward. They’ve put out documents about their view and their vision of shared prosperity, what that might look like.
I’ve met with the B.C. chamber and had very similar conversations with leaders of the B.C. chamber. They have echoed the Business Council in terms of their commitment and their interest in this view of shared prosperity and reduction of inequality. It’s an acknowledgment and recognition that the business community is increasingly viewing itself as having a broader responsibility than simply the bottom line or the shareholders’ return — their responsibility as part of the solution to the complex issues that we face in our communities every day. I’m very appreciative of that.
I’ve received very good advice from both of those business organizations and from other business leaders about how to approach those, as we look at, in the case of the work that I’m doing, poverty reduction, not just as a social good but as a tool for economic renewal as well. This particular piece of legislation, I think, begins to add to the opportunities to address that.
As the previous speaker said, there is a law on the books right now — the community contribution company, the 3Cs — that was brought forward a number of years ago. It does provide very much a tool and an avenue for the structuring of businesses that have a very focused commitment to that social innovation, to social enterprise. It affords them the opportunity to go in that direction.
As the previous speaker said, this particular initiative brought forward by the Green caucus, M216, is a different vehicle. It’s a different tool. I think that the previous speaker is quite correct when he says it’s a complementary tool to the 3C model.
It does afford those companies that still continue to view themselves as market-based, profit-based companies in a more traditional or conventional way to, in fact, be able to say: “That’s what we are, but we recognize our broader obligations and responsibilities, and we embrace those. We do that in the mandate of our business by making these commitments to go further or to be more diverse in what we see as our responsibilities over and above directly a return on investment to our investors or our shareholders.” I think it provides a very interesting tool to be able to do that.
I’m certainly, in principle, supportive of this legislation. I believe that this legislation does, as I’ve said, add another tool to the toolbox for the business community to be able to make decisions for individual businesses, for business owners, for boards, for companies to make conscious decisions that they want to head in that direction — and the ability for us to recognize that, through the work that they do and through how they move forward and proceed.
As we do that work here — and you’ll see significant work around social innovation, social enterprise moving forward in the government — I think we do enhance that ability, potentially, with this legislation to move forward. So I’m looking forward to being able to explore this further.
I think, as the author of the legislation said, it is a complex piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I do think raises a number of questions. They’re ones for purposes of better understanding this, not so much the words on paper but trying to better understand how this is a tool that can be used effectively in the business community.
How might it appeal to certain businesses and certain sectors to, in fact, embrace the benefit-company model and say: “That’s the direction we want to go”? And to better understand, as that occurs, how this becomes an incentive for those companies that are seriously considering how they broaden their mandates and the work that they’re doing to be able to move forward and use this particular piece of legislation as a tool to do that. There are questions around that, and I’m interested in better understanding that as we move forward.
The bottom line is this. We know that we have an obligation, as government, to do a better job as we look to advance what is often called the triple bottom line. We know that civil society has moved very much to say that triple bottom line is the direction we need to go. Our government is very supportive of looking at the triple bottom line as the way to move forward as we measure progress.
We know that business increasingly, as has been noted before, is looking at how they broaden and get closer to that triple bottom line — more traditional or conventional business. We’re seeing that. That’s a live conversation with senior business leaders in this province, from organizations like the chamber of commerce, like the Business Council, that are happy and, in fact, are being proactive in wanting to engage in that discussion.
I think we need to enthusiastically embrace those opportunities to build on the solutions that we need to evolve and develop — to deal with supporting our more vulnerable citizens, to deal with the complex issues of environment, to deal with building and enhancing our culture and to deal with the other social challenges that we face.
We are not going to be successful in accomplishing those objectives if it is simply government that’s doing it or if it’s simply one sector of society that’s stepping out to do that. This will require all of us to be pulling on the same end of the rope — or as my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training often says: “We’ve got to all be in that canoe paddling together.” I think that’s very true.
This particular piece of legislation, I think, is a thoughtful and sincere effort to say: “Here’s another opportunity, another avenue to begin to pursue those same principles, visions and objectives.” I feel very positive about that moving forward. I’m going to be happy to vote for this legislation and look forward to further conversations on this.
I do hope that we get the opportunity to talk about what these tools look like moving forward, and I’m sure that those opportunities will come in the future. Again, I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for introducing the legislation and for putting this on the table for debate. It certainly embraces the principles that I think we on the government side are very much looking to move forward on, and it does give us another opportunity to look at how we encourage our friends in the business community to in fact move forward and look at ways that they can fulfil those challenges as well.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that we have a few minutes or some time available in this debate, and I just thought it would be an interesting point to make an interesting observation about this particular piece of legislation.
As most members would know — and I know that we’ve had some school groups in here — legislation is usually introduced by the executive council, the cabinet, and a bill tabled before this House would have a number in it. That would be Bill 30, 31, 32, 33. Normally, that’s done because a bill is developed through policy work within a ministry office. It would go to the minister, who would go to a cabinet committee and cabinet and get in a request for legislation approved. It would then go through and be reviewed by the legislative review committee. Then it would be approved, then it would get a final sign-off, and then it would be introduced here in the House. That is the traditional way that a piece of legislation comes forward.
Private members also have the opportunity to introduce legislation into this chamber. We see it often from the opposition, and I myself have introduced private member’s bills from time to time. Those bills come through a different process. When they are introduced and go on the order paper, they have the letter M to indicate that it is a private member’s bill. That is the way that this piece of legislation has come forward.
Often they don’t get called for debate; sometimes they do. I know the previous government had called a bill for debate or brought in their own version of the bill. So this is a rather unique opportunity to show that private members can introduce a piece of legislation, that it can make it to the floor, that our system….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague the Health Minister says the after-school special, how does a bill become law. Yeah.
The leader of the Green Party and his caucus have developed this piece of legislation. He introduced the bill. It’s well thought out. It’s a piece of legislation that is in a good format, and we’re debating it here today for second reading.
I think it’s worth acknowledging that this is one of those occasions that people can look to, because they often just see the back-and-forth between government and opposition and seldom realize that there is often cooperation. Question period aside, there’s a lot of work that gets done in committees.
This bill has come forward through the route of the private member’s bill, and it’s a bill that we have said that we are going to be supporting. It’s up for debate, and I know the sponsor of the bill, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, will be closing debate. But I just thought I’d take this opportunity to point out what is a unique and not altogether common event in this chamber. I think it was something worth acknowledging.
I know the Green Party may have another speaker, and I know that we still have some time for that. With that, I’m happy to take my seat.
A. Olsen: I don’t want to take too much time in the House, but I would like to acknowledge the process that this has gone through. I know that my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has spent quite a bit of time developing the information that is contained in this bill, but it’s also the process that the government members have undertaken to provide private members the expertise of the drafters.
I think that it’s important. It’s an important point to be made here in the House that we have access to people who can help us to draft legislation in a professional way so that when we sit down and debate it, we know that the correct set of eyes, the legal expertise…. How the bill is framed has been done in a way which is acceptable to this place.
That’s something that the government has extended, not just to the B.C. Greens but as well to all members of this House who want to take a serious crack at developing some private member’s legislation. I think that this is an example, the first example, in which that’s happened. I think it’s important to note that when you’ve got ideas on how we can improve this province, how we can make this province a better place, the government is open to providing the tools in order to be able to put that in front of the members of this place for debate.
I’d just like to raise my hand to the process here — as the Government House Leader has celebrated, the fact that this bill is coming forward. It’s going to be adding to this province, making it a better place, I think. It brings us a time to celebrate the fact that there is a process, for those of us who don’t sit in the government, to bring forward our ideas to have them debated and — in the end, if it’s a good piece of legislation or if it’s a good bill — hopefully, have them supported by all members of this place.
With that, I take my seat.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the mover closes debate.
A. Weaver: I rise to close debate on Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, which is being debated at second reading.
First off, I’d like to thank, for their comments, the previous speakers — in particular, the minister who spoke extensively about the values encapsulated within B corporations and how those values actually resonate with the values of the present government and, clearly, the values that we have in the Third Party as well.
For those who may not know what B corps are…. Some might think that they’re not big companies, that they’re only small companies. There are small companies that are B corps, but there are also multinationals like Unilever, which is a transnational consumer goods company dealing with foods, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care.
Unilever is a B corp., and they’re proud of their branding. A European bank called Triodos Bank brands themselves as the world’s most sustainable bank. They are a B corporation, and they’re a very successful one. Many people in this Legislature will know about the Natura products — the Brazilian company that builds beauty products, household care, personal care, skin creams. They are another example, a Brazilian B corporation.
In B.C., one of our more celebrated ones is Hootsuite. It’s a local start-up, B.C. grown, that grew dramatically to become a big player in the tech sector. Many have probably actually participated in Kickstarter campaigns. Well, indeed, Kickstarter is a B corporation.
They’re proud of their branding, and they’re protected because of the fact they are certified and incorporated as B corporations. They’re protected to allow that their mandate extend beyond the traditional only for-profit and to actually have broader societal goals as well.
Ben and Jerry’s. We all love Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s is a B corporation — again, a company that’s proud.
Why this is particularly important — you heard this from the discussion from the minister — is that we know that there’s a new generation of young people, the so-called millennials, who are emerging into our society and have a different set of values than we may have had when we came out. We came out at a different time, my grey-haired generation.
The millennials of today — I’m pointing to my colleague here too — are looking for more than just a job. They’re looking for the quality of life associated with that job. They’re one of the reasons why in British Columbia, for example, we’re struggling to meet with health care practitioners — doctors, for example. We’re graduating a lot, but for doctors, when they come out, this millennial generation, it’s not only about the profession. It’s about the quality of life associated with that profession.
B corporations are critical because they recognize that in today’s new economy, with triple-bottom-line reporting, providing a workplace where you actually create an environment that is conducive to attracting and retaining employees in a very progressive manner…. These are the types of companies that are attracting the millennial generation.
I’m absolutely delighted that here in British Columbia, we’re moving this forward. I’m actually very pleased that this legislation will shortly be voted on at second reading. Over the course of the summer, I’m hoping that we will hear more from companies — we’ve been approached by a number — and that more and more companies will actually approach us and ask for further information so that as we move into the fall session, we can actually have a good public discussion about the benefits or any potential unforeseen consequences associated with B corporations.
I will say that since bringing in this legislation, a very, very big, multinational B.C.-based company has approached us and asked for details about how they might move down this process. I know that there are companies out there that are looking for this. We know that.
We met with stakeholders in Vancouver, with business leaders there, a couple of weeks ago. There’s actually a very integrated group of senior professionals in Vancouver. Many of these are engineering firms or consultant firms, but there are bigger firms — construction firms, a number of firms — that are moving towards a B corporation because they want to be good corporate citizens.
We recognize — and it’s good to see that government does; it’s a shame we have no speakers from the official opposition — that it’s actually critical. As we move forward in the 21st-century economy, it’s critical that we actually ensure that we work with business to provide solutions and move us forward to dealing with some of the grand challenges of our times.
With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
A. Weaver: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M 216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it is a quarter to 12. I note that momentarily the two other committees will be wanting to report out.
I know that if someone is watching in those committees, they will note that the main chamber is ready to receive them so that they can report out. Then we can adjourn the House.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear my colleague across the way saying that we probably need a recess. Some of us have been sitting in here for a few hours this morning, and a recess is probably in order.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. This House will recess.
The House recessed from 11:45 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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: I see that we are joined in the gallery by a school group to watch the proceedings. Unfortunately for them, it is eight minutes to 12, and I’m about to move that the House do now adjourn so that members can go and get some lunch.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Kahlon in the chair.
The committee met at 11:12 a.m.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $172,581,000 (continued).
S. Bond: Hon. Chair, good morning. And good morning to the minister and her staff.
I have a few more questions about the speculation tax, and then my colleague is going to move on to another area of questions.
Yesterday, as we spent time on the speculation tax…. We now understand it, at least from our perspective, to be an asset tax. The minister assured us that there had been modelling and that there had been careful consideration of the creation of this tax, although yesterday we discovered that instead of 15,000 homes being impacted, there’s actually a significantly higher number, and the vast majority of those are British Columbians.
I want to pursue the issue of the changes that were ultimately made by the minister. There was a significant reaction to the speculation tax, which, to this day, there continues to be. Then after a relatively short period of time…. Who was included? There were exemptions. There were changes to the original decision that the minister made about the speculation tax.
Can the minister outline what prompted those changes — and why the particular areas that were then removed or changed or altered in some way? On what basis did she make that decision?
Hon. C. James: I want to take us back to budget day, because I think that’s the important piece when you take a look at the speculation tax.
I think the first piece that is important to recognize is that the speculation tax is being implemented as one part of a 30-point plan to be able to address the housing crisis. I think that’s the first step.
The second piece that’s important to note on the speculation tax, as I’ve noted a number of times since the budget was introduced, is that this is a new tax. As such, as I said on budget day, we were putting the principles of the tax out, and the details were to come.
That’s exactly the opportunity we took — to hear from people, to listen to British Columbians, to be able to gather the information — while we were working on the pieces that needed to be addressed. So the normal implementation of process for putting a tax out — to determine, for example, the geographic areas of the tax, the exemptions for the tax, the rate design for the tax. Those were the areas that we had begun working on once we’d announced the tax.
As the member would know well, you don’t have discussions around a tax. You don’t announce that a tax is to come because of the issues of people utilizing tax information to change behaviour, to gain benefits. We announced the principles of the tax and that a tax was coming. Specific details, again, are being worked on because the legislation is coming forward in the fall.
I gave an example yesterday, and I’ll use the example again because I think it’s a good example to show the kinds of discussion and work that had to go on. That’s the issue of summer homes and summer cabins. It was clear. We said from the start that we were not including summer homes and cabins for people. There were a number of options we looked at. We looked at the issue of value. Do you look at the value of a place and exclude through that route? Do you look at the geographic areas and exclude through that route? Do more people have vacation homes in particular areas that we proposed as part of the tax? That would be one of the examples.
Another one was the rate design. We had a bit of a discussion with the members yesterday around income tax. One of the options for rate design would have been to use income tax. As the member pointed out, the issues of regressivity versus progressivity come into the issue if you use income tax. So it was felt that looking at a simpler process…. A more straightforward process of a credit, using the $400,000 to apply as a credit, was a much simpler process. That, again, was feedback that we received. “If you’re going to move ahead on this, make sure that it’s simple for people to understand. Make sure there’s a link between paying the tax and the information.”
Those are just some examples for the member of the kind of work, the normal implementation, that happens when you’re drafting the legislation and looking at the specifics, as I announced in February, that were coming on this particular tax.
S. Bond: Well, thank you to the minister for that reaction. While I appreciate it, you know, British Columbians would disagree with that characterization. I’m fully aware of the responsibility of the Finance Minister in terms of having discussions about taxes, but let’s be clear. This minister announced a speculation tax, which caused chaos. For her to suggest today that people knew their cabins weren’t going to be taxed is simply inaccurate. My office was flooded with people who were worried about their family cabins.
We can talk about implementation. Our concern is that a major taxation initiative was announced and it sounds like it was written on the back of a napkin, because now we’ve got changes. This is the budget of British Columbia on which there are revenue projections. We hear on a daily basis about how conservative the estimates were in the budget. We’re going to explore just how conservative they were, because apparently, the minister has all kinds of room in that budget to fix things.
We should be clear. It was not clear to British Columbians that cabins and vacation properties were not captured. In fact, vacation properties are still captured in certain regions of the province.
The minister also talks about principles. The principle that she and the Premier announced to British Columbians was that if you paid tax in British Columbia, you would not be captured. That’s a pretty major digression from where we ended up.
My question was specifically related to the changes the minister made after all of the reaction to the tax. There were areas that were included. There were areas that were then excluded. We saw areas in Parksville because, you know, we certainly are aware…. The member of the Green Party brought that up as a big concern. Yet other areas who expressed deep concerns, like West Kelowna, were not adjusted.
My question to the minister was: what process was used? After announcing a tax that caused confusion and chaos across British Columbia, what process did she and her staff use to decide, suddenly, that certain people were in and certain people were out?
Hon. C. James: I think I want to start off again, because the member’s description, I completely disagree with…. I think it’s important to say again that the members may feel that not doing public consultation and not talking to the public and not listening to the issues that they may have is good practice. We don’t. We believe, in fact, in taking the opportunity to hear from British Columbians.
This is a unique tax, and it is a new tax. That was very clear when we announced it. We are taking, in fact, a bold measure here with a brand-new tax that hasn’t been implemented. As expected, there are issues that, as happens with tax policy and other policy in government, continue to be worked on as you move towards drafting the legislation. That’s exactly the normal kind of process that occurred with this tax.
British Columbians certainly raised their views. The member mentioned hearing from people in her constituency office. I certainly heard from people in my constituency office as well. I took the time to be able to take a look at that and took the time to look at many very positive responses that came in around ways to ensure that as we looked at the implementation…. As we drafted the legislation, we took into account the many ways that we could have got to the principles of this tax. I talked about one of them earlier, the issue of summer homes. Do you look at the geography? Do you look at the value? There are a number of different methods you can utilize to be able to make sure that you’re addressing that piece.
We gathered the information. We continue working with staff. They continue to look at the analysis. I know that the members certainly have a copy of the press release that came out when we talked about the specifics that we had progressed on. We addressed the geographic areas. We addressed the rate design. We addressed exemptions and the tax credit design. Those were the pieces that were details to come, as I said on budget day.
S. Bond: Well, I think the principle that British Columbians have been surprised to find out, which is pretty much the fundamental basis of this tax, is that they are speculators, that British Columbians are carrying the freight for the speculation tax. You know, I certainly appreciate the minister’s description of how this tax came to be, but let’s be clear. British Columbians had no idea that they were going to be captured, basically because the Premier and the minister told them they would not be captured.
We have serious concerns about the design, the implementation and the fact that we now discover that British Columbians actually are the majority of speculators when it comes to this tax.
With that, I’m going to ask my co-critic and colleague to move on to our next section.
T. Redies: Minister, as we’ve been discussing over the last couple of days, it’s not just the impact of one tax that this side of the House is concerned about. It’s the quantum of taxes hitting British Columbia property owners.
From the pass-down impact of the EHT to come, the speculation tax, the school tax and even new municipal taxes, property owners in British Columbia are going to see significant increases in their property taxes — some upwards of 50 percent or more from what they are currently paying.
We now know that while the government tried to position the speculation tax as only hitting foreigners and out-of-province Canadians, the reality is that the majority of people who are going to be affected by this tax are hard-working British Columbians. They are British Columbians who have strived to make better lives for their families. They’ve saved and invested their money, or they were even just lucky to own a home and stay in it for 30 or 40 years.
The government’s answer, the minister’s answer, to our concerns about those on fixed incomes or teachers or plumbers or nurses living on the west side of Vancouver is: “If you can’t afford the tax, just sell your house.”
We also know that while calling these taxes speculation or school taxes…. These names are really just misnomers. They’re misnomers for the government’s blatant move to tax property owners even more to fund their insatiable spending spree.
We know the taxes are not going to specifically fund affordable housing or education. They’re going to general revenues. They are just calling them speculation and school taxes so they can try and fool people that they are actually going to stop speculative activity or fund schools. We know that’s not specifically the case.
The minister has also discussed for many months now…. I’ve raised this multiple times. We have three levels of government intervening in the property market in an uncoordinated way. We now have sales falling precipitously, in a matter of a couple of months, to 17-year lows, falling by 27.4 percent in April year over year. While prices haven’t started to decline yet, if this continues, it’s only a matter of time.
To the minister, what analysis, if any, has the Ministry of Finance done on the impact of all of these interventions on the housing market? What are they predicting in terms of housing prices, and could they explain how falling sales and falling prices will impact government revenue?
Hon. C. James: I want to begin by touching on a couple pieces that the member raised as part of the statement before she got to her question.
On the issue of funding going into general revenue or being designated, I’m sure the member knows, when she looks at the provincial budget and speaks to her colleague who had been in government for a number of years, that funding does go into general revenue. It’s government’s responsibility to make those decisions. That’s exactly what government is accountable for — making those spending decisions, making those investment decisions.
I think for the member to raise issues about money going into general revenue…. Again, that is exactly what government’s job is — to make that determination and to make that determination around money that comes in as revenue or otherwise. I think that’s an important piece to identify for the member.
I know we had a bit of a discussion in September with the member on this, but I think it’s important to note again that the economic forecast is provided using a macroeconomic model, which looks at 300 equations that are put into place. I think we’ve talked a little bit about this. Various assumptions go into the model. That would include internal and external factors — everything from economic indicators for the country, for the globe, other jurisdictions like China, Europe, the U.S., obviously, because that impacts us here in British Columbia.
It includes interest rates and many issues there, commodity prices, population, migration levels. Those are all included as part of the economic model that is looked at. We look at the risks. Again, the members can see that in the budget. You take a look at the risks that are out there, as well, and changes that may occur at the federal level.
This is particularly important when you take a look at housing, because as I’ve said often, government doesn’t control all of the tools and all of the measures that impact on housing. There are federal interest rates. There are mortgage rule changes. Those all have an impact on housing. It isn’t simply one tool. It is a number of tools. That’s also why the member will see prudence built into the budget because that is important when you take a look at the outside factors that are there.
I think it’s also important just to note — and this is right in the budget itself — that we do not incorporate fiscal policy measures that are coming forward in the current budget because of the timing of those decisions. Q1 will be coming forward. Q1 will include a number of those assumptions.
As it says right in the front of the budget book, consistent with past practice — this is no change from what has been done previously: “The economic forecast does not incorporate fiscal policy measures announced in the current budget…due to the timing of these decisions. These budget policy measures will be incorporated into the economic outlook in the updated forecast included in the first quarterly report.”
As existing practice — past practice continues to be existing practice — those measures will be incorporated when we move into the Q1 report.
T. Redies: Minister, I’ve been speaking with a real estate expert who actually does technical charting of the real estate industry. He’s been in the paper a number of times. He does technical charting similar to a stock market analysis. His model is highly predictive and accurate — it goes back about 30 or 40 years — and that model is now predicting a property price decline of 26.25 percent in the detached housing market and a 30 percent decline in prices in the overall housing market.
Maybe I’ll just hone in specifically on what I’m trying to get at. If property sales fall and property prices fall, does that not impact government property tax and transfer tax revenue? And if so, by how much? I’ll be even more specific. If property prices fall 25 percent, how does that impact government revenue?
Hon. C. James: I’ll just answer this question quickly, because I know we’ll be back again after lunch to have a further discussion.
One of the reasons that we bring the Economic Forecast Council together is that, as I’m sure the member knows, economists have a variety of opinions around what will happen with the market and what won’t. There are a variety of views around that, and bringing together the Economic Forecast Council gives an opportunity for me as Finance Minister, for the Finance Ministry, to hear the variety of opinions.
I take the member’s point around the individual that she’s been talking to. There are a number of other economists who have a variety of opinions. There are views still coming out. People are waiting to see the federal changes and the impact of the federal changes. I think there’s a whole variety of views out there, so I’m not going to — no pun intended — speculate on what one economist may have to say compared to other economists. We take a look at all of the information that comes in. That’s part of what gets built in, in the first quarter.
I think if the member looks on page 131 of the budget document, she can see a change in the property transfer tax of 1 percent is $20 million, up or down, depending on what occurs there. I think it’s important to note that it also is impacted not only by the number of sales but by the value, by the sale value of properties, as well, which also has a view. I think that’s important to note. In fact, when you see a moderating of prices, that can see increases in sales. You can see the inverse effect as a possibility as well.
With that, Chair, I know we’re waiting. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS
AND CULTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:15 a.m.
On Vote 41: ministry operations, $140,681,000 (continued).
D. Clovechok: From yesterday, just a couple of questions on RMI, just to go back to that. We had a couple that came up. Yesterday RMI was continued to put into the contingency fund. I’m just wondering why it was not included in the actual budget.
Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The program is under review right now, and there may be additional communities added. So whatever comes of that review will be taken forward to the budget process in 2019.
D. Clovechok: Again, on the RMI file, will room capacity be a measurement for the RMI going forward, or is the minister looking for ways to adjust the accommodation unit multiplier?
Hon. L. Popham: That is one of the items that is involved in the review.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer.
We’re going to shift to another topic now, and I’ll pass it over to my colleague.
M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. Welcome back to another glorious day of estimates.
We’re going to go on to Family Day and talk about Family Day for a little while. I’m just wondering: does the minister believe that Family Day in any way ties to her ministry? If so, how?
Hon. L. Popham: Yes. I absolutely believe that Family Day does have a lot to do with our ministry. Family Day allows for an extended weekend for families to spend time together. We believe that families are connected not just within British Columbia but across Canada. There are other provinces that celebrate Family Day, and we wanted to make sure that we were aligned so that we gave opportunities for families to travel and be together.
M. Stilwell: Over 31,000 people were engaged in a consultation process when the previous government had a public poll that concluded that the second weekend of February was the preferred weekend. How many engaged with this minister’s consultation in the changing of Family Day to move it to the third Monday?
Hon. L. Popham: There was not a similar consultation done by our government. There were comments that had come in to the Premier’s office, and as MLAs, we all hear the chatter, when we’re out in our communities, about how important it is to have alignment.
I can give an example of support that was given to the idea of this change. The Surrey and Burnaby boards of trade both came out publicly and supported the alignment of Family Day with other provinces.
Just so the members know, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provide the Family Day holiday on the same day as British Columbia at this time. That incorporates a lot of families. We all have family members across the country. It also aligns a holiday in the United States — Presidents Day.
That allows for a lot of travel into our province. Through our ministry, we hope that the promotions that we’re investing in — letting people know that this is the most wonderful place to visit and talking about all the activities people can do, as families, on a three-day weekend that they might not be able to do otherwise…. We believe it’s a good change, and our marketing campaigns are certainly reaching out to people to make sure that they know, not only visitors coming into our province to experience what we have to offer but people within our province as well.
M. Stilwell: So there was no real consultation. The minister mentioned that there were comments that were received. Was that via email? How many were there? Or are you just going with the Surrey Board of Trade?
Hon. L. Popham: As an example, there was an on-line petition that was created, and there were more than 20,000 signatures in support of this change.
D. Clovechok: Just interesting to know. So there was no consultation done around Family Day, just chatter, as you recently said. Chatter is an informative way, I guess, of getting information. But was there any reason why…?
You talk about Surrey. With all due respect to the fine folks in Surrey, it’s not a real tourist town, although there is tourism associated with it. Is there any particular reason why there was no consultation done with any communities that actually rely on tourism, if this was a change that they really wanted? Any resort municipalities or anything? Was there a reason why nobody bothered to ask them?
Interjections.
The Chair: Members.
Hon. L. Popham: This is a rough House up here, isn’t it — these members.
Thanks for the question. There has been feedback from economists, from business owners and, most importantly, from families in British Columbia that this alignment was the right thing to do. When you make a change, it’s not going to make everybody happy, and perhaps, as we know, there are certain ski resorts that have spoken out against the change.
But when you go into your communities and you talk to families and what a three-day weekend means to families, it’s not about travelling, for everybody; it’s about spending three days at home with your family. It’s about counting on three days that you have that you don’t have to worry about finding child care while there’s a misalignment. It’s about inviting family members from across Canada to come stay with you.
The reason why this change was made was based on families. Unfortunately, when you make a change, as I said, not everyone is going to be happy. But we also believe that there is a huge opportunity with alignment with other provinces, with alignment with Presidents Day in the United States and also the federal government. Creating an alignment so people have that day off as well, not having to find child care, is the right thing to do.
As I said, there’s been feedback from economists, industry sectors and, most importantly, families.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer, Minister.
The feedback that was received — and I want to push this a little bit more — was that it’s not just ski resorts that were opposed to this. It’s clothing stores in the towns I represent. It’s bike shops. It’s rafting companies and the restaurants.
A Voice: How about florists?
D. Clovechok: And florists as well, absolutely. Thank you.
It’s all of those and all of that above. So it’d be interesting to see that. How could such a dramatic change that will have an economic impact on families in British Columbia…? Why was it done without any consultation around those families? It was just an arbitrary decision, as far as we can see, that was made based upon some feedback from Surrey and some chatter. I’m not sure how that can possibly be fair if these communities weren’t consulted in that process. And now they’re facing the economic impact again from this decision.
Hon. L. Popham: I would like to respond to the member. I understand that when he’s using the word “chatter,” it’s used in a negative way, it sounds like to me. But I would like to say, for the record, that when I go into my constituency and I spend time grocery shopping or going to community events, I consider that chatter, and I consider that the most important feedback that I can get.
When I went into my community after the change was made, I heard over and over again that families were relieved that we were aligning and that it was a good idea. So that’s the feedback that I brought in from my community. I understand that not every community would be happy, but the majority of feedback that we received, as MLAs, from chatting in our communities, was positive.
D. Clovechok: The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. has opposed the move of Family Day to the third week in February. So that is the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia. They’ve opposed it, citing that B.C. residents benefit from smaller crowds at many seasonal resorts and accommodation providers and that there are cheaper prices available, with less competition from out-of-market bookings, over Presidents Day weekend. Likewise, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce rejected moving the day of Family Day by a super majority on two separate occasions.
How is this minister standing up for the tourism sector within her cabinet if she wholeheartedly supports the moving of Family Day, in spite of the chamber and those associations speaking so strongly against it? Did those individuals…? Were their voices not heard or cared about?
Hon. L. Popham: The government believes that this was the right thing to do. As the acting minister for the tourism ministry, I believe it was as well. That’s not to say that there won’t be some negative effects on some part of the tourism industry. We acknowledge that.
I can tell the member that in a most recent trade mission to China, one of the things that we focused on, from the tourism perspective, was attracting visitors from China to come and enjoy our ski industry. Although there may be a negative effect next year…. We don’t know. The date hasn’t changed yet. We are working hard to attract visitors here as well.
M. Stilwell: Does the minister believe that there are other ministries that may be impacted by making this change to Family Day?
Hon. L. Popham: I don’t believe there is going to be a negative impact. In fact, I think there are going to be positive impacts. I can let the member know, when I think about other ministries and how they would be affected….
When I think, for example, about our child care ministry…. When families are struggling to find child care, this may be a day that they don’t have to struggle, as they are looking at options for their kids. If one parent works for the federal government and one parent works for the provincial government, that day is now aligned, so these families can have a day off together, to either spend it at home together or go out into their communities and experience what the community has to offer or travel within British Columbia and enjoy some of the things that B.C. has to offer.
Overall, I do believe that this will have a positive effect. But perhaps the member would like to enlighten me, if the member thinks there will be a negative effect.
M. Stilwell: I believe what I said was just an impact. What other ministries would be impacted? I never said positively or negatively. Just which ones would be impacted, and which ones did you engage with in discussions before making the change?
Hon. L. Popham: As the member most likely knows, the decision was not made through the Ministry of Tourism. It was a government decision. We, as a ministry, support that decision.
M. Stilwell: The minister mentioned that she doesn’t believe there will be a negative impact with the change of Family Day. I just want to be clear that that is her comment for the record: that there will not be a negative impact across the board for government.
The Chair: Members, I’d just like to remind you that this is a small, cozy space. But we’ll maintain good order.
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Chair.
I think what I said was that, overall, the impact on families is going to be more positive, and until it happens, we won’t know the exact impact on certain ministries. I would have no way of knowing that at this point, but a decision was made that the benefits to families would definitely override that.
M. Stilwell: Can the minister say whether or not the Ministry of Labour was part of discussions or part of the consultation when the decision was made? Even though it was made by government, she sits at the cabinet table. So hopefully, she can provide that.
Hon. L. Popham: I wouldn’t know that. But the responsibility of the administration of the act falls with the Ministry of Labour.
M. Stilwell: An FOI request was made, and it came back with “no records” when asked for instances of moving Family Day — within the ministry. Just wondering why the ministry was not part of the discussion at all. Even though it comes from government, they represent the tourism industry, which will be impacted by this decision.
Hon. L. Popham: Our ministry was not responsible for the decision, so I am not able to speak to the consultation process. What I can speak to, of course, is how our ministry is investing in attracting visitors to our province. Families will have the opportunity to travel together for three days where they might not have had that before.
With this decision made…. The basis of the decision was the quality of time that families get to spend together. Then the responsibility of our ministry is to be looking at options, how they can spend their time. For example, we just had an amazing opening of an exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum last night. Families will have a chance over a three-day weekend to go and experience whatever exhibit the museum is offering. That’s a pretty great thing. Over 700,000 visitors go through that museum from inside and outside of our province. This is just one of the incredible opportunities people would have to spend time together.
M. Stilwell: The minister mentioned that it falls within the Ministry of Labour. I have received, through FOI, copies of emails that have been delivered between the Deputy Minister of Labour, Trevor Hughes, and the director of labour policy and legislation, Michael Tanner, along with other Labour Ministry staff. The emails were at 1:05 p.m. on the day that the news release came out about the change to Family Day, which was February 9.
The email was short and simple. It says: “Then this happened. Had no idea until I saw the release.” So the deputy minister responsible for the change had no idea that the change was happening, and then forwarded that on to other staff. Michael Tanner, the director of labour policy and legislation, then went on to forward the link to members in Tourism, Arts and Culture to say: “Update on Family Day, if you haven’t heard.”
What I’m trying to bring to light here today is simply trying to confirm that government embarked on a purely political strategy. There’s nothing wrong with that because governments can do that, by all means, but at least don’t masquerade it.
Don’t try to hide that there was no groundswell of support for this change; that there was no demand for the change; that it was a purely political decision; that you never even went out to talk to the tourism industry — those businesses who would be impacted by the change; that this was on the basis of purely political motives; and, surely, that it would have been a reasonable thing to engage the other industries that are impacted by this move.
Hon. L. Popham: The member is implying that this was based on some sort of political stunt, in my view. I can tell the member confidently that this decision was based on families.
At this point, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada