Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 165
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 | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. H. Bains: I’m really proud to welcome several members in the gallery today, many of whom have been advocates for the rights of temporary foreign workers for years. Satbir Cheema, CEO of PICS; Inderjeet Hundal, director, Progressive Intercultural Community Services; Annette Beach, president of Victoria Filipino-Canadian Caregivers Association; Laila Pires, treasurer, Bayanihan Cultural and Housing Society; Chandu Claver, Migrante B.C.; and Joe Barrett, Laborers International Union of North America. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm, warm welcome.
I. Paton: I’d like to welcome today a Ladner resident from my constituency by the name of Andrea Frustaci. Andrea is very involved in our community and is president of the Ladner Business Association. Andrea and his family are the proud owners of Sharkey’s Seafood restaurant in Ladner. Please make him feel welcome.
Hon. K. Conroy: I am pleased to introduce 21 foster families who are with us today in the gallery. These foster parents and children are here to celebrate Foster Family Month and will be having tea with me after question period.
Please join me in welcoming the foster parents who have opened up their hearts and homes: Enrique and Lina Aguilar; Jessica and Steve Bennie; Janice and Robert Black; Diane Burrows; Sandy Case; Catherine and Steven Clutchey; France Cyr; Joanne Hurtig; Tammy Iwasyk; Marene Janzen; Isabel McPherson; Joanne Michaud; Barb Mulvogue; Melanie Osborne; Len Pauls; Rosalie and Roy Pelkey; Kim and Don Phillips; Mitchel du Plessis and Pam Thuringer; Jay Schwartz; Eileen Tann and Cory Robinson; Kate Wetherell. The staff that are joining them in the gallery are Theresa Dobmeier, Renaa Bacy, Penny Mathews and Karynn Carveth.
I’d remind all members that there are children in the gallery today. Please join me in welcoming them.
J. Yap: I’m delighted to welcome back to the gallery my constituency assistant Paige Robertson. She was here yesterday for question period, enjoyed it so much and insisted on coming back. I hope all members would join me in giving her a warm welcome.
L. Throness: Yesterday I had the privilege of visiting South Island foster parents to thank and to honour them for their selfless work in caring for some of the most vulnerable and hurting children in B.C. They deserve an extra show of appreciation. Would the House please welcome and thank them.
D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine — certainly, who I have become good friends with over the last couple of years — all the way down from the metropolis of Fort Nelson. I thought he came here to Vancouver Island just to visit me, but he does have family here. Would the House welcome Mr. Ben Wall.
L. Reid: I would take this opportunity to welcome Shelley Leonhardt to the gallery. She makes an invaluable contribution to my constituency office in Richmond South Centre. Please join me in welcoming her today.
S. Furstenau: They’re not yet in the gallery, but they’re on their way. Two politics classes from Brentwood College in Mill Bay are here today with their teacher, Mark Wismer. Will the House please make them welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER
PROTECTION ACT
Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m honoured to introduce Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. This bill will pave the way to better protect vulnerable temporary foreign workers who come to B.C. to work. While many businesses employ temporary foreign workers and treat them fairly, we hear all too often of employers and recruiters that do not.
To address these problems, the proposed legislation will introduce a new requirement for foreign worker recruiters to be licensed and for employers who hire these workers to be registered. This will enable our government to hold recruiters and employers who hire temporary foreign workers in B.C. accountable for their actions. Importantly, it will establish obligations on recruiters and employers who employ temporary foreign workers and set a framework for identifying and investigating abuses.
When violations of the act occur, the legislation will provide for strong enforcement, including monetary penalties and cancellation of recruiters’ licences and employers’ registrations, along with possible jail time.
Workers who come to work in B.C. want to feel safe, confident, that their rights are protected and that abusive recruiters and employers will be held accountable. The legislation will better protect temporary foreign workers.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 46 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2018
Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 46 be introduced and read a first time now.
In June, TransLink’s Mayors Council approved its phase 2 investment plan, which includes major bus and rapid transit improvements. The plan identified several revenue sources to help fund the regional share of phase 2 costs, including a 3 percent increase to the parking rights tax. The parking rights tax is a sales tax paid on the purchase price of off-street parking in TransLink’s service area. This bill allows TransLink to set a parking rights tax rate of up to 24 percent. TransLink plans to introduce this 3 percent increase in July 2019, and they project that it will raise an additional $10 million a year.
These amendments are part of the province’s support for regional funding efforts to improve transit and transportation services that people rely on. The bill also removes obsolete references to the Social Service Tax Act, which was repealed in 2013.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
OKANAGAN RAIL TRAIL
S. Thomson: On September 27, over 400 people — families, school children, local citizens, trail volunteers and ambassadors, and elected officials — gathered at the Oyama boat launch to celebrate the official opening of the Okanagan Rail Trail. The rail trail, a 49-kilometre corridor from Kelowna to Coldstream, is a great addition to our region and a great example of partnerships and cooperation and a vision for the future supported by so many citizens and volunteers.
The municipalities of Lake Country and Kelowna, North Okanagan regional district and the provincial government invested $22 million to purchase the discontinued CN Railway. The three municipalities and the Okanagan Indian Band are now working together as the Okanagan Rail Trail Committee to develop the trail into a multi-use corridor for the benefit of all of our communities.
The community raised over $7.8 million for the trail development, including an inspirational donation of $1.45 million from the Edna, Stella and Harry Weatherill Foundation. The family executors of this estate were directed to provide funds for a recreational facility for members of the public and for senior citizens in the Okanagan Valley. Well, the trail certainly fit that bill, and the region is indebted for this legacy contribution.
The trail connects our communities, connects our families, connects us with our natural ecosystems, connects us with our First Nations cultural heritage, and it will become a major contributor to our local tourism sector and economy. It is estimated that the trail will receive over 150,000 walking trips and over 300,000 cycling trips annually. In fact, the trail received over 300,000 users before it was even officially opened.
I’m proud of our work as MLAs for the Okanagan to bring over $8.2 million in provincial investment for this project. I want to thank Duane Thomson, who’s the chair of the trail initiative, the partners, citizens and supporters for their vision in preserving this corridor for the benefit of all of us and for future generations.
AUDREY RIVERS
B. Ma: On September 7, 2018, the Squamish Nation lost a beloved matriarch, Audrey Theresa Rivers. She passed away at the age of 87, surrounded by family in North Vancouver at Lions Gate Hospital.
Audrey Rivers was born in Vancouver on December 2, 1930, and descends from the Paull-Charlie and Joseph-Moses families. She outlived her parents, Andrew Paull and Josephine Paull; her husband of 25 years, Frank Rivers Sr.; her siblings, Percy Paull, Yvonne Paull, Josephine Hudo Lauridsen, Edna Paull, Marion Paull and Evelyn Paull; and her children, Irene Linda Rivers and Frank Rivers Jr.
Audrey Rivers grew up beside St. Paul’s Catholic Church on the Mission Reserve, traditionally known as Eslha7an. A residential school survivor, Audrey was well known for speaking the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh language fluently, relearning it after having had the language taken away from her when she was young.
Audrey carried the Olympic Torch over Burrard Street Bridge with Rick Hansen and did the opening prayer for the 2010 Special Olympics. But many of us will remember her for her wise words that she delivered at the Commodore last year to open a campaign rally for the now Premier, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca. As her local MLA, I had the privilege of her company at many community events, and it always struck me how her wisdom never failed to shine through her interactions.
Audrey is survived by her children, Lillian Rivers, Glenn Rivers, Donna Joseph, Kevin Rivers, Sheryl Rivers; her grandchildren, Trevor Rivers, Jill Peters, Kim Wilson, Julie Peters, Darryl Douglas, Lily Rivers, Delmar Williams, Temera Williams Miller, Melanie Rivers, Travis Billy, Courtney Dick, Joshua Anderson, Amanda Anderson, Josie Joseph, Kristen Rivers, Dustin Rivers; many great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren — all of whom, I know, carry with them her spirit to do great things for their community and this world.
The World is Bright
FILM PROJECT ON INTERNATIONAL
STUDENT AND MENTAL
HEALTH
J. Thornthwaite: Good Pitch is making its Vancouver debut on November 6. This is a program that seeks to connect documentary film-makers with local and international institutions, foundations, NGOs, academics, philanthropists, policy-makers, brands, media and individuals that can widen the film’s audience, support with funding and fuel the film’s social justice and impact campaigns.
Good Pitch started in the U.K. and travels the world. Some of the films have made huge accomplishments — an Oscar for best documentary, changing laws and promoting support networks that have transformed communities.
I was asked to collaborate on The World is Bright, a film about a Chinese international student who came to Vancouver to study in 2004. Sometime during his stay, he committed suicide. His parents migrated from Beijing to Vancouver to investigate the circumstances of his death.
Over the period of ten years, the film follows in the parents’ footsteps and how the student suffered from mental illness. The parents’ negotiations with their own relationship, the culture shock, the grief will hopefully encourage conversations about mental health and precipitate sensitivity and awareness about mental health to immigration officers and the Canadian Border Services Agency.
My participation will include helping to connect film-makers within my network of people who would be naturally interested in this topic and have a keen sense of making things better for international students.
I can’t fathom what it must have been like for this lone boy in a strange country, with different caregivers, a challenging culture, to then try to live and study in this strange land. So I will be rolling up my sleeves and thinking of interested parties who would like to be connected to this film, with the intent to improve the sensitivity of authorities when they greet these young people to improve their experience in our country and help them along their journey to success.
If you’d like to help, join me.
B.C. ATHLETES AT INVICTUS GAMES
R. Leonard: Invictus: it means unconquered.
In 2014, Prince Harry founded the Invictus Games. The name itself embodies the fighting spirit of injured military athletes from around the world. The games provide the power of adaptive sport to help physically, psychologically and socially injured and ill men and women in uniform, to help them to restore their pride in their military service and to not be defined by their injuries.
I recently had the honour of meeting Master Cpl. Joanna Robb, one of three military athletes from British Columbia competing in the Invictus Games in Australia. In fact, two members of the Canadian team are stationed at 19 Wing in Comox.
Joanna is a meteorological technician in the Canadian Armed Forces. She was raised on Vancouver Island and was a competitive athlete in her younger days. Joanna served in Afghanistan and has survived cancer and the debilitating effects that, amongst other things, had her learning to walk again. Now here she is, one of the 40 athletes chosen from over 700 applicants, competing in cycling, indoor rowing and wheelchair rugby.
Sgt. Mark Vokey, a search and rescue tech instructor at 19 Wing, joins her on the Canadian team to compete in archery, cycling and sitting volleyball. He also served in areas of conflict in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
From Victoria, Gina Pinangat rounds out the B.C. contingent.
It’s very humbling to meet people who have endured great adversity and come out the other side with such optimism and confidence, strength and resiliency. The indomitable Joanna doesn’t know what will come next in her life, but she is embracing the possibilities with gusto. She is unconquered, and that’s the power of the Invictus Games.
VISIT BY DELEGATION FROM HONG KONG
T. Wat: It is my pleasure to rise in the House to talk about an important Hong Kong delegation that visited British Columbia recently. It is led by the chairman of Tung Wah Group of Hospitals. Vinci Wong is a successful businessman and philanthropist who grew up in our province and graduated from UBC.
Many of the board members and directors also have roots and connections in B.C. Some of them were raised, educated or work in our province. Some are married to British Columbians. They all share the same goal: to give back to the community and to help those in need. They led a total of 28 students and over 40 staff from 18 Tung Wah Group of Hospitals secondary schools.
Tung Wah Group of Hospitals is the first charitable organization founded in Hong Kong in 1870, a year before our province joined the confederation, and a familiar name in the global Chinese community. Their student ambassador program was launched in 2015 to broaden the students’ horizons and improve their skills in various aspects.
The delegation visited the Royal B.C. Museum, the Chinese Cultural Centre, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum, the Chinese Freemasons, our Chinatowns in Victoria and in Vancouver, as well as UBC, to learn about our Chinese-Canadian pioneers, who helped build the Pacific Railway by risking their own lives.
As a descendant from Hong Kong, it was my pleasure to explain to them this important part of our province’s history and introduce our democratic process and Legislature.
By welcoming this delegation, we provide the opportunity for others to learn more about B.C.’s legacy and celebrate our heritage values and diverse cultures. I’m proud of our former government’s efforts to support the legacy projects resulting from the apology made by former Premier Christy Clark for the historical wrongs committed by past provincial governments.
FILIPINO-CANADIAN ASSOCIATION
OF PRINCE RUPERT
J. Rice: In 1973, a handful of new and thoughtful Filipino immigrants formed the Filipino-Canadian Association of Prince Rupert. The goals of the association were to promote Filipino culture and fellowship among its members and to participate in the civic activities of the community.
Forty-five years later this Filipino community continues to give back to Prince Rupert, hosting cultural events like the annual sold-out Filipino Night dinner and dance. During Prince Rupert’s Seafest, the lineup for the famous Filipino shish kebabs will travel around an entire block.
The Prince Rupert Filipino-Canadian Association is an active fundraiser for the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital, the Acropolis Manor, the Canadian Cancer Society and other local and international charities. They are extremely charitable, giving to the people in the Philippines who are victims of devastating earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, floods and mudslides.
In 2013 and 2014, members of the association fundraised to help victims of Typhoon Haiyan by knocking on doors, campaigning on social media and selling T-shirts and baked goods. Over $45,000 was sent to the Canadian Red Cross Haiyan relief fund because of their efforts.
Every year for the past 45 years, the association has also helped high school graduates with the cost of their post-secondary education, providing bursaries and scholarships. Members are proud to say that their association has helped their youth become successful nurses, pharmacists, lawyers, accountants and engineers and has supported students in the nautical, industrial, culinary and other rewarding careers.
I look forward to celebrating these past 45 years this Saturday with the over 150 Filipino residents of Prince Rupert.
Salamat. Thank you to the Filipino-Canadian Association of Prince Rupert for all that you contribute to the fabric of our community.
Oral Questions
PUBLIC DEBATE ON
REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM
A. Wilkinson: The referendum is underway. The ballots are arriving in mailboxes, and the feedback we’re getting from citizens and voters all over British Columbia is that they find the package confusing. It’s hard to make your way through it. It provides a range of confusing choices. So obviously, voters are looking for more information.
Now, the Premier agreed to have a debate on October 4. He further agreed on October 18 that we would go ahead with the debate. The television networks are trying to pin down a date with the Premier, and his staff are being evasive.
Interjections.
A. Wilkinson: Now, the members opposite giggle, while their constituents are opening the mail and finding this confusing package. We still have no date for a debate. Surely, this Premier has the backbone not to delay the debate until the vote is passed.
We have to ask ourselves. I’m ready any time. The television crews are ready. The people of British Columbia deserve information, and we have a Premier who doesn’t want to face the cameras.
Premier, pick a date.
Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know why the Leader of the Opposition can’t take yes for an answer. This is, I believe, the third time he has utilized question period to ask me about how our schedules are going.
I’ve made the commitment to meet him at a stage somewhere so he can get more exposure, and I still wait for him to stand in the Legislature and take up the debate opportunities that are presented to him. I am perplexed that the Leader of the Opposition wants to hang on to first-past-the-post, because if the B.C. Liberal Party had used first-past-the-post when they selected him as leader, he would have come third.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, cheap shots, giggles and personal attacks about my home address. This is what we get in response from a Premier who hasn’t got the guts to face the cameras. He’s a coward about this manipulative referendum, and he hasn’t got the stomach to face the music.
Premier, when is the date for the debate?
Hon. J. Horgan: I just heard personal attacks from the Leader of the Opposition about my backbone, my character and my stomach. If he wants an anatomy lesson, I thought he would have taken that up in medical school when he had the opportunity.
One surefire way to help the Minister of Health address the shortage of doctors created under that government’s watch is for him to resign and take up a position in a hospital.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s quite apparent that the Premier is getting distressed about this, because he’s completely avoiding the issue.
Leaders need to lead. Leaders need to show the courage of their convictions. This Premier needs to show the people of British Columbia that he’s prepared to talk about this referendum on television. He’s agreed to do it. He needs to face that uncertainty.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
A. Wilkinson: We have to ask: what is the fear of scrutiny? What is the fear of the microphone? What is it about this Premier that he’s not prepared to actually go in front of the cameras? Is he evading and avoiding this until it’s too late?
Premier, pick a date. We’ll all be there.
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m looking at a camera right now, and I’m answering the question that the member asked me. I’m happy to debate him. We’re working on the details.
I don’t own television networks. I don’t think any of his backers are owning television networks. Once we figure out the date, I look forward to having a discussion with the member. But I think all members of this House, including his back bench, would like to know what his position is in this House.
There’s a bill before the House right now. Perhaps he’ll stand up this afternoon and talk about his position on proportional representation. Proportional representation was good enough for the B.C. Liberal Party when they were selecting a leader but not good enough for the people of British Columbia. It’s okay, according to that side of the House, for 40 percent of the vote to have 100 percent of the power. It’s not okay on this side of the House.
The public will answer that question at the end of November. I encourage the member to stand in this House and put forward his idea.
P. Milobar: It’s one thing to agree. It’s another thing to have so little prioritization in your scheduling that it takes over two weeks to come up with a date. I would note that the Premier had no problem getting on a plane to go to Washington to pick up a cheque for $165,000 on a moment’s notice but wasn’t so quick to come up with a debate date.
I asked myself: why would the Premier be ducking away from a date so much? I remembered a quote from — very highly regarded in these circles — A Matter of Confidence, a lovely book. In it, it says: “He earned the nickname ‘Asphalt Gopher’ for his tendency, when hit, to drop to the ground.”
Yesterday the Premier showed that he hadn’t changed, because he said: “I pick no fights with anyone.” That seems to be very apparent, Mr. Premier. When will the Premier set a date for this debate? Enough is enough.
Hon. J. Horgan: My pugnacious pal from North Kamloops has the same problem as the Leader of the Opposition. I’ve agreed to debate the member in November. We’re working with the networks to find a day. I can’t believe that they want to characterize my not being able to find a particular time to talk about something that’s before this House right now. It’s staggering to me.
I stood right here and put my views forward on proportional representation. Why won’t you?
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: What’s before the House is actually a bill that’s trying to change the rules of the referendum mid-referendum, but that could be all hammered out in the middle of a public debate. The Premier has many things that he could answer during the debate.
Again, if the Premier wants people to take his great leap forward…. Oops. Sorry. That was Chairman Mao that said that. If the Premier wants people to take his leap of faith, why are so many important details unknown? What is he hiding? Which is it? Is the Premier not picking a debate date because of all of the hidden details, or is he not picking a debate date because he’s afraid of the format?
Hon. J. Horgan: Okay. Let me get this right. Now I’m afraid of the format. First of all, I won’t look at my calendar to pick a day. Now my learned colleague from Kamloops reads, chapter and verse, the quarterback for QP’s question for the day. I think they should give up on this question.
Happy to debate you. As soon as the networks give us a time, I’ll see you there.
ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND
REFORMS TO PRIMARY HEALTH
CARE
S. Furstenau: And now for something completely different.
Graphs from the MSP Physician Resource Report indicate the total expenditure for general practice doctors has increased significantly since 2005, but the average number of patients treated per physician has dropped. The government’s policy changes over the last ten years have led to more doctors, fewer working days treating fewer patients.
The data focuses on quantity of care but not quality. In many cases, doctors seeing fewer patients is a positive change, as it indicates they are spending more time with each individual. For people struggling with multiple or complex conditions, this added assistance is essential. With doctors striving to create healthier work-life balance, the policies used to address the doctor shortages of the 1970s are no longer relevant.
Family doctors play a vital role in our well-being, and they deserve a policy framework that lets them treat patients in a manageable, fulfilling and effective manner. To the Minister of Health: what concrete steps is he taking to modernize our province’s approach to the doctor shortage? Has he considered a role for physician assistants in that future?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I think at the heart of what we’re trying to do, particularly with respect to primary care, is bringing team-based care everywhere in British Columbia. That means doctors, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, pharmacists and LPNs — everyone working together in teams to provide better care for patients, which is the goal in the long run. It will also provide better work-life balance and supports for doctors working in the system, both from one another and from other professionals working in health care. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is that when I talk to doctors, one of their real concerns is the increasing time that they have to spend finding appropriate services, whether it be for mental health and addictions or for frail elderly. That’s why we’re putting in place one-stop shopping for doctors, for specialized services to improve both their quality of life and the quality of care and ensure they can spend the maximum amount of time during their day with patients.
I think the third set of things we have to do in a modern age is to greatly improve the use of digital technologies. Some of our partnerships, including with great B.C.-based companies such as Telus, do exactly that.
Finally, we do need, in these circumstances, to add more resources. It’s why we are adding more family practice doctors, more nurse practitioners, more pharmacists and other professionals to staff these teams to provide more supports. Physician assistants, which the member mentioned, could play an important role in all of that, and they are used in other provinces.
We’re focusing right now on dramatically increasing the use of nurse practitioners. We’ve had nurse practitioners, as a result of the efforts of the former government, since 2005. However, in 2017, we were 12th and 13th in their use. We need to do better, and we will.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s response, and I have one other aspect to ask him about. We know that demographic changes occurring in B.C. will greatly exacerbate the challenges that we face now with doctor shortages.
To the Minister of Health: how will he balance the quality of care that people are getting with the rising demand of a growing and aging population in B.C.?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you again to the member for her question. I feel a 15-minute answer coming on, and I know you’ll help me with that, hon. Speaker.
I think, first of all, that all of this is an essential part of our primary care plan, but it’s not just about primary care in a society that’s changing, such as ours. I was in Fort St. James, in my colleague’s riding, recently. We announced a new hospital there. We also, importantly, added two alternate-payment-plan general practitioners to provide services there and, in association with the First Nations health authorities, the communities surrounding Fort St. James.
We need to use imaginative solutions both to improve care and to understand that people want to be able to live, and live fully, where they are. That means, just as we did yesterday on Vancouver Island, increasing respite services and adult day programs so that those very seniors don’t just have a medical response to their problem but are able to live more fully out in the world and have supports when they do so.
Finally, I was so proud last week when my colleague introduced a poverty reduction plan in British Columbia. We know that we have to also spend our health care resources efficiently so that we have the means to respond to issues like income inequality, which are so fundamental to the health of British Columbians.
PUBLIC DEBATE ON
REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM
S. Bond: Well, the Premier can stand in the Legislature and be as dismissive as he wants. He can make fun of the questions that we’re asking on this side of the House, but if he thinks for one minute that it’s lost on anyone that he is simply ragging the puck, he would be wrong.
Deciding the future of the electoral system in British Columbia isn’t a laughing matter. As we speak, voting packages are arriving in mailboxes around the province — yet no time, no date for a public debate. It’s ironic, though — and I’m sure that the Premier will be happy to explain this — that the Premier miraculously found time for a rally with the junior partner but still no room in his calendar to stand up and explain his views directly to British Columbians, especially when he made so many promises about this referendum and broke every one of them.
The clock is ticking, Premier. People are receiving their ballots. Will the Premier now step up, stop the delays, tell his staff to find a time and a date, and get the debate underway?
Hon. J. Horgan: Boy, they must be pretty shallow on the other side if this is all they can come up with. I have found a place to rally here in Victoria because that’s within my control. I do not control television networks. I do not control any of those issues. My staff are working on that. I believe they might even be working with the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that the date is appropriate.
We’ve agreed to a debate; we’re going to have one. The people of British Columbia will decide this, and, hon. Speaker and members of this place, where better than right here for the Leader of the Opposition to stand and offer up his views on what our electoral system should look like?
As I said in earlier answers, proportional representation was okay for the B.C. Liberals, but first-past-the-post is okay for the rest of the province. I disagree with that. I’ve stood in this place, and I’ve said so. I campaigned on bringing forward a referendum. We’re doing that.
The people will decide on what’s in their best interest. I believe they want to become the centre of politics again, not the big money Wild West of the Liberals. Not the “I’m going to get less than 50 percent of the vote but have 100 percent of the power,” which is what they played on for 16 years in this place. The public will decide. I look forward to hearing from them, and I even look forward to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: I can’t imagine that anyone in this building, or beyond, despite…. The Premier thinks there are some pretty significant ratings, apparently, if this is the only place he should have that debate. But I don’t think there’s a single person…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please, we shall hear the question.
S. Bond: …in this place, or maybe the few that are watching on television, that believes a Premier can’t simply say to his staff: “Find a date, make it the number one priority, and let’s get the debate underway.”
Here’s what this Premier said. He said it on September 26. I’m sure he’s had some scheduling meetings since that time. “After the municipal elections” — those are done — “are concluded at the end of October, if there’s still a desire to have more discussions between he and I,” obviously referencing the Leader of the Opposition, “I’m happy to do that.” On October 4, the Premier said it again: “The Leader of the Opposition wants to go. I’m good with that.”
What happened? Why is the Premier really comfortable standing here and asking British Columbians to take a leap of faith?
Premier, it’s not a laughing matter.
British Columbians deserve the kind of Premier that says one thing and does it. It’s time for him to step it up, agree to a time and date, stop ragging the puck and get the debate scheduled.
Hon. J. Horgan: I can now see why the Liberals didn’t like fall sessions, either in government or in opposition. They’ve got nothing to say.
I said: “Let’s debate.” I told my staff to find a time. They’re working on it. Again, I don’t know what part of “yes” the Liberals don’t understand.
I mean, surely to goodness, the Leader of the Opposition has more to do in his day than to worry about when we can go on TV. One thing he could do is to stand in the Legislature, the foundation of our democracy. The reason we have elections is to bring people here so they can speak for their constituents and for their values so all British Columbians can see it.
That’s why we record the proceedings, hon. Speaker, under your benevolent watch. That’s why people tune in — to hear what people have to say. Why won’t the Leader of the Opposition stand here and offer up?
M. de Jong: One thing the Premier could do is actually provide British Columbians with some of the facts and information they require to make an informed choice in this referendum. But he refuses to do so.
We know what the strategy is: the less said, the better. The less information people have, the better, because the more information they have about what is being offered, the less inclined they are to opt for one of the manipulated results that the Premier and his friends in the Green Party are hoping for.
The Premier reminds me of one of those snake oil salesmen from a different era. He rides into town with Dr. J’s election tonic, guaranteed to cure all of your election problems. But when people ask him what’s in it, he says: “I can’t tell you that.” When they ask him: “How does your election tonic work, Dr. J?” “Well, I can’t tell you that either.”
There is an opportunity for the Premier to provide details and facts and the information that people need to make a decision, and he is consistently refusing to do it. It’s time to give people the information they require in a forum they can see.
Hon. J. Horgan: If only Dr. J’s potion could grow hair, that member and this member and this member standing right here would use it. But that’s not what this is about.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Horgan: Show-off.
Elections B.C. is conducting a referendum in British Columbia. If the member on the opposite side doesn’t have confidence in Elections B.C. to discharge their responsibilities, he should say so, but the notion that I am somehow withholding information when I’ve stood in this place and debated the very question….
I’m going to be talking about it this evening. At some time in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have the opportunity to spend quality time with the Leader of the Opposition on someone’s television network.
I don’t understand what the problem is. Have confidence in the people of British Columbia. Have faith in their good judgment. They were smart enough to get rid of you guys after 16 years.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Twenty-nine separate issues and details that the people of British Columbia need to make an informed choice that this Premier and his government refuse to provide them with. How is that having confidence in British Columbians?
I remember a different Premier. I was thinking about this last night. Maybe a poetic dissertation on what’s wrong with this:
He once stood tall, said he’d tell all
but now he’s changed his tune.
He won’t disclose the facts, you see,
because facts will be his ruin.
He cut a deal in Green ink to grab the Premier’s chair.
Manipulate the vote, will he, to keep it.
That’s what he cares about.
Party lists and riding size, people need to know,
but the Premier doesn’t care, you see. Into the dark you go.
He’s turned this vote into a sham.
I’m not surprised. That was the plan.
But on this day and in this place
provide some facts. End this disgrace.
Hon. J. Horgan: I was hopeful that perhaps proportional representation would have helped that member become leader, but he came fifth under first-past-the-post. It does lead me to think of a limerick that I will save for another day, perhaps in private with the member.
I can only now assume, based on that question, that the real reason that the B.C. Liberals want a televised debate is so we can all see the Leader of the Opposition do interpretative dance to explain his support of first-past-the-post.
T. Stone: With such a flawed process, it is increasingly easy to understand why so many British Columbians are frustrated and angry at this entire sham of a referendum. There’s no regional approval. No minimum turnout. No simple yes-no question. A mail-in ballot on top of the municipal elections. No citizens’ assembly. No maps. And 29 details to be determined after the vote. And, of course, the promise of a second referendum do-over.
Folks across British Columbia are feeling like the NDP and the Greens are trying to pull a fast one on them. The Premier seems intent to hide every critical detail possible from British Columbians as part of this entire process. Our democracy is much, much better than this.
Will the Premier agree to a date — that’s the question today — to debate the Leader of the Opposition on the mockery of this referendum? Or does the Premier lack the guts to defend his referendum?
Hon. J. Horgan: Another reference to my midriff. I think, clearly, my suits are ill-fitting if it’s of that much import to those on the other side.
Today’s question is: pick a date. That’s what I just heard from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. Pick a date. That’s what the member for Richmond-Queensborough has come up with to take the government to task. “Pick a date when I can get on a network so that my leader can do interpretative dance.” That’s the question for today.
As I said weeks ago, happy to do it. As soon as we get the date nailed down, I’m looking forward to seeing the Leader of the Opposition on stage.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: In this Referendum on Electoral Reform, the most sacred aspect of our democracy — that being how we actually elect the members who sit in this chamber on behalf of British Columbians — the Premier has conveniently and purposely chosen to direct people to go to Google to get information. He’s called on British Columbians to take this great leap of faith. “You’ll get a do-over referendum if things don’t work out,” he says. His government has engaged in outright attempts to manipulate the results of this referendum.
Now, our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has got the guts and the courage to debate in prime time with the Premier. Yet all we hear from the Premier are excuses, which continue to this day — excuse after excuse after excuse.
It’s not a time to be timid, Mr. Premier. It’s not right to show such contempt for the people of British Columbia, the voters of British Columbia. When will you agree to a specific date to debate this critical question in front of British Columbians?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m perplexed. The member on the other side, who also would have come in, I think, second under first-past-the-post…. No. Third. I’m sorry. Number two is right beside you there.
It was okay for the B.C. Liberal Party to use proportional representation to select their leader. I can understand buyer’s remorse at this point. I realize that. But that is not a reason to withhold the opportunity for British Columbians to make their choice on how they elect people to this House. That’s what the referendum is all about.
During the clone speech period of the evolution of the B.C. Liberals, they were all in favour of a referendum on proportional representation. I don’t know what happened. What happened? Come on, man. Stick with the program and go from there.
Hon. Speaker, today’s question of the day was: pick a date. We will have a date. The opposition leader will have an opportunity to put his views forward. He chooses not to use the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia to do that. These cameras apparently aren’t good enough. The ratings aren’t high enough. It sounds Trump-like: “I don’t like the ratings, so I’m not going on.”
No fake news in here. Just passion and reasoned debate. That’s why we have the Legislature. Why the Leader of the Opposition refuses to stand up, I don’t know.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
D. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. The petition is from First Things First Okanagan, a group of very caring individuals with grave concerns about climate change and its precipitating factors. It’s their request for all governments to exercise government’s duty of care to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of climate change.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 42, the Assessment Amendment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
On section 1.
Hon. S. Robinson: First, before we get started, I just want to thank the staff I’ve got with me — Kevin Volk, Rob Fraser and Nancy Peck — for their work on this bill.
T. Stone: We have a series of questions. Obviously, there are just the two sections of this bill, so we’re just going to go through a whole bunch of questions in this first section here.
I’m wondering if the minister can indicate a specific number with respect to how many properties across British Columbia are currently classified as class 4 major industrial properties.
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s 275 properties.
T. Stone: Could the minister indicate what percentage this represents of all properties in the assessment rolls across British Columbia?
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s 275 properties of two million.
T. Stone: Could the minister give me a ballpark figure of what the total dollar value, the assessed value, is of these class 4 properties?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’ve got hundreds of millions, but I don’t have those numbers at my fingertips right now. I can get them for the member if he’d like.
T. Stone: Yes, that would be great if the minister could provide that information to me. That would be just fine.
I’m wondering if the minister could advise which municipality or which local government in British Columbia actually has the greatest number of class 4 properties. Which local government would that be?
Hon. S. Robinson: Class 4 properties are located throughout the province in rural and urban settings. They are spread throughout the province, but in terms of the one that has the greatest number, I can get that number for the member as well.
T. Stone: Could the minister indicate how many class 4 properties, the tools provided for in this bill, she expects would be potentially able to use these new powers?
Hon. S. Robinson: Given that with these changes, potentially all of them, at some point, would be eligible, should there be an OCP change, they would be able to make those requests.
T. Stone: The minister mentioned in her second reading comments…. No, it was when she introduced the bill in first reading, she said: “…one facility, which employs dozens of personnel, that is facing a several-fold increase in property taxes as a result of the discrepancy between valuation and classification, an increase that would put these very important jobs at risk.”
Could the minister advise what property that is, what specific property she’s referring to?
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s the Flavelle mill in Port Moody.
T. Stone: How many class 4 properties have been currently identified, that she’s aware of, for future redevelopment in official community plans across the province?
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you to the member for the question. We did a scan of the 275 properties. This is the only one where there’s been an OCP change that is actively currently being used as a mill.
T. Stone: Is the minister aware of any other communities that are likely to make an official community plan change that would, therefore, bring an industrial property into the view of the tools provided for in this legislation?
Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member is fully aware that local communities get to review their OCPs as they wish and as they determine what’s best for their communities. That’s certainly always a possibility — that local governments can choose to review their OCP and make those kinds of changes.
T. Stone: At the Flavelle site that the minister mentioned, how many jobs are potentially at stake? We’re assuming that the owners of this particular site, in discussions with the government, have, as part of their pitch to government or their expression of the challenge that they’re facing, indicated to the government what that economic loss would potentially be. I’m sure that that was conveyed there. I would assume that was conveyed to the minister in the form of a jobs number. Is the minister able to share that with this House?
Hon. S. Robinson: I was informed that 75 jobs were at stake.
T. Stone: In a broader context, with respect to this piece of legislation, could the minister advise this House as to what form of engagement and consultation she and her ministry undertook with stakeholders and, in particular, the Union of B.C. Municipalities?
Hon. S. Robinson: We certainly talked with the city of Port Moody, and we consulted with Gary MacIsaac, who is the CEO of UBCM.
T. Stone: Has the minister or the ministry undertaken to have conversations with communities within which class 4 properties are located?
In particular, there are a number of communities that would have a disproportionate share of class 4 properties that would probably be pretty keenly interested in understanding what this legislation entails, what the motivations are behind it and how it would work.
I’m wondering if the minister, beyond Port Moody…. I totally understand that’s the acute situation that, obviously, this bill is intended to address. But certainly, there must have been some additional conversations with other communities that have industrial or class 4 property, understanding that the tools within this legislative change would also be available to those other class 4 property owners. Could the minister advise if conversations or any engagement consultations have been undertaken with any other communities and, if so, which ones?
Hon. S. Robinson: Just to remind the member, we use the UBCM to help inform these sorts of decisions. In consultation with them, we chose to proceed forward, given the response that we received there.
T. Stone: The minister is a former local government councillor herself, so I’m curious if she could share her thoughts in the context of this bill. Those class 4 property owners that would use this to make the application and be approved and so forth would obviously do so to reduce what would otherwise be a larger property tax burden. That would inevitably result in the local government having to account for that in some way, in terms of either adjusting other mill rates or in other contexts of their budget.
I’m just wondering if the minister has any thoughts around…. And maybe this flows from some of the conversations that she had with Port Moody and others. What strategies are likely to be employed by municipalities that, if this tool was used, would then have to juggle their mill rates to adjust for a reduction in property tax revenues that would flow to said communities?
Hon. S. Robinson: In reality, in this particular case, there has never been a tax increase. Because the mill would have shut down, it would have been taxed as a vacant property, so that would have never been realized. That is why we do have a plan going forward to look at other classifications, recognizing that there are certainly some challenges.
Once again, you can adjust within class. That’s why I’m grateful for having staff who understand some of the finer details of how classifications work and how we adjust within class in order to have things balanced out according to the work that they have done. There have been minor shifts.
T. Stone: Well, thank you, Minister.
My next question is with respect to the provincial industrial property tax credit. My understanding is that class 4 properties get a 60 percent school tax reduction.
I’m wondering. If this particular tool was used, assuming the application was approved and so forth, would that industrial class 4 property owner no longer receive the 60 percent school tax reduction credit that they currently receive? Would that credit be reduced? Would it be taken away? What would the impacts on that credit be, I guess is my question, if the tools in this legislation were actually used by that class 4 property owner?
Hon. S. Robinson: There’s no change, so they’ll continue paying what they’ve been paying.
T. Stone: Just to clarify. These class 4 property owners at the moment receive this 60 percent school tax reduction. They would continue to receive that if they were to apply for and receive the relief that is provided for in this particular piece of legislation.
Hon. S. Robinson: To reiterate, there’s no change in anything. It’s status quo.
T. Stone: I’m curious as to the definition of “relevant year” in this legislation. I’m just wondering if the minister could clarify. Is the relevant year intended to reflect the calendar year of the official community plan change?
Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it’s calendar year.
T. Stone: Could the minister explain why the relevant year is defined as only the year the OCP is adopted and not up to 12 months after the official community plan is adopted?
Hon. S. Robinson: B.C. Assessment works on an annual cycle, so it’s based on how the B.C. Assessment works its annual workplan.
T. Stone: I guess what I’m trying to understand here…. I did canvass it a bit with your staff at a prior meeting, but just for clarity, I wanted to ask you about it today. If an official community plan is adopted very late in the calendar year, thus leaving, potentially, a property owner with only a week or five days or two weeks, are they expected to conclude their entire review and determination of whether or not they’re going to make an application under this provision, let alone actually make that application, in what could be an incredibly compressed time frame?
Hon. S. Robinson: Under its legislation, B.C. Assessment must establish its role based on conditions as of October 31 of each year. If an official community plan amendment was made between November 1 and December 31, the property owner would still need to apply before December 31 to be eligible for the designation.
The property would be valued as major industrial for the next two years, although its highest and best use would have only changed in the second year. The property opener would have the ability to request an extension to the designation from the minister through an order-in-council.
T. Stone: I understand that. But my question is: if that official community plan is adopted or the change is made very late in a calendar year, does the property owner have to make that decision to actually submit an application for the relief provided under this new tool in that same calendar year, which could be…? If the official community plan was made, let’s say, in the first week of December, it would leave them with only a matter of, literally, a handful of business days to determine whether or not they’re even going to apply, let alone do the application and get it in.
I’m just trying to understand if that is the intent, if I’m reading the legislation correctly on this particular point.
Hon. S. Robinson: I can appreciate the member’s question. We need to remember that an OCP is a significant piece of work that gets undertaken by local governments. In fact, it takes years of work. I would expect, as it goes through the various processes, that any property owner in anticipation of an OCP amendment would be following that process along very carefully and making sure that they can put in the paperwork in a timely manner. That would be part of their thinking and their strategy to make sure that they can have the benefit of this legislation.
T. Stone: Well, let’s hope so. I would imagine that if it’s a major change, one would hope that all parties would be engaged. I would just hope that the minister and the ministry would, obviously, monitor this closely. It’s likely only going to come into play with one property initially, but monitor it closely to just see if, from a practical perspective, the time frames involved are actually workable for the class 4 property owners in question.
Moving to subsection 1(b), which is adding the following subsections in subsection (8), I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate to this House why the deadline for an initial notice to be provided is set as December. Why was the date set as December 31?
The Chair: Just for clarification, Member, 1(b)(8) is what you were referencing.
T. Stone: Yes, section 1(b)(8) of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
Hon. S. Robinson: October 1 is when B.C. Assessment establishes condition and use of the property. The intervening time, up to December 31, is when they can make application to B.C. Assessment so that B.C. Assessment can adjust the valuation accordingly.
T. Stone: Again, receiving notice on or before December 31, what form will this include? Are we contemplating a hard-copy original that has to be sent in? Will email be acceptable? Hopefully, it will. The facts…. What will B.C. Assessment consider as received? And will it be associated to a specific mailing or courier date or an email-sent date, a fax-sent date?
Could the minister provide some clarification on this receiving notice on or before December 31 — what that actually looks like?
Hon. S. Robinson: I love the level of detail here. It’s great.
I have just been advised that the form has been designed. It will be available electronically.
T. Stone: Well, that’s great.
I’m wondering if the minister could indicate what is considered as “notice in the form prescribed.” Will this just be a multipage form? Will it allow for attachments — i.e., the submission of financial statements or other accounting reports, supporting documents? What is that “form prescribed” going to look like?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’ve learned a lot about this one-page form.
The focus of this one-page form will be the legal description of the property, and the main content would be the level of production and employment numbers. B.C. Assessment may ask for additional information as required, so that they can do a proper valuation.
T. Stone: See, we’re all learning a lot with the fine details here.
I appreciate the minister — the previous response that said that it will be in electronic form. That’s good. I’m just wondering if that form and the related attachments or some part of it will be made available publicly on the B.C. Assessment website at some point in this process.
Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, it will be public.
T. Stone: Could the minister advise when a submission will be considered on time for that December 31 required date? Will it be considered on time when the prescribed form is submitted? Or does the prescribed form have to be complete, with all of its related attached supporting documents?
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s about getting the form in on time. It’s the one-page form.
T. Stone: Has the ministry contemplated a requirement or a component as part of this process, which would require the local government in question to actually support the class 4 property owner in their submission — as part of the process that this legislative change would provide?
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s an interesting question that the member asks, but we need to remember that this is about an OCP change.
Given that we’re hopefully going to be passing this bill, it will become really clear to all local governments that when they make an OCP change, this is absolutely a possibility — of a functioning class 4 property continuing to operate under its current use. An OCP change would absolutely provide an opportunity for them to make this application. The local government would be fully aware that that would be the case, given that they’re the ones that passed the OCP.
T. Stone: This new subsection — again, subsection (8) — section 1(b), that we’re providing for the new subsection 8 in the actual Assessment Act refers to “equivalent or greater level of production.”
I’m just wondering if the minister could indicate how the level of production will actually be measured by B.C. Assessment. I’m assuming it would be different for a mining class 4 property versus a mill versus some other heavy industrial use. Could she indicate how level of production will actually be measured?
Hon. S. Robinson: B.C. Assessment will be assessing the level of production on an annual basis, taking into consideration the annual operating production cycle, such as maintenance and seasonal production, as well as employment practices. If there are minor or non-material changes to the production level, this should not impact the status of the property, as the assessor does have some discretion.
T. Stone: I appreciate that. The minister, in her first reading comments, said: “a commitment to maintain their current use in an equivalent or greater level of productivity for that two-year period.” So my question is: can she confirm that it’s B.C. Assessment that will actually determine that level of productivity? I think I understand the measurements here, but I just want to confirm that it’s actually B.C. Assessment that will confirm that level of productivity.
Maybe I’ll make it a two-part question, and we’ll keep going at a clip here. What happens if there are market forces outside of the class 4 industrial owner’s control that preclude that particular facility, whether it be a sawmill or a mine, from actually being able to maintain that equivalent level of productivity?
Thirdly, how will B.C. Assessment really measure this on an annual basis, whether it’s gone up or gone down, taking into account potential outside forces that may or may not impact that operation’s ability to maintain that same level of productivity?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that this is just for two years. We’re certainly recognizing that this isn’t a long-term change; it extends for two years. If the assessor removes a benefit because he or she…. Oh, and it is B.C. Assessment — just to go back to the very first question, to confirm.
If the assessor removes a benefit because they don’t believe that the production levels have been achieved as specified in the legislation, they can challenge the decision through the property assessment appeal system. It is a place where, if something should happen to the market, outside forces, they can certainly make that appeal there. Should that happen, it’s the place where that flexibility exists.
T. Stone: I agree, in the sense that it’s only a two-year period. The chances of there being a significant deterioration…. I mean, it’s 24 months. A lot can happen, I suppose, but it is a confined two-year period.
I guess I would be more curious as to how the minister would answer this question in the context of the indeterminate period that might represent the extension that’s provided, because the same requirement would continue to be in place maintaining that equivalent level of production.
It would have be to there on an ongoing basis, which, on an extension, could be for a five-, a ten-, a 15-year period, presumably, depending on what duration of extension was actually approved should the applicant actually make an application for that extension. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. It’s the extension period I’m more concerned about.
Related to this, does this productivity level actually reset when an extension is applied for?
Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, we need to remember the context of what this legislation is about. It is about a redevelopment of class 4 property. It’s about an OCP change that has been challenged by different uses and anticipated uses. So it’s always in the context of that frame that we’re looking at — how to provide a bit of interim relief while that OCP is being acted upon.
I think it’s really important to remember that that’s the frame. It’s not a forever extension because there is going to be redevelopment. It does reset with an extension. It gives us….
After two years, if there’s a new market framework for consideration, that is a reset. It will be up to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, when we take a look at an extension, to take a look at the market forces and to make a determination as well as determine how many years that extension makes sense.
If there is redevelopment happening fairly quickly and it’s moving forward fairly quickly, it might just be a very short extension in order to make sure that the lands that are currently being used continue to employ the people that are working there until such time that this property is being used for the other purpose.
I think that answers sort of all components that I have for the question.
T. Stone: I’m curious to know: what time frame does the reporting of this productivity actually encompass? Are we talking the property owner’s fiscal? Are we talking about government’s fiscal year? Are we talking about the calendar year? Are we talking about the time frames that B.C. Assessment uses?
What’s the time frame that’s actually in play with respect to this reporting of productivity?
Hon. S. Robinson: It’s based on calendar year because that’s what B.C. Assessment uses.
T. Stone: Now, productivity measurements in terms of the obvious class 4 property owners, like sawmills and mines, are pretty obvious. It’s likely tonnage from a mining perspective or board feet from a mill perspective, and jobs and so forth. But I’m just curious.
One of the other class 4 types of properties would be shipbuilding sites. So I’m wondering if the minister could advise what performance measure will likely be in play in B.C. Assessment’s mind when looking at a shipbuilding class 4 property.
Hon. S. Robinson: As I mentioned earlier, about the form that applicants would have to fill out, there is a section where it talks about their productivity levels. So how they measure their productivity levels is how they will fill out that form. And if that’s the element that’s going to be used in order to determine that, some of it will certainly be about employment numbers.
Certainly, there will be other aspects to that, and that would be work that B.C. Assessment will be doing with the major industrial property owner in order to determine specifically — for those of us who aren’t in shipbuilding — so that they would have their own way to determine their productivity. That would be a negotiation with B.C. Assessment.
T. Stone: These production measurements, whether they be for a sawmill, a mine, a shipbuilding property…. Presumably, B.C. Assessment is developing these measurements now. Can the minister provide any indication as to when these productivity or production measurements will actually be confirmed by B.C. Assessment and when they would be conveyed publicly?
Hon. S. Robinson: The property owner would indicate their current level of productivity, and that would be the identifier that would continue to be used as it gets reviewed annually. That’s the work that the property owner needs, to demonstrate their productivity, and it has to be, of course, reasonable. That’s going to be the measure that B.C. Assessment uses with them.
T. Stone: I may have missed the first part of the minister’s response. I just want to make sure I’m clear. So the productivity measurements would…. That B.C. Assessment land zone would largely be determined based on what the property owner suggests or indicates as the key production measurements for their particular operation? Did I hear that correctly?
It won’t necessarily be prescribed. These measurements won’t be prescribed. If you’re a mill, you’re a mill. It’s board feet and jobs. If you’re a mine, it’s tonnage and jobs and whatever else. So it won’t be prescribed in that manner? It would be a collaborative process that would be determined based on the unique circumstances that exist with each particular property owner or industrial operation? Is that correct?
Hon. S. Robinson: Yeah, that’s sort of the nature of it. There will be the requirement to demonstrate productivity over the most recent number of years, to demonstrate that that is their productivity. And the expectation is that that’s going to continue and that that’s what they will be reporting back to B.C. Assessment in order to maintain this changed status.
T. Stone: To the minister, I’m wondering if she could indicate for this House why the deadline for a subsequent extension is set at October 31.
Hon. S. Robinson: They have to know what the use is, which is established. The deadline is October 31, and that’s a B.C. Assessment deadline.
T. Stone: Also with respect to the extension request, the minister mentioned in her second reading comments, “At the end of the two-year term, an eligible major industry property may make a one-time application for extension,” the key words being “at the end of the two-year term.” But the amendment states: “ If, on or before October 31 in the later of the 2 taxation years”.
Just seeking clarity here. Does the extension request need to be made in the second year? Or can it be made at any point during the initial two-year period?
Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s question, yes, a property owner can apply for an extension before the two years is up, but it wouldn’t make any sense to do that. It would make sense to use your two years and, if you need an extension, to do it in your second year. It would just make more sense to do it that way. The other part, about the October 31 deadline that the member asked, also provides cabinet with the opportunity to review the OIC and make sure that all that happens in a timely manner as well.
T. Stone: Okay. I appreciate that. It may not make any point to us here now, but I just wanted to know that in terms of…. Is the legislation, or the provisions in this legislation, rigid insofar as requiring it to be made at the end of that second year? Or can an application for an extension be made earlier? I’m assuming you could. It may not make sense, practically speaking, to the minister and myself today. But I just want to make sure I’m clear if there is flexibility around when an application for an extension can actually be made from a time frame perspective.
Hon. S. Robinson: The legislation does say “on or before,” which implies they can make it sooner.
T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister can elaborate on the rationale for only allowing an opportunity for one extension. Albeit, in that one extension, while the minister had said previously — and I understand what she’s saying — it’s not for an indeterminate…. It’s not forever. Presumably, the land in question is likely to be redeveloped.
The minister and I have jostled on this many times in terms of how long it takes per zoning, depending on the community that you’re in. Some do it really quickly and expeditiously. Others, it can take a long time.
There are examples that I could cite to the minister — and I’m sure that she has many herself — especially when you’re talking about an industrial class 4 property, where a zoning process can take not just four, five, six years. Sometimes it can be ten-plus years. But you might not know that it’s going to take that long when you first need to make that application for an extension.
I’m just wondering why. If cabinet ultimately has the authority, through order-in-council, to grant the extension, meaning that this has to go in front of cabinet, why would the minister and government not have allowed for a little bit more flexibility here in terms of the opportunity to extend, taking into account market forces, forces that largely would be outside of the control of the class 4 property owner?
Hon. S. Robinson: The rationale for just one renewal opportunity is…. Again, we need to go back to what’s gone on in the community. It’s about an OCP change, and it’s about helping people move forward. The member who’s asking the question has, I know, been frustrated about how long some of these things take. So making sure that the property owner and the local government are working together in order to move things forward is part of keeping everyone motivated to move along the process.
At the end of the day, this is really about changing land uses, which the government has decided and the community has decided is important to have happen, and making sure that everyone continues to be on the same page.
T. Stone: I’m still failing to understand the rationale. Aside from my…. I hear the minister. One would hope, one would expect, one would encourage all of the parties to work together on this. I acknowledge that the official community plan, in particular when there are substantive changes to any particular community, draws the attention of a lot of people and, in particular, certain property owners and certain parts of said community.
If you’re an operation like Flavelle, a long-standing operation on that site for many, many years but nevertheless on waterfront in Metro Vancouver — or anywhere in Metro Vancouver these days — there’s a high likelihood that at some point in the future, that property will be redeveloped, likely for a mix of residential-commercial in the future.
I agree with the minister that we would want all parties to work together. Presumably, class 4 heavy industry property owners would be at their own peril…. They would be at their peril not to be engaged with the local government.
That being said, again to the minister: does she not feel that that there are a lot of factors outside of one’s control if you’re that class 4 industrial property owner or the local government in question? Even a municipal election can change the dynamics quickly in a particular community.
Again, I’m just trying to understand why there wouldn’t have been a little bit more flexibility built into this extension process. If, at the end of the day, the decision is going to be made by cabinet, I just fail to understand why there wouldn’t have been more flexibility built into the legislation, so I’d appreciate if the minister could take one more shot at providing her thoughts on that.
Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll provide my answer, and then I’ll note the hour, if that’s okay with the Chair.
I want to point out that there is flexibility in the extension. The number of years for the extension could be five years, could be eight years, based on the best information that we have.
Remember, the first application is for two years. That provides for the property owner and the local government to do some of the work they need to do to identify what the timeline is. If they should need an extension, given the timeline understanding they have, then they can ask for an appropriate extension.
Again, the idea here is that this is about a redevelopment, and it needs to be about that. This isn’t a forever thing. The community had decided to do an OCP change, and that’s the direction we want to continue to support.
Noting the hour, Madame Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
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 11:55 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada