Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 186
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are some constituents of mine. Firstly, Gabe Lowe, who is graduating from the University of Victoria with a philosophy and history degree. He is joined by his mom, Elizabeth Busch, and his stepfather, Ralph Busch. I would love the House to please make the three of them very, very welcome.
Also in the gallery is a dear friend of mine and an employee. Vanessa Geary, who heads up our Vancouver cabinet operation, is here today with her son Wayson on “Take your son to the Legislature day.” Wayson is an avid soccer and hockey player, but he is most important to me because he gifted me his Next Generation model of the Enterprise, which makes some really cool sounds and even lights up. Certainly, would everyone please make the generous Wayson and his mom, Vanessa, very, very welcome.
D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce into the House here today a couple of my neighbours and friends from the Upper Columbia valley, Grant Neville and Katherine Jerabek.
Grant works for Canfor. He is the First Nations relations superintendent. He does an outstanding job and has also been an amazing contributor to the College of the Rockies through their introduction to trades program through Canfor.
Katherine is a registered nurse in obstetrics. Having been through the medical system in British Columbia just recently, I’ve got four words: thank God for nurses.
Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Eby: Today in the gallery, Erin Arnold is here. She is a community leader in Vancouver–Point Grey and an inspiration to many in the community. She had a very strong run for Vancouver school board trustee, a rookie run, this year.
She brought two generations of her family along with her. She has got her son, Keegan Firth, and she brought dad along too. Stewart Arnold is also here. Would the House please join me in making them all feel welcome.
Tributes
PATRICIA HEDSTROM
J. Yap: On a more sad note, I want to advise the House of the passing yesterday of a longtime Richmond resident and constituent of mine, Patricia Constance Hedstrom — Trish to all the friends who knew her.
Trish spent the last few years in poor health but always kept a cheerful demeanour and a great personality — someone who chose to give back to community by being active in politics federally with the Conservative Party and provincially with our party.
She was a longtime volunteer on my team from almost the time I first started as a politician. Trish was always there, was loyal to a fault and always showed up and did what she could as a volunteer. She passed away at the age of 81. My team were very fortunate to have her be a part of our group for all these years.
She leaves behind a family, including a son, Reg, who lives in Toronto, but he’s here now to deal with her passing.
I would ask the House to join me in sending condolences to the family of Trish Hedstrom and to express our condolences and also to thank the family for all the years that she was able to share her time with us.
Introductions by Members
J. Brar: I would like to welcome a friend, Justin Schmid, who lives in the best riding in Surrey, and that riding is Surrey-Fleetwood. Justin works with CUPE, and he’s always committed to making life better for the people. So I would like to ask the House to please make him feel welcome.
Hon. C. Trevena: In the House today are two constituents of mine, Sean Junglas and his son Jeremiah. I first met Sean when he was working at the Lighthouse Salvation Army in Port Hardy and did quite extraordinary work for the community. I hope that the House will make the two of them very, very welcome. They’re wonderful people.
Hon. C. James: We have a visitor in the gallery today visiting from our Vancouver cabinet offices. She is the friendly face, the helpful person that you see when you enter into the offices. Would everyone please welcome Olivia Dixon, administrative assistant from our Vancouver cabinet offices.
N. Letnick: This morning we have the pleasure of having folks from Myeloma Canada. They’re an advocacy group for people with myeloma. They’re looking for meetings with us, which they had this morning, and hopefully, they’ll meet with the Minister of Health and his team at some point. Please make them feel very welcome right here in British Columbia.
S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to see Amita Kuttner in the gallery today. Amita is a young woman I met this summer, and she impressed me enormously. She’s finishing her PhD on black holes at the moment and then will be the candidate in the federal election for the Green Party of Canada in 2019. Please make Amita feel very welcome. She’s here to see how the Legislature works today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House today an individual who was a constituent of mine but now is a constituent in Port Moody. He is very active in Port Coquitlam as the chair of the Terry Fox Hometown Run. He goes by many names, including Dave Republic, and I’ll let him explain that one. He also goes by the name dave.ca, a sometimes tech talker on CKNW. But most of us know him as Dave Teixeira, the chair of the Terry Fox Hometown Run. I would ask the House to please make him most welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to echo my colleague’s welcome of Amita Kuttner. I’m astounded that a PhD physicist would like to seek politics, particularly one working in the area of black holes. It’s an incredible talent to bring into the Legislature.
Black holes, as you know, suck the energy in, and they let none of the energy out. I can say she’ll be highly qualified, and I look forward to helping her get elected in the upcoming federal election.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
OCEANSIDE HOSPICE SOCIETY
M. Stilwell: Death affects us all. It doesn’t discriminate who it takes, and it doesn’t discriminate who it leaves behind.
At Oceanside Hospice Society, patients, caregivers and families who are grappling with the final stages of life, bereavement or caregiving can find comfort, compassion and support. The non-profit was incorporated in 1990, but volunteers established the organization informally many years before that.
Today it remains volunteer-driven, with a wonderful and dedicated board that includes Ian Mackay, Tina Rasmussen, Barry Tuck, Susie Coen, Evelyn Clark, Krysta Robins, John Mercer and Sandra Rankin. It’s also supported by the community, with the donations remaining in the area to provide services free of charge to people from Nanoose Bay to Bowser.
People can find services like grief counselling, support groups and respite for caregivers. There’s even a loan equipment program so palliative patients can stay in their homes longer. Volunteers will even sit at the bedside of people in long-term-care facilities so they are not alone in their last hours or to assure family members who have to leave for a moment that their loved ones won’t be by themselves.
Five hundred people have been helped by Hospice Society in the past six months, ranging in age from 23 to 96. I’m proud to support and advocate for such an important organization that has touched so many people dealing with a difficult time in their lives.
Thank you to the executive director, Julie Chambers, and all the dedicated staff, volunteers and board members for your compassion and care at the Oceanside Hospice Society. And thank you to everyone who has donated to this fantastic organization and made it possible for people to receive the comfort that they need.
IRENE LANZINGER
J. Routledge: I rise today to say a few words of thanks to a tireless leader and relentless advocate for the working people of British Columbia. I’m talking about the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Irene Lanzinger.
Following many years as an activist and leader with the B.C. Teachers Federation, Irene was elected as the B.C. Fed’s first woman president in 2014. A strong feminist, Irene has been a mentor to many women, helping break down barriers so that more of us can take on and succeed in leadership positions in our communities and in our workplaces. Calm under fire, personable, approachable, Irene’s leadership style is to be in charge without ever making a big deal about it.
As the president of the B.C. Fed, Irene’s advocacy is not limited to the workers who are union members. She has ensured that labour’s collective voice is used to raise the bar to make lives better for all working people.
She led the charge for $15-an-hour minimum wage, wide-reaching poverty reduction efforts, removing barriers for women in trades, stronger employment standards and labour code laws and protections for temporary foreign workers. But after leading B.C.’s labour movement for the last four years, Irene recently announced that she will not be seeking another term.
I’ve known Irene for many years, and for many years, I’ve had the privilege of her insights, her advice and her friendship. Despite her departure from the federation, I think it is safe to say that she will not stop being a force in the political landscape of our province. We owe her our thanks for her many years of service to the working people of British Columbia.
BRUHN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
G. Kyllo: The people of Sicamous are finally celebrating after a significant infrastructure announcement in my riding of Shuswap last week. It’s the culmination of several years of hard work by our community, including residents, First Nations and officials at all three levels of government.
I’m happy to report that the Minister of Transportation and her federal counterpart, François Champagne, have announced joint funding to replace the aging Bruhn Bridge and expand Highway 1. This project will bring important safety benefits for all commuters and will benefit our economy as well.
Although the final alignment of the Bruhn Bridge replacement project has yet to be determined, I remain hopeful that the recommendations of the local government, local First Nations and impacted industry partners will be given significant consideration. The project is budgeted at $224 million, and construction is expected to get underway in early 2020. Our entire community looks forward to seeing shovels in the ground and for these improvements to come to fruition.
I can’t emphasize enough how grateful I am to represent a community that united behind this common purpose and rallied together to make this project a reality. It was teamwork and collaboration at its finest.
Many dignitaries were invited to share remarks at the event to announce the funding for this important project. However, I was struck by the words of Splatsin Indian band chief Kúkwpi7 Wayne Christian in particular. He noted how reconciliation doesn’t just happen in Ottawa or Victoria, but reconciliation happens on the ground in communities like the Shuswap, where his peoples have resided for thousands of years.
Chief Christian’s leadership philosophy is based on inclusiveness and has always been an inspiration to me. Indeed, we have built important relationships in the Shuswap. Whether we’re working together on infrastructure or something much deeper, it’s my hope we’ll keep inclusiveness and teamwork at the very heart of all that we do.
TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
M. Dean: I stand to recognize November 20 as the international Transgender Day of Remembrance, a time to honour the memory of the people we have lost because of transphobia and violence.
We remember the friends, family and neighbours who have been taken from their communities, and we commit to working together to make our province a place where transgender people are safe, loved and celebrated.
For too long, B.C. has fallen behind when it comes to supporting people who are transgender, non-binary and gender diverse. We believe that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and to live in safe, supportive communities.
I’m proud to say that we stand with trans people in our province. We’re taking action to make sure people are able to be who they truly are, like reinstating the B.C. Human Rights Commission, promoting sexual orientation and gender identity awareness in schools, giving people a non-binary gender option on government identification and improving access to gender-affirming surgeries in B.C.
We still have a long way to go. At a time when the human rights of transgender people are under attack, it is more important than ever that we stand up in the fight for safety, inclusion and justice for trans people in our province.
We will not let the memories of our trans friends, family and neighbours be lost to violence. We will not be silent in the face of injustice. We will stand up against the erasure of trans people and trans identities in our culture and our history. Together, we remember and pledge to do better.
SLEEP OUT INITIATIVE IN SURREY
FOR HOMELESS
YOUTH
S. Cadieux: More than 100 people spent the night sleeping on the pavement in South Surrey on November 5 to raise money and awareness for youth homelessness. It was the second annual Sleep Out fundraiser for Ryan Moreno and the Joseph Richard Group. And 165 people bundled up and took part to spend the night from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. in the parking lot of the Grandview Corners shopping centre.
Now, I’m a big fan of Covenant House Vancouver and the work they do for youth, so I’m very pleased to report that this year’s sleep out raised more than $163,000 to be donated to Covenant House and Youth Unlimited. Last year they raised $115,000.
Ryan spearheaded the sleep out after he first participated in the Covenant House Vancouver Sleep Out:Executive Edition two years ago, which he has done every year since. Last year it was largely JRG staff that participated, but this year it went to a whole new level, with family, friends and other local business leaders getting involved.
There’s a long list of businesses who organized teams to take part this year in the South Surrey sleep out, including Dana Matheson from C&D Logistics, Jen Hamilton from Oxygen Yoga, Darian Kovacs from Jelly Marketing, Randy Watson from Village Church, Matt Dryfhout from Scout Technology Guides, Angie Quaale from Well Seasoned, San Bhatha from Southridge Dental, George Psefteas from A&W South Surrey, Mike Penno from Penno Plumbing, Mackenzie Wells from SPINCO Cloverdale, Ryan Cyr from Semiahmoo Minor Hockey Coaches, Rob Visnjak from Rob Visnjak Personal Real Estate Corp., Renee Ferguson from Mountain View Veterinary Hospital, Aaron Steinfeld from Newton Hi-Quality Meats, Will Loftus from Game Ready Fitness, Brandon Drewlo from Novacom Building Partners, Dave Ford from Sparo Mortgage Advisors and Chris Wakefield from Tim Hortons.
They’re all hoping to grow this event annually, which I’m sure Covenant House and all of us can be proud of. Thank you and congratulations to everyone who participated and donated to support youth and Covenant House Vancouver.
CHILD AND YOUTH DAY
N. Simons: When I was a child, I remember one Mother’s Day asking my mom: “There’s a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day, but there’s no Children’s Day.” She replied, probably as other mothers did, that every day is Children’s Day.
Of course, I believed my mother at the time. I had no reason to think differently. She was talking about me and my brothers and sisters and my cousins, and for us, every day really was like Children’s Day. We didn’t have to worry about much. Of course, my mother knew, and every mother knows, and I know, that every day is, in fact, not Children’s Day.
In the world today, there are children suffering in war zones. There are children who are hungry. There are children in cramped refugee camps. Children are being bought and sold. There are children working long hours in unsafe working conditions. Children are suffering and dying from preventable diseases. They are even living in detention centres. They’re taken from their parents, sometimes without good reason. Many children have no access to clean water. Many children even today are without the basic necessities of life.
Today is Universal Children’s Day, also called International Children’s Day. In Canada, it’s National Child Day, and Child and Youth Day here in British Columbia. It marks the anniversary of the UN declaration of the rights of the child, in 1959, and the ratification of the convention on the rights of the child, which took place on November 20, 1989.
It is the most ratified human rights treaty in the world, ratified by more countries than even belong to the United Nations and more countries than have signed the Geneva convention. The 54 articles in the convention are based on four core principles. The first principle is non-discrimination. The second is the devotion to the best interests of the child. The third is the right to life, survival and development. The fourth is respect for the views of the child.
The convention is supposed to be a global promise to all children that nations will do everything possible to keep them safe. It’s almost as simple as that. The purpose of this day is to raise awareness of the rights of the child and to think about the progress we’ve made and, of course, the distance we still have to go. It’s an important day to recognize the interests and the rights of the child.
Oral Questions
RIDE-SHARING SERVICES
J. Thornthwaite: After yesterday’s non-announcement about ride-sharing, I started to get lots of emails. My constituent Bob sent me a message: “Just drive across the Lions Gate Bridge early Saturday or Sunday morning, and you will see young people walking home to the North Shore. This happens every weekend. It is impossible to get a taxi. I’ve stopped trying.”
Why is this minister continuing to block ride-sharing in this province?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very well aware of people’s anxiousness to get new, safe alternative options for transportation. After all, there has been ride-sharing available in the world — and an approach to this province — since 2012. So there has been quite a lot of time to get ride-sharing in.
We have tabled legislation. The member opposite, I’m sure, will be part of the debate on that legislation, which really opens the door for ride-sharing companies with app-based ride-hailing systems to enter the market in 2019. We want to make sure that people who are going to be carrying people for money, earning their income or supplementing their income by driving people, are operating safely and securely. We want to make sure we get it right. I’m looking forward to the debate that we’re going to be having in the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: It’s not just Bob. My constituent Jake was forced to walk home from downtown Vancouver as well, all the way to Capilano University, after he was refused taxi service downtown. Imagine being stranded after a night out and having to walk two hours to get home.
It’s interesting. In the last couple of minutes, I’ve just become aware that over 3,000 constituent emails have been sent to all the local MLAs, as well as the minister, stating their dissatisfaction with the minister’s delay in bringing forward ride-sharing. They are bringing up examples upon examples upon examples of problems getting cabs as well as their satisfaction with ride-sharing in other jurisdictions, which we don’t have here.
My question again to the minister is: when are we going to get ride-sharing here in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think I’ve been very clear that we had the opportunity a number of years ago, when Uber sat down with the former government about potentially coming to B.C. At that time, the feeling was that safety was number one.
I would like to quote the former Minister of Transportation, the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson, who said at the time: “It’s not good enough to simply voluntarily stand up and say we believe we provide a safe service. If Uber believes it meets certain safety requirements, then they should have no fear of sitting down with the passenger transportation branch and going through the same process that every other taxi and limousine company has to follow.” That was back in 2014.
We are making sure that we are streamlining services. We’re getting rid of overlaps. We’re going to stop the problems of people not being able to get a cab in one jurisdiction and going to another jurisdiction. We’re laying the framework for ride-share, unlike the previous government, which had six years to move on it and did absolutely nothing.
Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a second supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: Our side of the House had actually done the work. But right now it’s you. It’s your side of the House that actually is keeping ride-sharing away from British Columbians. You’ve been in government for how long? This wait is all on you.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor. Thank you.
J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This minister has strung along my constituents, your constituents, all of our constituents for far too long.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.
J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I’ve got another example. This is from Carrie, from Vancouver.
“The minister has the gall to talk about safety. On November 14, my birthday, after receiving surgery at Women’s Hospital, I received the runaround for hours as I sat outside under a neon sign that said ‘main entrance’ while my tiny, little 70-year-old mother raced up and down the street trying to get the attention of passing taxis because dispatch kept playing games with me. It was almost four hours since I had been discharged from the hospital by the time I got home.”
This government has been promising ride-sharing in 2017, 2018, and now we’re told 2019. Now it might be 2020 or maybe never.
Why are you consistently blocking ride-sharing in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite says that her government, when they were in government, had done the work. If they’ve done the work, where is it?
I know that timelines are an issue. They were an issue for that government that sat on them for five years. Yesterday the spokesperson for Uber, Michael van Hemmen, said: “Timelines are a big question for British Columbians. People have been waiting for this service since 2012.” They were in government. They had five years to do something. They sat on it for five years.
We have opened the door for these services, through this legislation, to start operating in 2019. We fully anticipate, given the opposition’s newfound interest in ride-hailing in B.C., that they will fully support the legislation that is on the floor of this House.
P. Milobar: Given that the minister did not read the 34-page Hara report and had to recommission a new one, it’s not surprising she hasn’t read any background information that might have been done on the Uber file. So let’s look at some of….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has the floor.
P. Milobar: Let’s look at the reaction of some other people in relation to what they thought was a promise by the Premier for 2017 implementation of ride-hailing in British Columbia. Patricia Hynes-Coates from MADD Canada says: “First, it was going to be available in the fall of 2017. Then they delayed it a year. Now I’m hearing it’s going to be delayed again. That’s just not good enough. Lives are at stake.”
To the minister, why has the minister chosen to create further delays and hurdles in implementing ride-sharing and, as MADD Canada has pointed out, delayed safe transportation options for the public?
Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question, and I know that safety is paramount. As the Minister of Transportation, the safety of people in British Columbia using our taxis, our soon-to-be ride-hail services, our buses, our highways…. Safety has to be paramount. That is why we are taking the approach we are doing — to ensure that people are safe when they get into any vehicle for which they’re paying for the ride.
I know that the opposition agrees with this. They have actually said that. The Leader of the Opposition has talked about back in July…. It’s not that long ago. The Leader of the Opposition said: “The issue is how you make sure there’s a safe environment in which drivers can operate and passengers, in particular, can operate.” That is what we’re doing through our legislation so anybody who gets into a vehicle knows that they are safe on our highways.
P. Milobar: Well, I think the public should reasonably expect that the Premier and the government would be good for their word. But we’ll move past the promises of the election, where the Premier very clearly said 2017, and move on to only a few weeks ago, where the Premier claimed ride-sharing applications will start coming next summer. Then when the reporter asked directly when people will be able to actually use their apps to pick an Uber or a Lyft, he was told by the Premier next September.
Again, with the Premier promising September, why did the minister bring forward a bill that ensures ride-sharing will not actually happen in any tangible way in September?
Hon. C. Trevena: We wanted to make sure that we get this right. We have been working, unlike the opposition…. They seem to forget that they were government when these new services first came to the market, when we had Uber, obviously, sit down with them. We had them in — the former Minister of Transportation saying that if new services wanted to operate here in 2012, they should follow exactly the same process that taxi and limousine companies do.
We are actually changing the system so they don’t have to follow exactly. We’re looking at…. One of the things that we’re dealing with is insurance. That is one of the reasons why it’s going to take some time, because ICBC needs to develop its product. The opposition may have forgotten that the former Minister of Transportation also left a hole in ICBC that the whole province is dealing with, with $1.3 billion. We will be getting ride-share, and it will be happening next year.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ROLE OF HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM
A. Olsen: The world’s leading climate scientists have warned we only have a dozen years to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
Health care is already over 40 percent of the provincial budget. As I have seen firsthand in Saanich North and the Islands and across the province, we have an aging population and are currently struggling to deliver basic primary care to many of our citizens. We face a threat of increasing sea level rise, water shortages and wildfires, all of which will add to the financial burden of health care delivery.
If we act with urgency, we can couple strong climate policies with an approach that will also improve the health and well-being of people that we serve. If we don’t, the implications on health care services could be overwhelming. The time to act is now, and it requires an all-of-government approach. The health risks associated with climate change are formidable.
What are the greatest climate change–related risks and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal with both?
Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for his question. It’s a significant one, I think, for all members of this House, all people in British Columbia and, indeed, the world. As the member will know, the World Health Organization has identified climate change as the single biggest risk to health in the 21st century. It’s a significant issue for all of us.
I think that it’s one of the reasons why I note the member’s question that we cannot act in silos on this question. The work of my colleague the Minister of Environment, in dealing with climate action, is a public health initiative as well as an environmental and economic one.
In addition to that, health authorities and the Ministry of Health are working hard on educational materials, prepared educational materials to help health care providers and citizens to deal with the risk of climate change. We’re working with other ministries and the Ministry of Environment on risk assessments, because there are risk assessments and issues in the future, issues with potential risks, such as the spread of Lyme disease and the impact of heat waves on citizens — in particular, seniors.
Finally, we have to make our system more resilient. It’s why health authorities are taking the lead in terms of reducing emissions and have, to be fair, for some time.
Also, we are building new health care facilities, particularly in the Interior, in Fort St. James, in Terrace, working at Dawson Creek and Williams Lake, improving services in Quesnel, Penticton, Kamloops, and so on. The resiliency of our health care institutions is so important at a time when climate risks are greater. All of us and all members of the House, I think, will support these initiatives which help us to prepare for the challenges of climate change in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ROLE OF
EDUCATION SYSTEM
A. Olsen: There’s no question fossil fuels have contributed significantly to human advancement. They effectively allowed us to transition our industrial practices, spur economic growth and lift people out of poverty. We recognize the significant value that those technologies and innovations have had but acknowledge that the times are changing. We have a transforming economy. There are different options for energy production and storage, and there are different risks that we face now.
Knowing the challenge we face and how we got here is incredibly important to finding the solutions. Climate change is not explicitly mentioned in the core concept for any mandatory course between grades 8 and 10 curriculum in our province. We need to do better in preparing the next generation. They face the most severe effects of climate change. Developing the leaders who will guide us through the impacts of climate change will require an all-of-government approach.
To the Minister of Education: what are the greatest climate change risks and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal with both?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Like the members of the Third Party, we know that the greatest challenge of our time is climate change. We’re committed to tackling that as a government.
The school system now gives kids tools to explore climate challenges that our world is facing and are taking action to do their part. Climate change wasn’t part of the curriculum until recently. That has now changed. In the new curriculum, learning in all areas is rooted in the core competencies, a number of which place a key emphasis on social and environmental responsibilities.
Where climate change is a distinct part of B.C.’s new curriculum…. I’ll give the member just a couple of examples. In grade 9, all students learn a systems approach to sustainability that touches upon climate change and the role of carbon pollution as a key factor in climate change. It teaches kids what the greenhouse effect is, among other goals in that year. In earth science 11, students examine climate change on water sources.
Really, climate change and sustainability are embedded throughout the education system from the earliest ages. It’s not just the science curriculum. I want the member to know that. Social studies students look at the role that climate change can cause in destabilizing countries, creating the migrant crisis and all of those sorts of things.
I do want the member to know, as well, as a government statement of responsibility, we’re also using our significant capital program to build new buildings to the highest environmental standards. We are funding geothermal and renewable energy projects in schools right across British Columbia. We take this challenge seriously, and we’re leading with our actions.
RIDE-SHARING SERVICES
J. Sturdy: Ride-sharing is available in virtually every part of the world but British Columbia, and now we know it’s not coming here any time soon, if at all.
Duplicate and redundant reviews are typically this minister’s preferred method of stalling and excuse-making. Now she’s ignoring these reviews and reports, all to achieve the same ends. These same reports, as well as the government-led legislative committee review, recommended against limitations and restrictions that are being proposed.
To the minister, why does the minister not want to allow customers to benefit and for ride-hailing to thrive here in British Columbia, as it does in most other jurisdictions around the world?
Hon. C. Trevena: We have tabled legislation. There is legislation on the floor of the House which will enable ride-hailing to come to B.C. This is something that the opposition had the opportunity to do for five years and did nothing about. During that five years, people have become more and more impatient and want to see the service. The only benefit that we’ve been able to get from this is learning from other jurisdictions, learning where there have been problems.
Yes, B.C. does not have ride-hailing at the moment. It will have ride-hailing next year. But it has learned from areas where there has been congestion, where there have been serious safety issues to make sure that we get it right.
I expect that the member opposite, who’s so eager to support ride-hailing, will be supporting our bill when it gets to the vote.
Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.
J. Sturdy: Well, I suppose that it remains to be seen whether we’ll see ride-hailing here in British Columbia. But because the minister is imposing a slow and inefficient NDP-managed process, with caps on the number of drivers, zones to restrict where drivers can go and prices all to be set by government…. The minister is refusing to do what other jurisdictions have done and allow a customer-driven, supply pricing and service model.
To the minister, why can’t ride-share operate here in British Columbia like it does everywhere else?
Hon. C. Trevena: We have a bill on the floor that is introducing ride-hailing, the new app-based ride-hailing. We have worked to get it right for B.C. One of the things we’re doing is we’re reducing overlap. Decisions are going to be made through the Passenger Transportation Board, not the government — the Passenger Transportation Board, get that clear for the critic — with a demand-driven approach based on data.
We have looked at other jurisdictions, as I mentioned before. We have learned what works and what doesn’t work. I mean, for instance, in New York City, there’s always congestion, but there was a massive congestion when the ride-hailing companies basically flooded the market. They are now moving to manage the number of ride-hail cars.
We want to make sure we get it right for British Columbia. The opposition didn’t do anything when they were government for five years. We are moving, within a year, to ensure that there is ride-hailing in British Columbia.
FUNDING FOR RAPID TRANSIT
PROJECT IN
SURREY
T. Redies: The mayor of Surrey has met with the federal government and received assurances from Ottawa that they will fund SkyTrain. Last week he received the support of the Mayors Council.
My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the province get on board and fund Surrey rapid transit?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question and interest in some rapid transit in Surrey, which, again, laid idle for 16 years while those on that side of the House didn’t make investments. Instead, they built a toll bridge and put more costs on the backs of Surrey people, rather than taking off the difficulties of moving back and forth across the Fraser River.
I appreciate that there is a new mayor and council in Surrey. I look forward to hearing from the Mayors Council what their plan is to go forward. Unlike the previous government, we increased the provincial contribution to 40 percent to make sure these investments could go forward — again, to protect the interests of people in Surrey rather than make it more difficult for them. I look forward to the mayor’s plan. I look forward to the Mayors Council embracing that plan. When that happens, we’ll sit down and work it out.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Redies: It appears that the Premier doesn’t read his own news releases, because the NDP haven’t committed a single cent to rapid transit in Surrey — not a penny. Read your own releases.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please, it will be important to hear the question.
T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The mayor of Surrey has the support of the regional mayors. He has the support of the federal government. But when it comes to the support of this province, the NDP government is missing in action.
When will the province come to the table and fund SkyTrain in Surrey?
Hon. J. Horgan: A teachable moment for the members on the opposite side — I apologize to my colleagues — to walk them through this step by step. But maybe they didn’t know that there was a comprehensive plan put together by the Mayors Council. Maybe they didn’t know that because they didn’t pay any attention to the Mayors Council.
When the plan came forward, we sat down with the federal government, and we both increased our contribution to the overall plan, which includes more buses, more….
Interjections.
Hon. J. Horgan: Now, this is more fearmongering by the members on the other side.
We are funding 40 percent of the plan, which includes Surrey, Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Richmond — a place they long forgot about, where they’ve needed a hospital for 16 years. Now they’re getting one because of the good work of the Minister of Health.
I will take no lessons from those on that side, particularly that member, when it comes to getting the people of Surrey out from underneath 16 years of neglect. They now have a government that has removed tolls, is building schools, a first urgent care centre and is investing in transit for the first time in 16 years.
T. Stone: When the Premier was asked last month if the provincial government would contribute any funding to SkyTrain in Surrey, the Premier said: “Certainly not.”
So a very simple question again to the Premier: why won’t he commit any provincial funding for the rapid transit which has been long promised in the city of Surrey and which the folks south of the Fraser deserve?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: The former Transportation Minister, who did not deliver Uber, who put a $1.3 billion hole in our public auto insurance corporation…. Of all of the members on that side of the House, he should understand how financing public transportation works in British Columbia. Of all of the members on that side, he should know this.
To stand and say, “We’re not putting money into Surrey,” is just not true. The question is: are we going to increase that funding? That will be a discussion around the Mayors Council table.
We have committed to 40 percent of phase 2, as has the federal government. It’s the responsibility of Surrey, Maple Ridge, Vancouver, New Westminster and all of the other communities in the Lower Mainland to come up with the remaining 20 percent. I look forward to a business plan.
There’s another shocker for the people on that side of the House. Wouldn’t they want to see a business plan before they committed more dollars to something that has not even been surveyed yet?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: We’re certainly not going to take any lessons from the Premier and his government when it comes to business plans. When it comes to business plans, there was a business plan in place. It was two weeks away from awarding a tender that would have delivered a $2.5 billion new bridge for people south of the Fraser, and they deep-sixed it.
Now, we’ve been here before; we’ll go here again. The government’s news release — I encourage the Premier to perhaps read it — of September 4, 2018, provides a lot of detail.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.
T. Stone: It provides a lot of detail — this news release of September 4, 2018. In it, it specifically breaks out funding for the Broadway line in Vancouver and funding for the Surrey line. On Surrey, the funding breakdown for phase 2 is government of Canada, $483.8 million, and TransLink regional, $1.12 billion. How much money is indicated as coming from the provincial government for the Surrey rapid transit? Absolutely nothing.
Again, the federal government is at the table. TransLink is at the table. The Mayors Council is at the table. When will this Premier and this government join the city of Surrey at the table?
Hon. J. Horgan: Deliberately obtuse is as charitable as I can be. That’s as charitable as I can be. The former Minister of Transportation, who forced a mail-in referendum on any funding of increased transportation in the Lower Mainland, is the same guy who put a massive hole in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Well, I won’t even talk about speed limits. For him to stand and not understand how we finance projects in British Columbia….
The province of British Columbia will be responsible for the SkyTrain on the Broadway line; TransLink will be responsible for the LRT — 40 percent of the funding for the plan. What part of the plan don’t they understand? They are so narrow in their perspective, so narrow in their partisan hyperbole, that they don’t want to accept the fact that after 16 years of ignoring Surrey, finally there’s a government that cares about the people on that side of the river. That’s why there are so many of us sitting on this side of the House.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE
M. Hunt: The NDP promised to eliminate portables in Surrey within four years and that halfway through they would have half of them done within two years. Now, the reality is that on the ground, school construction in Surrey is delayed. According to Doug Strachan, with the Surrey school district, the budget provided by the provincial government to build schools isn’t enough. It’s just another broken NDP promise.
My question to the Minister of Education is: with just eight months to go, will this government cut the number of portables in Surrey in half or not?
Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I thank the member for the question. Hopefully, this can be another teachable moment as well. Under the old government’s watch, portables in Surrey increased by 50 percent. Under the old government, they even had a minister that said, “What’s wrong with portables in Surrey?” as they proliferated, and up to 7,000 kids spent their learning days in portables.
Our government has an entirely different approach. We’ve approved and fully funded 2,500 new seats in Surrey. Some of it is underway today. The reality, and this member knows it.…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: If the previous government had acted as quickly as our government has, if they’d invested as much in schools as our government has just in the last 16 months, if they’d done that for four or five years, there wouldn’t be portables in Surrey today.
[End of question period.]
D. Clovechok: I seek leave to present a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
D. Clovechok: I have a petition given to me by a constituent with concerns about the wolf cull.
G. Kyllo: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
G. Kyllo: Joining the House today is a good friend, Ron Surry, from the community of Enderby. He’s quite actively involved with Myeloma Canada, and he is here today advocating on behalf of additional funding for one specific drug that actually can provide a significant impact on the lives of those that are suffering with myeloma.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call, for members who are here, committee on Bill 51. In Committee Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call, for members who are there, committee on Bill 45.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:03 a.m.
On section 1.
The Chair: We’re just taking a moment for the staff to come to the House.
Minister, do you want to introduce your staff, please?
Hon. G. Heyman: On my right is Kevin Jardine, associate deputy minister of the environmental assessment office. Behind me are Paul Craven, from the environmental assessment office, and Kate Haines.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I need to ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:06 a.m.
The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Motions Without Notice
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR
CLERK AND
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:
[That Mr. Craig James, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and Mr. Gary Lenz, Sergeant at Arms, are placed on administrative leave with pay and benefits, effective immediately.
During the period of administrative leave, and as a consequence of an outstanding investigation, Mr. James and Mr. Lenz must not access Legislative Assembly network equipment, systems or services and must not be present within any building that is part of the “Legislative Precinct” as defined in section 1 of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258.
This resolution is subject to periodic review and modification by the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:09 a.m.
On section 1 (continued).
S. Furstenau: Under section 1, can the minister please speak to the phrase “adverse effects,” referenced under the definition of “project,” and reference where it is detailed further in Bill 51? It is a subjective concept and needs to be clearly understood in terms of scope and scale. We’re wondering why it doesn’t have its own definition.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. There is no definition of “adverse effect” in this act, nor was there in the previous act. But there is a longstanding practice of, essentially, adopting the common meaning and usage of “adverse effect,” which would be a negative impact.
In this case, a negative impact on any of the five pillars of environmental assessment — that’s to do with the environment, health, culture, economic or social considerations. And then, of course, the process of the assessment is to determine the extent of the adverse effect and what measures, if any, are available to mitigate.
P. Milobar: I’m just wondering. In terms of missing definitions, one word that comes through this document, all the way through, quite regularly is “consensus.” And moving forward, as decisions are made, as the CEAO starts to make their determinations, as we get to final decision-making areas, consensus starts to play a bigger and bigger role.
I’m wondering why there is no definition of “consensus” within the definitions section, given that it can be open to interpretation, whether rightly or wrongly, how any particular group may interpret their view of consensus. Some will feel it means 100 percent agreement. Some will feel it means majority agreement. Some will feel as long as there was a good, robust discussion and there seems to be a semblance of a common ground, it would be meeting the threshold of consensus.
I’m just wondering why there was no actual, very clear definition so that Indigenous nations, proponents, applicants, community groups, municipalities, everyone that would have standing in any of these hearings and processes would understand what consensus actually means in this context of this bill.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. “Consensus” has a fairly common meaning, but what the act requires is that we — the environmental assessment office, the proponent, Indigenous nations — attempt to achieve consensus. But there is no requirement in the act that consensus actually be achieved. It’s that every effort be made to achieve it.
Consensus, as we outline very clearly in the intentions paper and I’ll repeat here for the record, is “an outcome that is actively supported by all participating Indigenous nations and the environmental assessment office or is not objected to by a participating Indigenous nation, while they reserve their right to ultimately indicate their consent or lack of consent for a project after assessment.”
P. Milobar: With that definition that’s being used, I’ll get into consensus later on.
I’ll move on to a different definition that I need a little clarification around — proponent. It means “a person or organization that proposes to undertake a reviewable project” — so this is the person that would want to do a project — “and includes the government of Canada” — that’s understandable, if they’re doing a project — “British Columbia, a municipality or regional district, another province, another jurisdiction and an Indigenous nation.”
Under this definition, does it not seem contradictory that Indigenous nations would be required to go through an environmental assessment for a project they may want to do on their own lands?
Hon. G. Heyman: No. There’s no contradiction. An Indigenous nation in this case would be a proponent. They may also be the Indigenous nation that’s concerned. But every project, if it’s designated a reviewable project, needs to go through an assessment.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
P. Milobar: In subsection 2(2)(b)(ii), there is: “support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia by (A) supporting the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and “(D) acknowledging Indigenous peoples’ rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the course of assessments and decision making under this Act.”
Can I just get clarification from the minister — I think I know what the answer is, but it’s always good to get it on the record — that section 35 of the Constitution Act all throughout this document would override the UNDRIP document, or are they having equal standing through this whole bill?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to clarify. I don’t think this is an issue of paramountcy. It’s an issue of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Constitution Act of Canada, section 35, being read together. They’re complementary.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act sets out the rights of Indigenous peoples and nations under Canada’s constitution and guides the law, the legal framework. In the case of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, it provides a framework agreed to by nations around the world, including Canada, that can help guide the implementation of rights pursuant to section 35 of the constitution, as well as to advance reconciliation.
P. Milobar: Most of my questions on this bill are really around trying to get better clarification and better understanding. The purpose of this bill is supposed to be trying to create that understanding in the community and create less frustration and a better understanding of process. So the reason I’m asking the question — and I don’t think it was fully answered yet — is….
If the new CEAO is having to make some decisions, I think both the public and Indigenous nations alike would like to know…. If there’s a contradictory interpretation between a section within UNDRIP, or an ideal within UNDRIP, and the Constitution Act of 1982, in section 35, would the CEAO be relying more heavily on the Constitution Act, section 35?
I’m assuming they would, but I don’t know for sure. I think a lot of people would like that clarification around which document should provide greater guidance, especially for Indigenous nations as they move through this process as to where they should be looking for the weight of the decision-making tools.
Hon. G. Heyman: I hope I can give greater clarity here. First of all, every section of this bill, once it becomes legislation, that is relevant to any decision facing the chief environmental assessment officer must be considered. Having said that, section 35 of the Constitution of Canada is the overriding law of Canada, and clearly, it needs to be respected. It guides decisions any place where it’s relevant.
We see the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as a useful tool and guidance to doing that, and that’s why it is entrenched in the bill itself.
In any decision made by the chief environmental assessment officer, the environmental assessment officer will consider the rights that are expressed for Indigenous peoples in the constitution, the act — every section of the act, every requirement of the act — the reference to UNDRIP in the act and supporting the implementation of UNDRIP, as well as supporting reconciliation, any article of common law that is applicable or any precedent.
Then in issuing a decision, the job of the chief environmental assessment officer is to outline in the decision exactly how these various aspects have been read together and explain how they relate to the decision being made. That is also an important fundamental principle of this act — that is, the linkage to a clear explanation in a decision or a recommendation that references all of the aspects that go into that decision.
P. Milobar: Thank you for that clarification.
On 2(2)(ii)(B), I’m just wondering, in terms of the jurisdiction of Indigenous nations — and I don’t take issue with any of that — if there is clarification around “through representatives chosen by themselves.” Again, what is the process within this bill to handle when certain nations, or a band and a nation combined, are at odds as to who should be the representative?
It’s not spelled out that it’s simply chief and council, so obviously, there was some thought given to other avenues for that determination to be made. I’m just wondering. Does it point to it anywhere else in the bill for clarification sake, or is it just left up for interpretation on a case-by-case basis?
Hon. G. Heyman: The language is crafted this way because Indigenous nations with whom we consulted made it clear that, in some cases, they have different forms of government. They will, at times, come together in an alliance to represent themselves. In other cases, they choose to represent themselves individually.
The point they made to us is that they should be free to decide their form of participation and who their representative should be, that it shouldn’t be government or the environmental assessment office that superimposes our belief of who should represent them on them.
We accept that as reasonable. In some cases, there may be some dispute between nations or a dispute between the environmental assessment office and nations about whether that is appropriate, and in that case, there is provision further on in the act for a dispute resolution process. The nations themselves may just have their own processes to work through any differences or any discussion around how they choose to be represented and simply inform us of the result.
The details on the dispute resolution process will be elaborated further in regulation. The act is an enabling provision, and the development of that process through regulation will involve, as this act did, broad consultation with affected parties and an opportunity for public comment before those regulations are proclaimed.
There is an additional provision in section 14 involving the chief environmental assessment officer with respect to nations that identify themselves as participating. I will just leave it to that section. If the member has any questions on that section, we can discuss it further then.
S. Furstenau: In section 2(2)(b)(i), it states that the purposes of the office include to “promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and the well-being of British Columbians and their communities.” Could the minister please speak to the concept of sound economy? It sounds like a very broad and subjective concept. I’m wondering whether it’s used in other B.C. acts.
Hon. G. Heyman: The term “sound economy” is carried forward from the current act. It’s important to note that this section refers to fostering a sound economy. I would say a sound economy is an economy that provides jobs, stability, a sound use of resources while, at the same time, not compromising or creating unmitigatable damage to the environment, to social values, to cultural values, to Indigenous rights, to the opportunities and rights of future generations.
S. Furstenau: Our question around this is: would it create an opening for a legal challenge? For example, if a lucrative project application is denied because of its environmental or climate implications, could it be argued that the province was failing to “foster a sound economy?”
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, anything could be argued in court. Whether it can be argued successfully is really the question. I would say, in answer to the member’s question, that sound economy is one of three things contained in this phrase around promoting sustainability.
The other two are protecting the environment and fostering the well-being of British Columbians and the communities. Then there are listed a number of points following that that need to be considered further on in the act. There are clear matters that need to be assessed and addressed. They all must be addressed in the deliberation of the environmental assessment office, in the recommendation of the chief environmental assessment officer, in the final decision of the ministers in terms of how those matters and the assessment of them were factored into the decision.
I think if somebody simply argued that a lucrative project was turned down and it shouldn’t have been because, despite all of the other negative aspects associated with the project, it would have fostered a sound economy, I personally have a hard time seeing that legal case finding success.
S. Furstenau: One more question around this. Did the ministry analyze the section using gender-based analysis plus framework, which is a framework used by the federal government and soon by B.C., that facilitates the intersectional consideration of how policies will impact different groups, particularly women?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for a critical question and one that I’ve had much discussion with members of government and with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for women’s rights.
It’s important to see that section 2 sets out the responsibility for the environmental assessment office and what in particular they need to pay attention to as they carry out all of the different aspects of the act and responsibilities under the act. So (a) talks broadly about social, cultural and health effects of assessed projects. Further on in the act, we get into a very express definition of what that means and how it will be done. So under section 25(2)(d), “Required assessment matters,” very specifically, we have: “disproportionate effects on distinct human populations, including populations identified by gender.”
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In section 2(2)(b)(i)(A), our question is: why isn’t climate listed in this section? If we can agree that climate is the biggest threat facing B.C. and will undermine all other components listed — i.e., it’s not just an environmental issue — we wonder why climate isn’t specifically noted in this section.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member again for an important question. In part, my answer to this will be the same or similar — that this section of the bill sets out very broad parameters, including environmental, economic, social, cultural and health, all of which are impacted by climate change.
If we then go to the specific matters that must be considered in every assessment, under section 25(2)(h), it says: “greenhouse gas emissions, including the potential effects on the province being able to meet its targets under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.” This is particularly significant because not only do we talk about greenhouse gas emissions — which, of course, are the source of climate change — but we link them to very defined targets under another piece of legislation. So this matter that must be assessed clearly sets a threshold that must be addressed in the assessment.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
P. Milobar: Just to make it very clear. This whole section is specifically, strictly around dispute resolution facilitators as they pertain to Indigenous nations, not any other potential disputes that might arise from anyone else that may have an interest in an application?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to clarify. This concept of dispute resolution facilitators came from and was included in the act primarily as a result of it being raised by Indigenous nations and Indigenous representatives with whom we consulted. So we put it in the act, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s only available for disputes with Indigenous nations. That’s certainly how it was identified and how it’s being conceptualized here.
We’ve enabled dispute resolution, which we think would be far more productive and timely than either not resolving disputes or ultimately leaving it to the courts to resolve. So we have this process, which will be defined in regulation — again, a regulation on which we’ll consult broadly. For example, if industry or business says, “We would like the opportunity to access dispute resolution” — not just on an Indigenous nation coming forward — that could be included following consultation in the defining regulation pursuant to subsection (4).
P. Milobar: I guess the reason I asked that question is because it very much — I think in every single area — references Indigenous nations, which is understandable. Coming from a community that was knee-deep in an environmental assessment process for the better part of eight or nine years, and varying views of the community of how much input municipalities should or shouldn’t have or local government should or shouldn’t have, there doesn’t seem to be any clarity that this might be an avenue for a local government to, say, take if they feel that they have a dispute that needs to be resolved within the overall process under the same guidelines.
Is the minister saying that a municipality or a local government would be able to trigger parts of section 5? I think he just said 5(4) would be an appropriate trigger for them as well.
Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the member. We certainly had discussion about the potential merit and advisability of using dispute resolution in a number of areas, but the concept only came forward initially in discussion with First Nations. That’s why it’s framed the way it is in the act but also why subsection (4) allows the development of regulations that could be more expansive.
When we enter into the development of regulations, we’ll certainly let people know, let communities and all interested parties know that we are considering regulations with respect to giving life to dispute resolution, and they’re invited to give us their ideas about how else, in what other ways, it could be useful.
The suggestion of the member certainly has merit. Of course, the member knows that for dispute resolution to be successful, the parties involved in it have to be willing participants, but that is no reason not to set up the framework that can be utilized when they are. So more to come.
J. Rustad: In subsection 5(1), it says that the minister, “after considering a recommendation, if any, of an Indigenous nation, may appoint individuals to facilitate….” The question I guess I have, to the minister, is: could you perhaps provide a definition of what an Indigenous nation is?
Hon. G. Heyman: While we do define “participating Indigenous nation” — and there’s a process to define that — we very consciously chose not to define “Indigenous nation” because the only definition we could use would be the definition under the current Indian Act, and we heard very clearly from Indigenous peoples that they didn’t want to be defined that way.
They may in time come to define themselves, or what constitutes their own nations, in very different ways than Canada has experienced in the past. So we simply left it without definition — although, for the purpose of an assessment, it was necessary to define “participating Indigenous nation.”
With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION
AND VACANCY TAX) ACT,
2018
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On section 1 as amended (continued).
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate the minister and her staff being here. I know that we went late into the night, and there was a lot of emotion and lots of questions. I know that there are very strong feelings about this tax, and we appreciate the minister’s response.
We’re going to stay on section 1. I will let the minister and her staff know that we want to work through a number of the definitions, in particular, because all of them, obviously, have an implication as to how the tax will be implemented.
I want to begin with a quote from the minister on March 27, 2018, where she said: “For many people” — referring to the capital gains tax — “it might encourage them to hang onto their properties and just watch the appreciation go up, as they’ve been doing.” I’m sure the minister can understand the implication that the minister believes that holding onto a property is speculation, as opposed to flipping a property in a hot market.
Can the minister just explain her comments in the context of why she might think that is an appropriate action?
Hon. C. James: This was in a discussion occurring around the opposition, who were talking about a flipping tax as a speculative piece. I think the important piece to note is that speculation, yes, can be short term, as the member talked about with flipping; it can also be long term. Flipping, yes, is one speculation tool that some people use, but in a sustained, escalating market, as we saw in British Columbia, what we saw were people who were not flipping, who were purchasing additional properties to be able to see the value go up.
I think, as I said on budget day, from our perspective, real estate is not a stock market. We want real estate to be in place for British Columbians, for people who live and work here, for people to be able to purchase a home, to build a community, not to hollow communities out. I think it’s not an either-or. In fact, speculation can show itself in a number of different ways.
S. Bond: One of the things that all of us have grappled with and that I think British Columbians are, is that we do want to see a way to mitigate legitimate speculation. We’re not convinced that that’s what this bill does.
Can the minister, then, confirm for us that one of the consequences of this tax, or one of the reasons that this tax was put in place, was that she thought that British Columbians should be considering sale or renting of their properties? Is that one of the consequences that this minister is trying to force British Columbians to do? Rather than holding onto a long-term property or investing in property, is one of the consequences the fact that she wants to force British Columbians to either rent or sell their properties?
Hon. C. James: I think it’s important, again, to go back to the principle of the tax. No one’s principal residence is taxed. We are talking about people’s second or third or fourth homes. I think that’s an important piece to take a look at. Individuals, obviously, have a choice. It’s up to them how they determine what happens with their second or third or fourth home.
Do we hope that people will rent it out so that it becomes part of the rental pool, which, again, assists with affordable housing? Yes, we do. That would be a positive, from my perspective, if we saw the vacancy rates go up and there was more housing on the market. But again, it comes back to the opportunity for people and the opportunity to increase affordable housing in urban settings where unaffordability is in a crisis.
T. Redies: With respect to the definition around “apartment,” is the purpose of this definition to distinguish between units or between types of residences?
Hon. C. James: This is to determine type of residence.
T. Redies: Does this definition also include secondary suites in regular homes?
Hon. C. James: Yes, it does.
T. Redies: I’d just like to move on now to the definition around “arm’s length tenant” and “non-arm’s length tenant.” We have a few questions around that. Can the minister explain the difference between arm’s-length and non-arm’s-length tenants for the purpose of this act?
Hon. C. James: I’ll start with an arm’s-length tenant. I’ll look at both pieces, but an arm’s-length tenant would be an individual who occupies a property with a written tenancy agreement and deals at arm’s length with the owner. Arm’s-length dealings are defined in section 12. That’s why I was just trying to make sure we had all the references to the section.
Another example would be — just a bit more depth on the arm’s length — if the owner was a corporation or trust or a partner, the tenant has to be at arm’s length from all the corporate interest holders for it to be truly arm’s length.
For non-arm’s length — and then we can come back to more specific questions if the member has them — that means an individual who occupies a property for at least one month but is not at arm’s length from the owner — for example, family members. You often have people who will buy a condominium for their child going to university, for example. Their child would be a non-arm’s-length tenant for the purposes of this act.
Just one other additional piece. If the tenant was arm’s length from the owner when they signed the original tenancy agreement, they’re still considered to be an arm’s-length tenant as long as the tenancy agreement continues.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for your answer.
What happens in the case that there’s no tenancy agreement?
Hon. C. James: People will be required to have a tenancy agreement to be able to claim the arm’s-length tenant. That will be required. They won’t need to provide it. They’ll just need to have it so that if there’s an audit, they’re able to show that they have a tenancy agreement in place. Therefore, they can get the exemption.
T. Redies: I’m just asking a little bit more specific question with this situation. What happens if a person is a U.S. owner of a property here but has a daughter and son going to university? Will they be exempt from the tax or still have to pay the tax?
Hon. C. James: If they are a foreign owner, so not a British Columbian, they will generally have to have an arm’s-length tenant. That’s the requirement, as you’ll see in the act as we go through, unless the tenant is a B.C. resident paying taxes here. There’s a formula, and we’ll get into that as we get into more specifics in the bill.
N. Letnick: Good morning to the minister and her staff. It’s a pleasure to be here again.
Probably the first question I’ll have is to do with what length of term is required for renting out your place to qualify for not being subject to the spec tax. I just want to confirm. If I understand correctly, it has to be a minimum of six months in the calendar year, and it has to be a minimum of three-month increments. Is that correct?
Hon. C. James: Six months, but one-month increments is the requirement.
N. Letnick: Could the minister then comment on the case where you have people renting out their homes through Airbnb for, let’s say, one-month increments? In a lot of cases, in Kelowna and other jurisdictions that are attractive during the summer, you’ll have people rent out their homes to people from around the world. It could be for a month and one day. Does that mean that if they did it for six months of the year, they would now avoid the vacancy tax?
Hon. C. James: Remember that for arm’s length, there has to be a tenancy agreement in place. In most cases, an Airbnb doesn’t have a tenancy agreement in place. So the requirement would be a tenancy agreement in place for the person who is living there in one-month increments or the six months or a portion of the six months to make up the six months. But the tenancy agreement has to be in place.
N. Letnick: Maybe the minister can enlighten me. How do you get a tenancy agreement in place and then ask the tenant to leave, since the law has now been changed where it’s much more difficult to do that? Maybe she can explain that to us.
Hon. C. James: Just to clarify the residential tenancy. If you are the owner and you are renting it out to someone, you can have an agreement in place with someone to rent it out and then move back yourself. That’s permitted within the residential tenancy branch.
T. Redies: This requirement to have a tenancy agreement and the one-month increments…. We have a vacation rental tourism business here in B.C. that generates millions in revenue. Is this not going to cause tremendous problems for the vacation rental market in that most people who are vacationing don’t typically take out one-month extended stays? It’s usually a couple of weeks.
Have the minister and the ministry thought about the impact of this tax and the definitions on the vacation rental business in this province?
Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to remember that many people who utilize or provide opportunities for Airbnb or vacation rentals use their primary residence. This doesn’t impact those people at all. There are many people who rent out the extra room, or they rent out their downstairs. That’s what they do. It doesn’t impact at all on vacation rentals.
We are talking about people who have empty, vacant, second or third or fourth homes. For those people, yes, we are encouraging longer-term rentals. We aren’t encouraging Airbnb. We don’t want people to purchase homes, leave them vacant or utilize them for short-term rentals. We want to encourage rentals.
Yes, we did spend a lot of time on that piece in the bill, and yes, that’s the intent of the bill.
T. Redies: Just following on, on this, a lot of these vacation rentals, again, are purpose-built vacation rentals that investors and other people have bought with the idea that they use them for a few months of the year, and then they rent them out. They’re part of a vacation property. It seems to me that this tax is going to really damage that particular industry. I’m not talking about Airbnb. I’m talking about the vacation rentals that were purposely built and are often in remote areas — for example, SookePoint.
Does the minister really think it’s realistic that some of these vacation rental properties, which are often in remote areas, are going to be rentable? Some of them are, oftentimes, luxury-type rental accommodations. SookePoint, for example, doesn’t even have a bus service to it. Again, why damage that industry, which is really not going to generate affordable housing for the people of British Columbia?
Hon. C. James: The member mentioned remote areas and further away. I think it’s important to just note, again, that we’re talking about urban centres. I recognize there will be some places in urban centres, but remember, we’re talking about urban centres and that this tax applies to class 1 residential. Some of those purpose-built vacation hotels or resorts would not be class 1. If they’re class 1 properties, which is residential under the Assessment Act, therefore they’re included.
N. Letnick: The scenario, then, is that we have an investor that lives in Kelowna who has also purchased a class 1 residential property as a second home, or a second unit, and who was renting it out as a vacation rental for the time being — waiting for someone to come back from overseas to fill it in. But in the meantime, it’s being rented out as vacation rental. Is the minister saying, therefore, that unit, even though it’s not vacant, would be subject to the vacancy tax?
Hon. C. James: I think it’s just important to note…. Obviously, we’ll go through these examples, because that’s important. I think it provides opportunity to look at the tax. But for very specific individual cases, I just want to clarify for people that we’ll provide information based on the bill. But individuals should obviously make sure that they’re looking at their own tax purposes, looking at their own information and connecting with the site when it’s up. I think that’s important as well.
The example the member gave. Someone lives in Kelowna. They have a second home. They’re renting it out as a vacation rental. Again, to come back to the original purpose, if it’s being rented out in one-month increments, and it’s being rented with a tenancy agreement, then they don’t pay the speculation tax. Otherwise, they do.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that. I think my last question on this before the Leader of the Third Party asks some questions is…. This is going back to Airbnbs again. So not the other example.
I understand the minister did discuss the introduction of this with the Airbnb association. There’s also, I believe, $16 million in revenue that’s projected from Airbnbs in the budget. Does the provision of the speculation and vacancy tax impact any of that $16 million that’s in the budget?
The Chair: Members are reminded that the same rules as apply in the Legislature apply in this chamber and that the taking of photos is not permitted, Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, even if the photos might be of a mouse.
Hon. C. James: You’ll hear this, because we’ve had this discussion previously around the budget. We used very conservative numbers, and no, it doesn’t have an impact on the budget numbers for the PST that is going to be paid by Airbnb and other vacation rentals.
A. Weaver: I enjoy this line of questioning. I think it’s very important to get clarification on the intent of the legislation before us. I have three questions on the definition of “specified area” in this section.
The first is with respect to item (l) in specified area. It refers there…. It just says: “…an island, if any, within an area referred to in paragraphs (a) to (j), if the island is usually accessible only by air or water throughout a calendar year.”
The first question is: why was the term island used there as opposed to a general area within these (a) to (j) that are generally accessible only by air or water? I’ll come to a specific example. Within the broader area, there may be, in fact, regions that are only accessible by air or water, even though they lie within the areas covered in (a) to (i).
Hon. C. James: As the member knows, the exclusion, when we looked at how to refine the geographic areas and looked at, as I mentioned in our discussion yesterday, the issue of how you make sure that most vacation homes are excluded…. We took a look at a number of different options, and one of them was to look at refining the geographic area.
That’s why we’ve said that we exclude islands that aren’t accessible, or that only are accessible by air and water — to be able to address those areas that, again, are difficult for commuting and, therefore, in most cases, are not people who are commuting and buying second homes. They’re mainly vacation homes, which is why we’ve listed it under (l) in that way.
A. Weaver: I very much appreciate the answer and the intent of actually including islands.
Why I raised it is that I heard from a resident of Belcarra, which, as the minister will know, is a lovely piece of the Lower Mainland across from Deep Cove. This person actually owns a property in Belcarra that is not accessible by road and is only accessible by air or water.
It seems that the intent of the legislation was to actually ensure that we’re dealing with urban areas where there are issues of commuting and issues of a rental market that’s being at ease here. Clearly, I would have thought the intent of this legislation would not have been to include somebody with a home in Belcarra that is not accessible by road and only accessible by air or water.
My question to the minister is: to what extent does a person who lives in the region — in one of these designated, prescribed areas — have an ability to actually get government to recognize that the spirit and intent of this legislation probably wasn’t meant to apply to an area which is only accessible by air and water but happens to be in one of these geographical regions?
Is there a mechanism that this person, recognizing the spirit of the minister’s previous statement, could go forward to actually determine whether or not this really is appropriate and they were meant to be covered under the government’s intentions?
Hon. C. James: We did specifically look at Belcarra. Part of the logic was, again, looking at the commuting distance. In fact, the commuting distance from Belcarra…. It’s a very short commute to downtown Vancouver. In fact, it’s a shorter commute from others that go from the Fraser Valley or from other distances — North Vancouver, for example. Five minutes away.
It is a municipality though, and I think this is important. As the member asked: what opportunities are there for discussion around these issues? Belcarra, in fact, is a municipality. I met with the Belcarra folks at UBCM. They will have the opportunity, in an informal setting anytime, but in a very formal setting, as the member knows, with the amendment coming forward, to have an opportunity to be able to argue either the strength or weakness of having the municipality included.
The Chair: Noting the time, we’ll take one more question.
A. Weaver: On this topic. I have one more question after this. I don’t know whether….
The Chair: Of course. As long as the minister can address the questions, we’ll do them.
A. Weaver: It’s just to follow up on that further, very briefly.
I’m not talking about the entire region of Belcarra. But within the broader section of Belcarra, there are parts of Belcarra — properties that happen to have cabins on them — that are only accessible by water or air. Therein lies the issue here.
It may be that the municipality itself meets the intent that the minister sought of a commutable distance. However, it’s not a commutable distance for some aspects of this municipality that extend into areas that are actually not an island but are only accessible by air or water.
Again, my question for a specific individual within this broader municipality: is there a mechanism for that individual to seek an exemption, as per my earlier remarks?
Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, again. I think we did, in fact, look at the commuting time from some of the areas that were only accessible by boat — five to eight minutes to get to the Lower Mainland. So there are commuting pieces there. There aren’t opportunities other than, obviously, coming forward and raising the issue.
There aren’t opportunities built into the legislation, but I expect that people will have the opportunity to argue that changes should be made, if changes are going to be the made to the tax, including the mayor, who, I’m sure, will represent all the members of the municipality.
A. Weaver: My final question is very brief. It’s from another concerned couple who approached me. I’m just giving a sampling of them because they illustrate the variety of concerns out there. I believe I know the answer, but I’d like to get confirmation from the minister.
The couple lives on Mudge Island in the Nanaimo regional district. They’re concerned that the tax could afford them and that it could kill the property values on Mudge Island. Can the minister confirm — they live in their home full-time on Mudge Island — that Mudge Island is not included in the regions that are prescribed under the specified areas?
Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that the member raised is primary residence. If it’s a primary residence and they live there full-time, then they aren’t captured. It isn’t captured. It’s only second or third homes. But Mudge Island is not captured by the speculation tax as well.
Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada