Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 221
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2018 | |
Strategic plan, 2019-20–2021-22, revised | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Good morning, everyone. All of us joined together earlier this morning at the Heart and Stroke breakfast and received lots of excellent information about AEDs and their role in saving lives.
I wanted to introduce some guests that we have in the Legislature for members on both sides of the House: Irene Chanin, who’s the CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Mark Collison, who, unbelievably, is retiring in May — and, as anyone who’s served in the non-profit sector knows, that means that he moves from being a paid person to being a volunteer almost instantly — and we congratulate Mark on all his success in his career; Paola Coronado Hass, who is a senior development adviser; Mary Stambulic, who is a manager; Michael Korenberg, who is involved in so many community activities and is on the provincial advisory board; Dr. Jim Christenson, who I didn’t recognize outside of his white coat, is the professor and UBC department head of emergency medicine and an outstanding person; and Keith Switzer, who told his own personal story about being saved — in part, because of the use of an AED.
He also told us about routinely defeating the member for Kootenay East in curling. In fact, that was the longest part of the story. I don’t know…. The member may want to correct the record on that. I think that he said the record was 32 and 1. I don’t know what happened the one time. But you know, we recently won an election, so what the heck.
It’s wonderful, I know, and I know that all members of the House will know the important work of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I know all of us would want to bid all of our guests welcome.
N. Letnick: I’d just like to reiterate what the Minister of Health said, other than the part about them winning the election.
We’ll leave this non-partisan introduction to thank all of the people from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the delegation that’s here today, the Heart and Stroke staff: Irene Chanin, CEO Heart and Stroke, B.C. and Yukon; Mark Collison, director, government relations and health promotion, B.C. and Yukon; Paola Coronado Hass, senior director, development adviser, B.C. and Yukon; Mary Stambulic, manager, advocacy and stakeholder relations; Michael Korenberg, provincial advisory board member; Dr. Jim Christenson, professor and UBC department head of emergency medicine; and friends Keith Switzer and Dale Collins.
Many of us in this House have had heart and stroke issues. Some of us continue to have them and are managing them. Many people who’ve come before us all over British Columbia continue to struggle with heart and stroke conditions.
It’s thanks to these good people and people in our community that we are able to tackle these diseases and make sure that people have an avenue, information and service so that they can get help for their heart and stroke conditions. They are here to talk to both sides of the Legislature — also, the breakfast this morning, and I believe there’s a lunch, as well, for some.
I would like to ask all members of this House to give a warm welcome to all the people that we’ve just listed here today.
Hon. L. Beare: Well, it’s a really exciting day here at the Legislature as we welcome the Webb Ellis Cup to Victoria. It’s on its first stop here in British Columbia, and we have a great rugby fan base here in British Columbia. Our Canadian national men’s team, which is Langford-based, will be heading to Japan for the 2019 Rugby World Cup this fall.
We know how much spirit people have for the sport, as we saw at the rugby sevens earlier last month at B.C. Place, where 208 athletes participated. There was even a marriage proposal in the stadium. Now we’re looking forward to the Women’s Rugby Sevens Series coming to Langford in May.
Today I would like to celebrate that we’ve been chosen once again to host the HSBC Canada Sevens at B.C. Place for the next four years. This is good news.
I want to acknowledge some fantastic people here in the gallery today. We have Patricia Jelinski, who’s the general manager of B.C. Place Pavilion Corp. We have Mandy Marchak, who’s one of the all-time greats. In 11 years for Canada, she played three 15s Rugby World Cups and two for sevens, and she continues to inspire young players by giving back as a coach right here in Victoria at the Castaway Wanderers.
Raymond Barkwill is a senior member and inspirational leader of the Canada national team that beat Kenya, Germany, Hong Kong in November to secure the Rugby World Cup in Japan. He’s had 57 test matches for Canada. And Gareth Rees is a World Rugby Hall of Fame inductee, an all-star rugby icon with a 491 points record, the second most in Canadian history.
Please join me in welcoming them to the gallery today.
Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t think anyone in this place has said Langford that much other than me in a long, long time. I, too, want to join the Minister for Sport in acknowledging the rugby event that’s going to take place on the lawn later this afternoon.
I want to acknowledge the member for Kelowna-Mission, perhaps the greatest rugby player ever to take a seat in this place. I’m thinking that if Gareth is in a charitable mood, he might even let you to catch up to him, Member.
Gareth also can swing a cricket bat. That’s not something well known, but he’s not bad at that as well — an all-rounder as they would have said back in the day.
Also a fan of rugby is a member of the press gallery whose sister was a member of the national team. Joining him in the gallery today is the spectacular Bailey, who is going to be sitting watching the proceedings. We have a juvenile in the press gallery — not the regular juveniles but a real juvenile.
I want all members to be on their best behaviour over the next 45 minutes.
D. Barnett: Today in the House I have two guests from Williams Lake: Muriel Garland — she and her husband have five Chev dealerships throughout the province of British Columbia in rural communities; and Cec Jaeger, who is here to ensure that Muriel behaves herself while she’s away from her husband. Would you please welcome Muriel and Cec here today.
Hon. C. James: I have the pleasure to introduce a group today visiting from the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson’s Centre. I know we’ll hear a little more about Purple Day, epilepsy awareness day, today. A group of 16 representatives are in the House this morning, and I know the extraordinary work they do. I have a family member who lives with epilepsy.
I want to welcome, on all of our behalf, board vice-president Tessa Hawkins and other attendees Deirdre Syms, Jocelyn Lahaye, Arman Tesoro, Sophia Tesoro, Steve Hawkins, Lesley Lahaye, Leigh Syms, Shirley Syms, Jonina Syms, Kelly Grannon, Heidi Hackman, Eliza Woods, Guillaume Dufresne and the amazing Amanda Arnet. Would the House make them very welcome and thank them for their extraordinary work.
Hon. H. Bains: I notice in the gallery a good friend of mine and a strong voice for working people in the province of British Columbia, the president of CUPE B.C., along with Justin Schmid. Please help me give them a very warm welcome.
Hon. K. Chen: I’m happy to have the opportunity to also introduce a dear friend of mine, Laarni de los Reyes, who is joining question period today.
I believe members in this House would agree how important it is, especially for the work we do here, to have friends who know how to give you encouragement when we’re facing challenges but also to support us with constructive advice to make sure we continue to learn, to improve and to fight for the good cause we believe in. Laarni is a friend like that who has given me so much support, courage and trust to make me believe that I can make a real difference for the community we all love.
She’s also quite a community activist and volunteer herself who is passionate about social justice issues and is someone I’ve learned a lot from. Without friends like Laarni, I know I could not have made it here today.
So thank you, Laarni.
I would like to ask the House to please make her feel very welcome.
Hon. M. Mark: It is my pleasure to introduce my husband, Cassidy Kannemeyer, who is here today. He’s the men’s basketball coach at Capilano University. He’s a teacher’s assistant at Britannia Secondary. He’s the love of my life. We got married last year. Will the House please join me in welcoming Cassidy.
Hon. H. Bains: I think it will help if I give the name of the person that I introduced earlier, my good friend and the CUPE B.C. president, Paul Faoro. Please help me with a warm welcome.
Hon. J. Sims: I have here visiting us today Priya and Ishika Bansal, two young women who are talented, passionate, focused on giving back to their community, creative, artistic — really are balanced about doing social justice work and giving back to the community.
They’re spending their spring break here in Victoria learning about how this place works. They were actually amazed that this wasn’t just a visiting place — that work happens in here, and we have offices, and we do real work. They have been here on many tours before, but when they came on tours previously, the House was empty. So they thought: “Well, where do you work? Where’s your office?”
They’re coming to my office. They’ve been volunteers. We often hear about young people, but when I meet young women like this, I think our future is in good hands. Please help me welcome them.
D. Routley: My hometown being Duncan, B.C., I have to welcome Gareth Rees, who was also born in Duncan, and my brother-in-law Jason “Finny” Finlayson, an avid rugby player. I would be remiss in not mentioning him, although he’s a Cowichan Piggie and Gareth was an Oak Bay rugby football club member.
My nephew “Mini Finny,” Dale Finlayson, frequents the rugby club, and he picks up language really quickly, so that can lead to embarrassing consequences. He’s learned the Piggie song. But he also has worked out a compromise with his mom that he asks first if he can use the word from the rugby club.
Welcome, Gareth, on behalf of Finny and Mini Finny.
Hon. M. Mungall: We have two guests joining us from one of the most beautiful places in the world, the north end of my riding near Kaslo. Area D director for the regional district of Central Kootenay, Aimee Watson, is here, and she’s joined by her son, Finn. May the House please join me in making them very welcome.
Mr. Speaker: Famous rugby player, Kelowna-Mission.
S. Thomson: I just wanted to add my comments as well — lots of talk about the rugby this morning.
On behalf of our side of the House, I just wanted to pass on my congratulations, as well, to Rugby Canada for the successful renegotiation of another four years of hosting the sevens at B.C. Place. Just a great, great event. I’m very proud of the role we played on this side of the House in securing the initial bid four years ago and to see the success it has built.
What wasn’t mentioned was the fact that Canada — and B.C. Place, Vancouver, as the hosting venue — was voted by the players and the management of all the teams, the 16 teams from around the world that come here for that event, as the number one stop on the tour.
Great kudos to all of the organization and everybody involved in it. It is just really showcasing this wonderful sport that we all played. A big shout-out to my pals and my friend from CW.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
RESPONSE TO CARDIAC ARREST
S. Bond: Today at the annual Heart and Stroke Foundation MLA breakfast, we were reminded that cardiac arrest can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Tens of thousands of cardiac arrests happen each year in Canada, and survival drops significantly with every minute without CPR or an AED.
Immediate response by performing hands-only CPR and using an automated external defibrillator, or an AED, can more than double the chance of survival. In B.C. over six years, and with funding totalling $3 million, 830 AEDs were placed through the public access to defibrillation program.
I know firsthand what it’s like to have a loved one impacted by cardiac issues. My husband, Bill, had open-heart surgery more than six years ago. We will be forever grateful for the phenomenal medical team at St. Paul’s and to Heart and Stroke for their ongoing efforts.
Today has been proclaimed AED Awareness Day, so that is why I rise today to remind us about the importance of CPR and using an AED to save a life. AEDs are simple to use and foolproof. Once you power on the device, you can follow the step-by-step voice directions. You can’t accidentally shock a person who does not need it.
These are life-saving devices that have saved the lives of British Columbians. I encourage everyone in this House and every single British Columbian to be ready, willing and able to respond to a cardiac emergency. You don’t have to be an expert; you just have to act. That can be the difference between life and death.
If you see someone suddenly collapse, there are three critical and key steps. Phone 911 and shout for an AED. Push hard and fast in the centre of the chest, and use an AED as soon as it arrives.
Please don’t wait for someone else to step in. Choose to act, and you are giving that person their best chance of survival.
PURPLE DAY FOR EPILEPSY AWARENESS
A. Kang: Today at the B.C. Legislature we celebrate Purple Day for epilepsy awareness. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder and affects people of all ages. Epilepsy causes repeated seizures that happen without warning and may cause problems with muscle control, movement, speech, vision or awareness. They may not last very long, but they are life changing for the individual and family and friends.
Epilepsy affects each person differently. Epilepsy is an invisible disability. It’s difficult to understand the daily struggle of being in pain on the inside without any external visible markers of disability. Purple Day is an important time to help people learn about the condition and reduce the stigma around epilepsy.
Today I have the honour of reading out B.C.’s proclamation for Purple Day for epilepsy awareness.
“Whereas Purple Day is a global effort dedicated to promoting epilepsy awareness in countries around the world; and whereas Purple Day was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, a nine-year-old girl from Nova Scotia who wanted people with epilepsy to know they are not alone; and whereas epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition; and whereas epilepsy is estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide, about 300,000 people in Canada and approximately 45,000 people in British Columbia; and whereas the public is often unable to recognize common seizure types and to respond with appropriate first aid, and whereas Purple Day is celebrated on March 26 annually, during Epilepsy Awareness Month, to increase knowledge and understanding and to improve the quality of life for our communities in British Columbia; now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare that March 26, 2019, shall be known as Purple Day for epilepsy awareness in the province of British Columbia.”
CLIFF ANNABLE
T. Redies: On Tuesday, March 5, White Rock and South Surrey lost an incredible man. Cliff Annable, the former executive director of the White Rock–South Surrey Chamber of Commerce, former White Rock city councillor and former owner of the Surrey Eagles, was a man synonymous with the White Rock–South Surrey community.
A big man with a big smile and a big laugh, Cliff was fond of storytelling. Whether it was the history of our community; his life in Saskatchewan, where he was born in 1947; or his time with the Royal Canadian Air Force as an air crew officer, Cliff had many stories to tell, and then some. In fact, if you bumped into Cliff, chances were that you were going to be talking with him awhile. Whether you were inside a store or out in a parking lot, Cliff always had a lot to say. Cliff had nicknames for many people, and most people called him Cliffy. I was Kid.
Cliff loved to talk politics and always had useful insight. Through the course of my campaign and after I was elected, Cliff was always there to talk to and give me advice. While there was the occasional “Kid, what were you thinking,” for the most part he gave me very sound counsel and a lot of support.
There’s no question that Cliff loved his community of White Rock–South Surrey, and the community loved him. Last summer Cliff was honoured by the city of White Rock as one of two outstanding Canadians on the peninsula, an honour well deserved.
The only thing Cliff loved more than his community was his wife, Maureen, and their two children, Shawn and Janet. Cliff and Maureen were proud grandparents of two grandchildren, with their beautiful granddaughter, Lauren, born just a few weeks ago to their daughter, Janet. It would have been hard to find a prouder granddad. Within hours of her birth, Cliff had changed his profile picture on Facebook to his new granddaughter.
Cliff’s celebration of life was held on March 11 and was attended by hundreds of people whose lives had all been made better for knowing Cliff. It was full of poignancy and laughter, including the story of Cliff’s first business venture selling four-leaf clovers with Joni Mitchell when they were both ten. When pushed, he fessed up that some of those clovers were manufactured.
Cliff, you’ve left a big hole in our hearts and our community. I will miss you, Cliffy. Rest in peace, my friend.
A KINDER CUP AND EMPLOYMENT
OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
M. Dean: Providing opportunity for compassion, contribution and connection with every morsel we serve. — that is the mission of A Kinder Cup, a new and unique coffee shop across from my constituency office in View Royal. A Kinder Cup employs kindness mentors to help guide kindness ambassadors who are living with disabilities.
About one in five Canadians aged 15 and over are living with a disability, and they often face higher unemployment and poverty rates. In B.C., the rate of unemployment for adults with developmental disability is approximately 75 percent, which means that many of these individuals live at or below the poverty level.
Kim Dufort, the owner, worked with adults living with disabilities and discovered how many of the adults she worked with were keen and able to be employed but couldn’t find any opportunities, so she opened A Kinder Cup. Husband and co-owner Mark supports her vision of wanting to make something that is valuable for the community and builds on her experience.
Greg Hind often visits my constituency office. He has recently started working at A Kinder Cup, and he loves it. He left his previous job, which he didn’t enjoy and where he didn’t feel appreciated. In comparison, he is dedicated to his new position, excited about his shifts and proud to be part of the amazing team. Indeed, every time I visit A Kinder Cup, all of the mentors and ambassadors are enjoying themselves, and their service is excellent.
Thank you to Kim and everyone involved for creating such a thriving community hub in our neighbourhood. Come down for your own dose of kindness any day.
THOMAS KWOK HUNG WONG
AND CHINESE-CANADIAN
VETERANS
T. Wat: I rise in the House today to celebrate the life of Chinese-Canadian veteran Thomas Wong, also known as Tommy Wong, who passed away recently at the age of 101. Tommy is the first ethnic Chinese to be accepted into the Royal Canadian Air Force.
My colleague yesterday praised Tommy in no small measure, which speaks to Tommy’s significance in putting Canada ahead of his own life during World War II, to which we owe our gratitude, lest we forget.
I have had the honour of attending a number of events with Tommy, who was one of my constituents, and got to know him. Every time Tommy was at such events, he was honoured by many who attended, an honour Tommy Wong well deserved.
What happened, more amazingly, is that Tommy and other Chinese veterans, with many that sacrificed themselves, fought as Canadian soldiers in World War II to uphold and enable the Canada we enjoy today, yet they were denied citizenship and the right to vote, despite their long existence here.
Chinese have been in Canada since 1788, and some Chinese veterans were even born then. Why, we ask, did Tommy and others like him seek to fight and die for Canada while being discriminated against and denied even the most basic human rights? It was because of brave and selfless Chinese like Tommy Wong, who sought to prove that given a level playing ground, could prove themselves just as outstanding and worthy as others in Canada.
I take my hat off to Tommy Wong and to all Chinese veterans who fought for their community, fought for Canada’s honour, freedom and a just world. May Tommy Wong and men and women like him rest in peace, and their spirit, their valour, their belief in equality and justice and social justice for all live on and always be with us.
OPEN HOUSE AT
AL-SALAAM MOSQUE IN
BURNABY
J. Routledge: Last month mosques across British Columbia participated in Open Mosque Day. In the words of one of its organizers, the purpose was to show the unity Muslims have when it comes to reaching out to the wider community and bridging that gap and overcoming that stigma associated with Islam and Muslims.
I attended the open house at the Al-Salaam mosque in Burnaby, as did other Burnaby MLAs, and it was packed. I was heartened to see so many familiar faces from my community. Some came because they were curious. Others came to express solidarity. Others, like me, came to do both. You could tell the minute you walked through the front door that a lot of thought and preparation had gone into creating a welcoming and memorable experience for visitors.
Each of us was greeted and invited into the hall, which was lined with booths, each one explaining a different aspect of Islam. At one booth, a volunteer walked me through an introduction to the prophets. There was another booth where you could try on a hijab. There was lots of food, and we were, of course, urged to try it all. We were also invited to witness Islamic prayer.
To tell you the truth, I found it hard to get close enough to really appreciate most of the displays. The crowds were that thick. I think it’s a good thing that so many people in my community took the time out of their busy Saturday of doing errands, of taking their kids to volleyball practice, to accept the invitation when the local Muslim community opened their doors, their minds, and their hearts to the rest of us.
I thank the Al-Salaam mosque for their generosity. But I’m also reminded that the first time I was there was to mourn with them after a deadly attack on the mosque in Quebec City, so I also honour them for their bravery.
Mr. Speaker: Members, before we begin question period, and in response to a point of order raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston, I would like to call upon the member for Surrey-Fleetwood and invite his response to that point.
Personal Statements
WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE
HOUSE
J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said something which I shouldn’t have said in this House, so therefore, I withdraw. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
RIDE-SHARING SERVICES
A. Wilkinson: I think it’s now old news that Vancouver remains the largest urban centre in North America without proper ride-hailing services. Consumer-based ride-sharing is available in every other city in North America, but this government has created a regulatory rat’s nest that makes it basically impossible for a market-driven, consumer-based ride-hailing service.
Why is this minister continuing to block consumer-driven, market-based ride-hailing?
Hon. C. Trevena: I do appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, who was part of a government that sat on the file for five years and did absolutely nothing. I think the member is aware that we brought in legislation last year that was passed by this House. His government was unable to do that. We brought in legislation. We got it passed. We are on track. We are expecting the report from the standing committee out later today.
We’re going to be moving ahead as planned. Applications will be able to come in later this summer, and ride-hailing will be here in B.C. by the end of the year. We are very pleased that we’re dealing with what people need, unlike the opposition that ignored it for five years.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: We’ve seen the idea of ride-hailing from the NDP with boundary restrictions, quotas, fixed fares — all designed to obstruct the development of any kind of market-based or consumer-driven…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Wilkinson: …ride-hailing. No other jurisdiction in the world has imposed these kinds of rules. This is some kind of NDP construct of how to make the world a better place by forcing things onto the market that simply don’t work.
The other day, on my way out to Vancouver Airport, I talked to the cab driver, and he said that the new NDP proposition is a total failure in the marketplace. No one is signing up for it…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Wilkinson: …and the costs are simply too high. So instead we see, regularly, lineups of hundreds of people at Vancouver Airport waiting for taxis, because the NDP want to continue to rig the market.
Why is this minister continuing to block consumer-driven, market-based ride hailing?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think that the…. To give the Leader of the Opposition credit, he may not have really been concentrating on my answer the previous time or all the answers I’ve given in the past, because we brought in legislation which sets a time frame for bringing in app-based ride-hailing.
The Leader of the Opposition may try and capitalize on the fact that people are frustrated. I know people are frustrated. I hear from them too. But he had five years to do something about it, and they did absolutely nothing.
When they tried to hold onto power back in July of 2017 and they had the clone speech, the opposition at that time said that all parties in the Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election. “Your government” — still their government — “has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain.”
We are addressing concerns. We have enabling legislation. We are working on the regulations. We will be bringing in ride-hail, as promised, this year.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Of course, now we’re seeing the rollout of the NDP dream come true — centralized control, boundary limitations, restrictions on number of vehicles, fee caps. None of this has anything to do with the modern economy’s approach to ride-hailing. It’s all a centralized, rigged process strictly designed to pave the road for the NDP’s friends. So what we’ve got is an emerging monopoly of NDP insiders under the rigged game set up by the Transportation Minister. The question is still out there. The report comes out this afternoon.
Will this NDP government ever accept that there’s a market force behind ride-hailing, or do they insist on controlling the whole thing right down to the number of vehicles and where they’re allowed to go?
Hon. C. Trevena: I will say once again that we have acted in a way that the opposition, when they were government, did not act. We are absolutely committed to bringing in ride-hailing. I mean, the opposition…. We have a number of former Ministers of Transportation in the opposition benches. They did not bring in ride-hailing, although they had the opportunity to do it in 2012.
We also await the report from the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which has been looking at app-based ride-hailing. We know they have recommendations that I eagerly anticipate. We will work with those recommendations. I’m not going to prejudge what the report says, but we do not put people to work for no purpose. We’ll look at those recommendations. We’ll work with those recommendations. And we will stay with our timetable.
App-based ride-hailing will be in this year — unlike the previous government, who ignored the demands of people for five years.
RIDE-SHARING SERVICES AND RESPONSE
TO COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
J. Thornthwaite: The fact is that this whole mess could have been avoided if the NDP hadn’t voted down our bill last year. Instead, it’s been one NDP obstruction and delay over and over and over again. Last November….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Member, you may wish to lengthen your question or start over again. I know it’s difficult for you to speak over the noise.
J. Thornthwaite: Do you want to hear the question again?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: You’re certainly welcome to do that.
J. Thornthwaite: Instead, there’s been one NDP obstruction and delay over and over again. Last November the minister tasked a legislative committee with providing recommendations on the terms and conditions of ride-sharing regulations.
Will the minister accept the recommendations of this all-party committee?
Hon. C. Trevena: I look forward to receiving the report from the committee. When I have read the recommendations, I’ll be able to give the member an answer.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: I don’t know. That sounds kind of like government knows best. But you don’t. The young woman that is stranded on Granville Street at one or two o’clock in the morning wants real ride-sharing. Real market-driven ride-sharing. The minister’s obstruction and excuses just aren’t good enough.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
J. Thornthwaite: She was the one who asked the committee to make recommendations, and she should commit to accepting them.
My question is, again, simple. Will the minister accept the committee’s recommendations?
Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition do seem to forget that they were once government, that they did have five years to deal with huge public demand for app-based ride hailing. There is a huge demand. We all acknowledge this. People want modern options. People want to be able to use their smartphones to be able to call a vehicle. We know that. We get that. We’re working on it.
The opposition, for five years, practically twiddled their thumbs and said: “Oh well, we’re not sure whether we can do this. We’ve got to make sure that we are….” I’m not sure what their holdup was. I wasn’t part of their government, thank goodness.
We, as government, got down to this immediately, have brought in legislation and have tasked the special committee twice to have recommendations on ride-hailing. But it would be absolutely foolish of me to say, of course….
I have not seen them. I want to see the recommendations. I look forward to it. People have worked very hard on this report. People have committed time to it. I will read the recommendations, and then I will answer the member’s question.
PANEL REPORT AND MONITORING OF
WATER USE FOR NATURAL
GAS FRACKING
S. Furstenau: According to the scientific review of hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia released last week, there are significant problems with the monitoring of water related to hydraulic fracturing operations. The report noted: “From a public perception perspective, the various activities associated with hydraulic fracturing appear to be unregulated, and this leads to fear and mistrust of the regulators.” The panel said current regulations might look robust, but there’s not enough information to assess compliance and enforcement.
Experts from multiple government ministries, Treaty 8 First Nations representatives and environmental consultants all raised concerns about the lack of baseline water quality data. They raised concerns about stream flow, lake levels, groundwater, surface water and more.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. What specific actions is the government going to take to track the amount of water being used in hydraulic fracturing operations in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member’s question. Of course, British Columbians all across the province are concerned about how we manage the land base. Particularly those who rely on natural gas to heat their homes want to make sure that the way in which we are extracting natural gas from the ground is done in a responsible way.
That’s exactly why we asked our scientific panel to take a look at hydraulic fracturing. We know that the majority of our natural gas is extracted using hydraulic fracturing, and of course, we want to make sure that our water is protected, the quality as well as the quantity.
What came back was a very detailed, very technical report with 97 recommendations. We’ve already started to actually take action. I spoke with the scientific panel shortly before we released the report publicly. One of the things that they said was that now is an opportunity to move forward and take action on those recommendations, and that’s exactly what we’re going to be doing.
We’ve acknowledged that we will be putting forward an action plan. Short-term actions will be taking place in May, with longer term after consultation in December.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Okay. So no specific action on tracking water yet. Something is coming, I guess.
During its review, water use was one of the most significant concerns raised with the scientific panel. The report stated that there was a lack of climate, hydrometric and groundwater data in northeastern B.C. and that any data we do have is often outdated. It also noted that “the capacity for wastewater storage is inadequate to meet the anticipated increase in production over the coming years,” and also that “there is no solid understanding of the volume needed and disposal requirements for growth scenarios.”
We need to recognize that we don’t have the luxury to waste water in our province. Our climate is changing, and droughts are getting longer and dryer. Government needs to understand and plan for the impacts of climate change. We need to know the impacts of fracking on our environment and on our water resources. We also need to know how or if it can be cleaned up.
My question is, again, for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How is the government deciding on the allocation of water used for fracking when we don’t know how much water is being used, we don’t know what the impacts are, we don’t know how much industry will need in the future and we don’t know if or how it can be cleaned up?
Hon. M. Mungall: Some of the points the member raised in terms of making sure that we have a good regulatory system and that we have good information are precisely why we asked the scientific panel to do this work on behalf of British Columbians. We knew that that information needed to be addressed.
They’ve identified the gaps that are, obviously, a result of the previous government. We already knew, actually, about some of those gaps when we came into government in 2017. We took action very, very shortly after that. We’ve brought in new legislation to address the orphan well situation. We started to address the compliance for dams and making sure that those dams that do exist have the right permits.
We’ve been taking action, and we’re going to be taking more action to address this. After all, all British Columbians want to make sure that the way in which we’re managing our land and the way in which we’re managing our water are done properly.
HOME SUPPORT AND SENIORS CARE
SERVICE CHANGES AND
WORKERS
N. Letnick: Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Health stood at an event with many of us present and congratulated B.C. care providers and their workers on doing an excellent job in providing for seniors throughout this province. You can imagine that the B.C. care providers felt they got stabbed in the back when, just a few days after that, the Minister of Health stood to announce some changes that would see over 4,000 care providers being transferred from B.C. care providers in the private sector over to government control.
They believe he has put their jobs and seniors at risk. Home care workers have also contacted us, stressed out and anxious over their own jobs as well as the impact this is having on vulnerable seniors.
My question to the Minister of Health is: does he believe that he should take a pause at this point — consult with seniors, consult with the B.C. care providers — before implementing this decision?
Hon. A. Dix: You know, home support is extremely important to all people in British Columbia — for people who have returned home from surgery, for seniors who want to live at home as long as possible. I think we have an obligation to improve the home support system. Members of the House will know that in 2012, the Ombudsperson said just that in a report on seniors at that time.
Unfortunately, in spite of further reports by the seniors advocate in the interim, very little action was taken. We are changing that. In cooperation with the federal government, we are improving home support services in British Columbia. I would say that this process is, I think, going to make a huge difference in the success of team-based care in British Columbia.
With respect to home support contracts, the member will know that 100 percent of that work in Northern Health is done in-house right now, 78 percent of that work in IHA is done in-house right now, 47 percent of that work is done in Island Health right now, 37 percent in Fraser Health and 26 percent in Vancouver Coastal Health. We believe that by fully integrating home support into team-based care, we can improve the situation.
In addition to that, we face significant and serious issues that have been raised in audits about the expenditure and the contracts between 2014 and 2017. As a result, we have taken action. For contracts that were going to expire a year from now, we gave notice in order to ensure that we can improve home support services in the future. That’s what we did, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.
N. Letnick: Well, we all believe in team-based care. Actually, the whole move to team-based care started when we were in government just a few years ago. I’m glad to see that this minister — and this government — is continuing those efforts. But this is about vulnerable seniors, seniors who…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
N. Letnick: …believe that they were not consulted in this process.
My father, who passed away about ten years ago — God bless his soul — was in a seniors home. My mother, who passed away a few months ago, as the members here know, was also in a seniors home before she passed away. The discussions I had with my mom were key, about those people that took care of her. Those are some of the biggest discussions that she ever had.
I know that members in this House also had moms and dads, or do have moms and dads, that are in seniors care homes and have the same discussions. So I understand there’s empathy amongst all members here.
It’s not about team-based care, and it’s not about anything else other than what I’m asking the Minister of Health to do: to take a pause, have an opportunity to talk to these seniors so that they’re not feeling frustrated and not feeling left out and that they can be part of this discussion, and to be sure that the policies and the actions this government is taking are in the best interest of them — the seniors of British Columbia.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member and I have spoken about this. I understand the seriousness with which he takes the issue. He spoke about long-term care. Ninety-one percent of care beds in this province, publicly funded, did not meet staffing standards when I became Minister of Health — 91 percent.
You know who was the worst off? It was public beds funded in non-profit and for-profit beds. Those public beds were dramatically underfunded in comparison to ones that were funded by the health authorities — in other words, the very members represented by the B.C. Care Providers.
We provided, in our first year to raise those standards up, $48 million, and $46 million of that has gone to for-profit and non-profit providers. In other words, the very people represented by the B.C. Care Providers have benefited the most from this government’s action.
We are going to act in favour of seniors regardless of the circumstances. We are in home support, and we are in long-term care.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: Well, to be clear, to the minister, there are over 4,000 private and non-profit community health jobs that are being expropriated and converted to government jobs. This is the largest ever — and the minister can add that to his record — expansion of the public service, and it is being done with zero consultation.
This isn’t a government, we all know, that is shy about consulting. In fact, at our last count, they were up to 92 consultations. In fact, as we just heard, that’s apparently all they do about ride-sharing, but I digress. There was zero consultation on a matter that impacts seniors and that every member of this House cares about.
Can the minister stand up and explain…? The question, Minister, is about consultation. This minister sandbagged 4,000 workers. Why?
Hon. A. Dix: Members of the opposition last week on social media were tweeting and retweeting about possible job losses. Well, I just want to read you that Bob Boulter with Beacon Community Services — who, of course, we’ve been consulting with for months — confirmed that there will be no job losses — a member of the B.C. Care Providers. “Our home support workers and managers, as well as any other staff whose positions are affected by this change, will transition to Island Health, regardless of whether they’re union or non-union employees.”
You know why? Because we’re increasing home support. We found the levels of home support inadequate over the last number of years. We’re taking action to improve services.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the minister may then want to respond to the workers, hundreds of them, who are concerned about their futures and their jobs. Let’s be clear. We have been hearing from those workers.
The winners from this massive increase in government employees appear to be NDP friends, who we know have long opposed the involvement of non-government agencies. This government will consult endlessly on issues, and the minister here apparently sees no need for consultation when acting on behalf of their friends. A straightforward question: why did the minister ambush non-government care providers with what is basically a hostile takeover?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s, I guess, the opposition circle: fearmonger, then complain that people are upset about fearmongering.
Every time contracts come up — in this case, a contract coming up after ten years, in several cases — we gave significant notice, as per the contract. The alternative, by the way, is what happened ten years ago, when some existing contractors lost their contracts, and there were issues. That is the contracting process if we had gone to tender in that case.
We decided, because we’re committed to team-based care…. We’re committed to improving home support. We don’t think that in Fraser Health, 37 percent in the public system and 63 percent provided by four contractors is the right model. Surely no one over there thinks that’s the case. No one in the member’s constituency, not a single person, would argue for contracting out the home support services….
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: We are taking action to improve home support services. We’re taking action in response to audits that took place of problems that occurred between 2014 and ’17. Yes, when you have contractual arrangements, you deal with the contractors and not the industry association. Surely everybody in this House understands that.
M. Stilwell: For 19 years, Trudy has been a home care provider. But the caregiver relationships that she has with her clients, relationships that have taken years to develop, don’t seem to matter to this minister. The minister doesn’t seem to care about the interests of seniors, only the interests of his NDP union friends. He’s dismissing the concerns that he is hearing from the people, that we are hearing from the people.
When will this minister end his attack on non-government care agencies?
Hon. A. Dix: I have to say that in 2012, and long before that…. You can talk to anybody who receives home support services. The people who work in home support services, many of whom I know very well, know that the system that has been developed up to now was not working effectively for them. There were contracting issues for them.
The actions that we’re taking are to improve home support services. I think that’s desperately needed in B.C. I do not understand why the opposition would be opposed to that. In addition, we’re taking steps, consistent with a contract — in many cases, there were ten-year contracts — to give notice under the contracts and make a transition to bring those contracts in house.
A couple of years ago, B.C. Hydro, which had wrongly contracted out work, brought a whole bunch of work back into B.C. Hydro. I don’t recall anybody calling the minister at the time an expropriator or a socialist or favouring his union friends. That minister was Bill Bennett. I don’t even think he was a Liberal.
What they did is what we’re doing — doing the right thing for seniors, doing the right thing for home support workers, and increasing and improving home support services everywhere in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: What this minister and this government are doing is what’s right for NDP unions, not for seniors. Caregivers have been told….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
M. Stilwell: Caregivers have told us that seniors are refusing to take showers unless it’s done with the assistance of a caregiver or a familiar home care worker who they trust. But the minister can’t even be bothered to consult with these seniors.
Does making sweeping changes that are in the best interests of the NDP unions…?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s difficult to hear the question.
M. Stilwell: The minister hasn’t even taken the time to consult with the seniors that are going to be impacted by the sweeping change that he is making in favour of his NDP unions.
At what point will this minister, at the very least, consult with the most vulnerable seniors who are impacted by the decisions his government is making?
Hon. A. Dix: When we’re talking about care for seniors, and we’re talking about the treatment of people who provide care for seniors, I think it’s fair to say that the previous decades were not a time of light in British Columbia.
We are treating, I think, everybody with respect. How do you treat them with respect? By improving services. How do you treat them with respect? By ensuring continuity of care. How do you treat them with respect? By ensuring home support is fully integrated into team-based care. How do you treat them with respect? You treat them with respect by ensuring they have the services they need, when they need them. That is precisely what we are doing.
This effort…. It really is, I think, shameful to demonize people. When we wanted to support seniors living in care, we supported principally by providing resources to private and non-profit providers. In this case, all of these workers were unionized before, and all of them will be unionized afterwards.
This effort to demonize the workers, from the opposition, is shameful. We’re about improving services and home support, and you bet we’re going to continue to do it, regardless of what they say.
[End of question period.]
Point of Order
Hon. J. Sims: I rise on a point of privilege, because the member for Richmond-Queensborough used unparliamentary language yesterday. In this people’s House, we all come here with different perspectives, and we are going to disagree on issues. But it behooves each and every one of us to use language that is appropriate and contextual and that is parliamentary and acceptable within these four walls.
I found the language that was used yesterday inflammatory, insulting and totally unacceptable. I’m urging you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the member to withdraw the words he used yesterday and to apologize.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Richmond-Queensborough, may I ask you to respond.
J. Johal: Mr. Speaker, my comments are withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for the year ending December 31, 2018.
Hon. C. James: I rise to table a revised strategic plan.
Reports from Committees
CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE
B. Ma: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the fourth session of the 41st parliament, titled Transportation Network Services: Boundaries, Supply, Fares, and Driver’s Licences.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. Ma: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
B. Ma: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.
Transportation network services, or TNS, are a type of app-based ride-hailing service and include services provided by companies such as TappCar, Lyft, Uber and more.
The committee focused closely on the four areas identified in the terms of reference and made recommendations on regulations for boundaries, supply, price and fare regimes, and drivers’ licences. The 11 recommendations propose regulations that would ensure all British Columbians benefit from TNS by moving forward without operational pick-up boundaries or caps on transportation network companies’ fleet size, supporting public transit and promoting equitable access to TNS across the province. The committee also produced a recommendation on the question of drivers’ licences.
I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Surrey South, for her hard work on this report and all committee members for the detailed and thought-provoking discussions throughout our deliberations, a rich summary of which is captured within the body of the report.
Committee members approached each of these areas from a variety of experiences and perspectives, and I’m grateful for the diversity of experience and opinions that we were able to canvass from expert witnesses during the work. Municipalities, disability associations, taxi associations, transportation network companies and experts took time out of their days to provide the committee with their valuable input. Their contributions allowed committee members to engage in a rich dialogue about pros, cons, opportunities and concerns around various approaches to regulating transportation network services in B.C.
I hope the recommendations in this report will help government make balanced and informed decisions when implementing a made-in-B.C. plan for ride-hailing that works for British Columbians.
S. Cadieux: Firstly, in adding my comments to the introduction of the report, I’d like to thank the committee staff for their support. It was a great amount of work that was required to assist in the creation of this report in a condensed time frame, and they certainly deserve full marks for their work.
I’d like to thank the Chair and the other members of the committee as well. I believe we worked well together in coming to agreement in presenting the recommendations that we have presented in the report. I’m pleased that the committee, once again, has provided a consensus report on a number of the recommendations on the four issues we were tasked to provide input on.
I do hope that now government will see fit to heed the recommendations and get real ride-hailing in place and on the road in British Columbia.
A. Olsen: I would also like to add just a few brief comments and also my thanks to the staff. As a member of this Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, it was an honour to be a part of this process. I think that it highlights the usefulness of the committee process to be able to work through some of the more difficult challenges that happen in this place — to be able to work through it, get evidence, get feedback from people and be able to then develop a report that can help better inform the decisions that are made with the ministry.
I know that when this report comes forward, the minister will have the opportunity to take a look at what the experts have delivered to us. On balance, I think that they’ve been able to provide us good information to be able to make an informed decision that then will bring ride-hailing into this province — finally, after a very, very, very long time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this report.
Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019. In Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 10 be read a second time now.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
Bill 10 implements some of the final fiscal elements needed to support a historic made-in-B.C. LNG investment, which will be the largest private sector investment in B.C. and Canada’s history. This is an investment that is going to deliver long-term benefits and thousands of well-paying jobs. Just a context around the jobs, for people who are listening, there are currently 600 workers that were employed in Kitimat in December alone.
I think it’s also important to take a look at some of the work that LNG Canada has done around local jobs. LNG Canada has in place a local B.C.-first policy. They’ve invested, already, $1.5 million in a trades training fund that has already supported 1,000 individuals. The 1,000th person just graduated from the trades training program, which again will provide a very necessary and critical investment here in British Columbia. And 10,000 construction jobs and 950 permanent jobs.
I think it’s important to put in context the kinds of benefits to jobs and to employment in British Columbia. Certainly, as a government, we recognize the critical nature of having a strong, diverse economy, particularly in British Columbia — a small, open economy. We know how critical it is to make sure that there are good jobs available in every corner of our province.
As a government, we also recognize the need to balance our environmental, social and reconciliation priorities, which is why this bill is one element of the framework to a responsible LNG investment in British Columbia. Just as, when we provide the budget to British Columbians, we talk about being balanced socially, being balanced in its approach and being balanced in strong protections for the environment, as well as balanced fiscally, it’s the same kind of approach we’re taking to an LNG investment.
We want to ensure that it generates a positive return for British Columbians. We want to ensure that it will support true economic partnerships and opportunities with First Nations and that it certainly will operate within strong environmental protections.
As the Premier said when LNG Canada announced their final investment decision, LNG in B.C. is not something new. This has been years and years in the making. Previous governments going back to the 1980s have worked to develop it and to look at how to access our resources and how to ensure those resources get to market. Bill 10 helps to put natural gas development on a level playing field with other industrial sectors while supporting a new fiscal framework for the largest private sector investment. The framework is designed to ensure that British Columbians’ interests are met.
Throughout the election, as people may remember, and certainly as we moved into government, the Premier outlined four fundamental conditions that had to be met by LNG for any kind of investment in British Columbia. Those were that it must guarantee a fair return for B.C.’s natural resources; guarantee jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians; respect and partner, true partnerships, with First Nations; and meet the province’s climate commitments.
So we worked hard. We worked hard with LNG Canada to ensure those four conditions were met. This legislation represents one of the last pieces in facilitating this historic investment, one that, as I said earlier, will ensure that we’re looking at well-paying jobs, that we’re protecting our environment and that we will see a broad and diverse economy in our province.
This project will produce one of the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. B.C. has committed to meeting legislative targets for carbon levels of 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and 80 percent by 2050. Our CleanBC program is the strongest climate action plan in North America.
Is that plan ambitious? Yes, it is. Are we committed to its implementation? Yes, we are. In fact, in the ’19-20 budget, you saw over $900 million committed to ensure that we move ahead with CleanBC. That’s going to require all of us to work together. All sectors are going to need to reduce their overall emissions if B.C. is going to achieve our carbon pollution reduction targets. We are committed to that, and we will be held accountable to that.
The province’s long-term strategy includes measures to encourage clean industrial growth in British Columbia. That includes a portion of the carbon tax revenue paid by large industry, which will fund a new clean growth incentive program to encourage the use of the greenest technology available.
That’s not limited to the natural gas sector. In fact, that’s broad to all sectors in British Columbia — to look at how we reduce our emissions and how we encourage jobs and economic growth. Some of that revenue will go into a technology fund, which is going to help spur new investment in all sectors to make sure, again, that they fit within B.C.’s climate action plan.
This provides huge opportunities to further build our green economy. When you take a look at CleanBC, I think we have a true chance to be a leader when it comes to North America when it comes to developing technology, when it comes to innovation in the green sector. Putting together our energy-intensive emissions plan through CleanBC will provide us with that opportunity to have resources committed to be able to look at how we expand those opportunities right here in our province for economic growth.
We’ll also be investing in electrification of upstream oil and gas production. That’ll allow extraction and processing to be powered by electricity, instead of burning fossil fuels. We’re working with industry to reduce fugitive emissions to match the federal government’s target of a 45 percent reduction by 2025.
The province’s greenhouse gas reduction targets in CleanBC are firm, as I was saying. LNG Canada must ensure that its development and operations live up to its environmental responsibilities to British Columbians. That means protection for our clean air, land and water for generations to come, while generating funds for critical services and meeting responsibilities to partner with First Nations.
The fiscal framework we’re supporting today comes after months of hard work and discussion between government, communities, Indigenous peoples and the LNG industry. We have already put in place a PST performance payment agreement for LNG Canada. We’re developing criteria for this program so that other large manufacturing investors, to ensure B.C. is competitive, may also look at taking advantage of the opportunity for new investments. And we’re also providing industrial electricity rates on par with other industrial users in British Columbia.
As part of the final pieces of the framework — built-in moves to repeal the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act to remove barriers to LNG development in British Columbia and to protect the interests of B.C. Effective for taxation years that begin on or after January 1, 2020, the natural gas credit will be available to qualifying corporations that carry on business in B.C. in the oil and gas activities or own natural gas as it enters the LNG facility.
This credit is limited to a maximum amount that can be claimed each taxation year and can be used to reduce the effective British Columbia corporate income tax rate from 12 percent to 9 percent if the company pays corporate income tax in British Columbia.
Qualifying corporations are generally those with a permanent establishment in British Columbia and in the business of oil and gas activities, such as natural gas extraction and the liquification of natural gas, and — I think this is a very important point — that pay their corporate income tax here in our province.
Requiring a permanent establishment in B.C. is important for income tax purposes because it triggers the requirement that qualifying corporations be subject to income tax in British Columbia. If a company doesn’t pay corporate income tax in our province, they’re not eligible for the natural gas tax credit.
So these final pieces that we’re putting in place help guarantee a fair return to British Columbians.
This bill also repeals the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. That act came into effect on July 21, 2015. It outlined certain key elements of an LNG project agreement and also provided the Minister of Finance with the authority to enter into LNG project agreements.
However, that approach, using the agreements act, locked in certain tax and regulatory provisions and also provided indemnities to projects if a future government changed those provisions. Under that previous legislation that we are proposing to remove, any indemnities paid under such agreements were borne by future British Columbians.
Our government’s new LNG framework does not provide for indemnities. That is stated very clearly in the agreement that’s signed. As a result, that act is no longer needed, and the act will be repealed.
This bill ensures that all British Columbians benefit from our resources. LNG Canada has met our four fundamental conditions: a fair return for B.C.’s natural resources, jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, respect and true partnerships with First Nations, and a requirement to meet our province’s climate commitments.
In doing so, it ensures that British Columbia remains a competitive place for new investments, new businesses and new opportunities, while protecting our air, land and water for this generation and generations to come.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the members and government asked me to be the designated speaker. I’m going to continue on, first of all, with my comments.
Obviously, on this side of the House, after doing all of the heavy lifting and all of the work to bring recognition and to bring LNG to British Columbia, this is something that we’re pleased about. We’re pleased that we’re at a point where LNG is continuing on in the province — that we’re proceeding.
My hope, though, is that this is a good deal — that it is something that’s going to benefit the people of British Columbia, that it’s going to benefit families, that it’s going to benefit companies and, obviously, people all around the province and, of course, my region — which is ground zero in so many ways, in the Peace region — where the gas, hopefully, hopefully, will be coming from. Our job, obviously, now is to assess what government has put in front of us here — the nature of the agreement. Of course, we’ll get into some of those details in committee stage.
This project, as government has been toting, is a large investment — obviously, one that we’ve been working on for many, many years and which could be great for the province of British Columbia. But the people of British Columbia, this House, opposition — I think everybody — deserve to have a fully transparent project in front of us, to understand where government gets their numbers from so that when the minister stands up and actually talks about the jobs, the revenue, the opportunities for B.C., they can point at and show where those numbers come from. Unfortunately, all that this government has put forward is a taxation regime for the company but has not really discussed where these numbers come from.
Now, if you think about what was done under the last government, when we were in government, we actually took the time to call a special sitting of the House to bring in the taxation legislation. We also took the time to bring in the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act because we committed to being fully transparent. We committed to ensuring that the opposition, now government, had the opportunity to completely dissect and digest what we were proposing here in the province of British Columbia so they could support, criticize. But as we know, as I see the smirks across from me, they voted against everything. They actually.…
Interjection.
M. Bernier: I’m sorry. It’s a smile, not a smirk.
They voted against everything that was brought forward. They actually talked about the fact that LNG would never happen in the province and criticized the numbers and criticized very specifically that there was not hard, fast information within the agreement.
So of course, our job now is to make sure, when we listen to all of the comments that the now government said, that they are living up to that. What they said in the House — is that what they’ve brought forward now for the public, for this province? The problem is that they have not done what I think should have been their due diligence, which is to have brought forward a project development agreement to this House for full debate, for full disclosure and, more importantly, full transparency for the public.
Now, of course, when you look at some of the comments that the now government made…. We remember some of these comments quite well. You look at the Minister of Energy and Mines saying LNG wasn’t going to happen and that what we were doing was just a huge sellout to the people of British Columbia. And the now Premier went on and on at length saying that this was not a good deal for the people of British Columbia to have LNG coming forward without very specific details of how it’s going to benefit B.C.
Well, this government hasn’t been able to do that. So I want to see…. We’re going to ask in committee stage some of those exact questions, making sure that they are willing to be transparent and bring forward specific answers that not only this House but the people of British Columbia deserve to know.
Of course, when you look at the principles of bringing forward what this government is trying to embark on, those disclosures are important. The public deserves the opportunity to scrutinize, in its entirety, what is being presented. This is not a leap of faith. This is something that is going to be important for years and years to come. The minister even mentioned how…. Even though they criticized…. When we were in government, the Minister of Finance said things change over 20, 25 years. You should never lock in a contract for that length. Well, here they are doing the exact same thing that we were embarking on and now trying to take credit for it.
Some of us in opposition received an initial briefing on the legislation, and what we learned is that there are significant aspects being left out that government is unwilling, unable to answer. They are important technical details on the benefits that this, hopefully, will be bringing for the people of British Columbia. So I have to ask: why is that? What are they hiding? Why are they not willing to bring that forward to this House?
Of course, the minister will have opportunities in committee stage again to, hopefully, disclose some of these very specific details that will impact not only the company now — LNG Canada — but future companies that we’re hoping to see come to British Columbia. And what impact does it also have on the families and small businesses in the province of British Columbia?
When you look at some of the actual information that’s put forward already, they’re telling this company: “Of course, we’ll lock you in at $30 a tonne for carbon tax.” Well, we all know, and government is touting the fact, that they’re raising it to $40 on April 1, in just a few days. So I’m sure this company, LNG Canada, is very excited about the fact that everybody in British Columbia will be paying more for carbon tax, but they won’t have to.
When you look in the agreement, there’s nowhere in the agreement, contrary to what government said when they were in opposition, that will mandate local hire, local procurement or jobs for First Nations or people who live across the corridor or anywhere in British Columbia. There’s nothing in this agreement that we can find or that they’re willing to admit that contractually obligates this company to actually hire anybody in B.C.
Now, of course, the company is going to probably do the best they can. I trust they will do that, but there’s nothing in here that says they have to. Of course, in opposition, the now government railed on the fact that that is something that should be contractually binding for the company, that they have to do.
There’s also nothing in the agreements that we can find that says these companies even have to buy B.C. resources. Now, the minister just touted the fact that they’re lowering the rates to 9 percent for this company. Well, Alberta has just announced that if the UCP party win, they might lower it to 8 percent. What is obligating this company now to purchase the gas, hire the people or book any revenue or anything in British Columbia? If it’s 8 percent, why would they not just do everything out of Alberta now?
I’m hoping the minister has some good answers to these kinds of questions that we’re going to ask, to ensure that the people of British Columbia and our resources are protected.
Again, on this side of the House, of course we want to see LNG come to fruition. We want to see the local jobs. We want to see opportunities for First Nations and First Nations communities. We want to see opportunities for small business and companies in the province of British Columbia. We also want to see other companies — mining, forestry, others — continue to prosper and make sure there’s a competitiveness across all the resource sectors, not just one.
Of course, there are a couple of tests that we have to ensure that this government is meeting. Are the people of British Columbia being protected by what this government has put forward? Again, it’s not only this bill but the project agreement that this government has reached. Does it meet the test of all of the things that they committed to doing when they were in opposition, the things they said when they were in opposition, the things the now Premier said, the now ministers?
I know many of the comments that they made when they were on this side of the House…. My hope is that now they’re in government, they were around the cabinet table making sure that their comments, their wishes, their asks, what they committed to are actually in this.
Now, of course, we don’t know all that detail. We’ll have to ask for it later, because the government has not agreed to bring forward the actual project agreement for this House to scrutinize or to debate like we did. They also, unfortunately…. I’m sure the members of the Green Party will talk about this too. They put within this taxation act that they brought forward a clause at the very, very end to actually reverse and eliminate the actual agreement that we had that binds government to bring that information forward.
Obviously, that’s a question that I think everybody in this House should be asking. If we’re all, most of the people in this House, proud of LNG coming forward, why would government not be willing to put that information on the table for us to not only discuss and scrutinize but, more importantly, for the people of B.C., again, to see?
This is a contract that’s going to bind this House and this government and the people of B.C. for years to come. More importantly, it’s also setting the stage. It’s setting the bar now for other companies to come to B.C. Now, some would say — maybe three members of the House wouldn’t — that this will be a good thing. It brings a little bit of certainty to what these companies might be able to see if they come to British Columbia as well.
I do know that there are other ministers, I’m sure, in government and critics on this side of the House that will say: what does that mean for competitiveness now in other resource sectors? What is government going to do to ensure that other industries are treated the same?
When we look at the royalty projections that this government has brought forward in this act…. Obviously, some of the questions we need to have answered are: where do they get these projections from? What revenues are they booking in, what projections do they have, and where did they arrive at these numbers?
The people of B.C. and in this House deserve to know. We need to be able to scrutinize and say: are those accurate? Are they banking on the fact that all of the jobs and all of the gas and all of the booked-in revenues will be from British Columbia? If they have, they might have made some flawed assumptions. These are the things we need to be able to talk to this government and, hopefully, get answers about. So far, they have not been able to release any of that information.
Now, of course, we hope the government is right. I’ve worked for years, as well as colleagues on this side of the House, with LNG Canada and other proponents to get them to look at British Columbia instead of other parts of the world, to get them to come here and set up and hire people. As we know, LNG Canada has been in the process for many, many years, and they’ve already spent billions of dollars doing the groundwork to bring LNG to fruition in B.C. Now we just need to make sure that everybody is living up to their promises to make sure that this helps the people of British Columbia.
In committee stage, we’ll ask the minister, obviously, for some details. As an MLA from the Peace region, where right now a lot of the gas is being extracted…. Of course, we have an abundance of gas, which is why LNG has opportunities here in Canada. But we need to be able to reconcile some of the comments that the ministers and the now Premier said when they were on this side of the House, again to ensure that the people in my area are protected, that our resources in B.C. are being utilized to their fullest potential to help the people here.
Of course, when I look at the opportunities for the Peace region…. I know the member for Peace River North will probably speak to this as well. We don’t recognize a border in the Peace region. The companies and the jobs and the families flow back and forth in this industry.
One of the challenges that we have faced for quite a few years is the influx of people from Alberta who have come into British Columbia to work in our sector as things were slowing down in Alberta. The last thing that we would want to see — and I can’t find anywhere in the agreement that protects this — is resources now, because it might be cheaper, actually going into Alberta, in the same play, and extracting natural gas there. Now we’re going to have lost jobs, lost families, people moving to Alberta.
Of course, we hope that doesn’t happen, and this isn’t me saying it might happen. This is just saying that the government has not done their due diligence to protect it from not happening — and protecting the people of British Columbia.
When I was in government, I spent about a year and a half on the LNG–Buy B.C. portfolio, travelling around the province, making sure that jobs were ready, that people were ready, that companies were ready and recognizing the opportunities that were here. One of the things that we were committing to, and working with the companies on, was to ensure that British Columbians were thought of first and foremost when it came to LNG.
Of course, we’re going to ask the minister again, in committee stage, about this, because I see nothing in this that protects that, contrary to what they said. I see nothing that formulates anything within the agreement that requires the companies to procure, hire British Columbians. So I’m looking forward to the minister correcting me and saying: “No, there it is, right there in the agreement. There it is that actually mandates the company from doing that.”
Interjection.
M. Bernier: I’m sure the leader of the Green Party, who is speaking right now, will have some comments on this. I mean, I’ve yet to hear whether he supports LNG — the jobs, the opportunities — or not. I’m sure he’ll have a moment to actually put his opinions forward. I’m sure he has a few on this issue. The things we need to make sure of are that…. Are the people of British Columbia getting the best bang they can by having LNG in British Columbia? That’s what we need to ensure.
We need to ensure that these companies…. That’s what we worked on. I know my colleague to my right here, the former minister of LNG and natural gas, spent years on this file, working diligently, travelling around the world, making sure these companies chose British Columbia and nowhere else. We wouldn’t have LNG if it wasn’t for B.C. being put on the map years ago and the companies starting down the road around the recognition and the understanding that B.C. was the best place for them to invest.
Of course, we brought forward to this House — again, for full disclosure and full debates — what we were thinking was the best deal for the people of British Columbia. All we’re asking is that this government has the courage to do the same — not just stand up and tout the fact that we have LNG but to actually say: “We have it. Here are the prescriptive benefits. Here’s where the numbers came from. Here’s how the people of B.C. are going to benefit for years to come.”
When you see over half a billion dollars in, basically, tax credits being given to the company and them being told that they can pay them back 19 or 20 years from now, the question has to be: “Where’s the benefit of that in the short term to the people of B.C.?” I’m sure the minister will be able to — hopefully, in detail — explain how those financial agreements came to be, how that not only benefits the companies to make a decision but how it benefits the people of British Columbia so we can actually have the revenue and the resources coming in that we knew that we would have with LNG but, I fear, may not be completely there anymore.
A big part of what we were trying to accomplish with LNG, obviously, was not only the local procurement and hire but to encourage companies to set up shop and actually be here in British Columbia. This is all about making sure the benefits are here. And again, for the government not to be willing to stand up and defend the actual parts within the agreement, to actually try to hide behind some of the numbers…. Again, that’s our job now, to say: “Where did this come from? Where did these numbers come from?”
You can’t just say: “We have a project. We have an agreement, and there’s going to be a bunch of money coming in — maybe. A bunch of money coming in 20 years from now.” People need to know what this is going to mean for the people of British Columbia.
I look again, right now, at the thousands and thousands of people that are working in the natural gas sector in British Columbia. We need to be standing up and looking out for them. We know that in the Montney play, we have one of the best natural gas resource finds in the entire world. This is something that we’ve been working on and touting for years to come.
One of the things that I’ve always talked about — even though our unemployment rate in northeast B.C. is a little high right now — is about 81 percent of the people working in my region are full-time people, full-time, good-paying jobs. It’s the highest in the province. A lot of that has to do with the resource sector. It has to do with them being competitive, making sure that government is always looking out for the B.C. resources first.
Of course, we look at our GDP growth, which is fairly high right now but projected to go down by almost 2 percent over the next five years. That leads us to other concerns, because we need to be looking at competitiveness across all sectors. This isn’t just for industry; this is for families. When we look at all the taxation that this government is bringing forward, it is completely taking away from competitiveness, from putting money into people’s pockets, from making life more affordable.
Back to my earlier comment that I started with: the people of B.C. are going to want to know why a large multinational company, which is coming to British Columbia with a project like this, is now going to get tax breaks that the average person won’t get.
When I go fill up my gas on April 1, I have to pay another 10 cents per tonne for carbon tax, but of course, this company won’t have to. Are mining companies going to be exempted on April 1, or are they going to have to go up now? Are forestry companies? Are they going to be exempt, or are they going up? Is it just going to be this one company staying the same and everybody else going up?
These are the questions that, of course, not only this House and the people need to know, but these other companies are going to be asking the same questions. Is this now the bar in British Columbia?
Government says that we’re raising carbon tax. We’re raising everybody’s employer health tax. We’re raising all these taxes to everybody else, except this one company. Is that what they’re going to stand up and say, or are they going to say: “No, we’re actually back-pedalling. We’re changing, and we’re not going to be following through, because we’re going to make sure it’s an even, fair playing field for all.”
We need to know where government comes up with these numbers. We need to know and be able to scrutinize that they’re accurate. There’s been no transparency on this, and this House and the people deserve to have that.
Can they commit that all the gas will be taken out of British Columbia? Can this government commit that every job and every person hired will be from British Columbia — which they said on this side of the House, when they were in opposition, had to formulate and be in writing, contractually, in a deal?
That’s what they said when they were over here, so I am going to assume that the hon. members are going to be able to stand in the House, when they are in committee stage, and actually agree with everything that I said, that they will be able to point to the agreements and say: “Here it is, right here in the agreement. Yes, every person has to be hired from British Columbia, because that’s what we said would happen when we were in opposition.” They’re going to be able to point to the agreement and say: “Here is where all the jobs will be. Here’s where all the money is coming from, as we promised.”
Now, I’m hoping they’ll do that. Again, after doing all of the heavy lifting, after doing all of the work to bring LNG, of course we are excited to see this project moving forward in the province. It’s a benefit to many. That’s something that we recognized years ago, which is why we had such a strong focus for so many years around LNG, contrary to the members opposite basically criticizing, every single time we discussed LNG, that it would never happen in the province, that it’s not something that they would support, that it’s something that they would not encourage.
In fact, I’m happy that this government has continued on with what we were doing. I just want to make sure that the things that they have promised are actually in there.
Will I be able to go back to my riding and say: “Don’t worry. This government has committed that all of the jobs will be here for people in B.C., like they said when they were opposition. They have committed that all of these revenues are going to be coming from British Columbia, and it’s going to benefit the people of B.C.”?
I mean, I won’t spend time reading back quotes to them, because I’m sure the member from the Green Party, the leader, who obviously will have a few things to say about this, will do that for me.
Interjection.
M. Bernier: Yeah, generational sellout, obviously, was one that they mentioned all the time. But it’s great that they’ve had an epiphany and they realize how important LNG is for the jobs and the people. It’s just our job now to make sure that we’re holding government to account and scrutinizing to ensure that.
I know the House Leader is just pointing to the clock, but I do realize I that have a bit more time. In fact, I could even go maybe after lunch, which I’m not sure if he wants me to do.
I think the point is — and we’re going to have other people get up here — is the fact that we’re proud of the work that we did when we were in government to set the stage for LNG to be here. I’m proud of the fact that we have this agreement in front of us, that this government continued on with what we were doing.
My main crux of the points here is that we need to ensure that the benefits are coming to British Columbia — that there are going to be the jobs, that the resources are coming from British Columbia, that the companies will have the opportunities to bid. I know the members opposite railed to ensure, when we were in government, that not a temporary foreign worker would be hired if they were with LNG, if they were supporting it. So I’m assuming they’re going to stand up and guarantee somewhere in the project that that’s not the case. Not sure if they’ll be able to do that.
It’s unfortunate that government has not brought forward the project development agreement. We will hopefully be able to raise some of those questions during committee stage. We assume and hope that the Minister of Finance, who brought the taxation bill forward, will actually answer those questions, because the people of British Columbia and this House deserve answers too. It’s our job as opposition to scrutinize. It’s our job as opposition to ask these questions on behalf of the people of B.C. It’s government’s job to answer those questions.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
It’s government’s job to ensure that they can show and highlight and prove that the things that they said while they were in opposition, if they brought LNG forward, are actually in this bill, are in the agreement, and that everything that they’ve said is going to be able to stand the test so that this House can vote in favour and support something, in good conscience, that we know is actually going to be delivering for the people of British Columbia.
M. Bernier moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved on division.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’ SERVICES
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:17 a.m.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $551,640,000.
The Chair: Minister, did you have an opening statement?
Hon. J. Sims: I do.
Good morning, everyone. I’m pleased to be here today to speak to the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. First I want to acknowledge the territory of the Lekwungen people, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.
Now I’d like to introduce my senior ministry staff who have joined me this morning. Please welcome Deputy Minister Jill Kot; Associate Deputy Minister and Government Chief Information Officer CJ Ritchie; and our ADMs Sunny Dhaliwal, Joel Fairbairn, Bobbi Sadler, Bev Dicks, Dean Skinner, Ian Donaldson; Susan Stanford; and many others. Thank you all for being here today.
For the first time in 40 years, I’m proud to say our government has eliminated the operating debt, and our fiscal picture is strong. We have the highest GDP and lowest unemployment rate in the country. This is good news for British Columbians. It means we have additional resources to support people in our province.
Our government is tackling the hard problems so we can build a strong economy and a more secure future. Budget 2019 is about creating opportunities and helping all British Columbians prosper. We’re taking action to make life more affordable, deliver the services people need and build a strong, sustainable economy.
Every day, our government delivers the services British Columbians rely on, and the engine powering this is the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. My ministry is both the face and backbone of this government. From front-end representatives at our 65 Service B.C. centres to our back-end cybersecurity engineers to our procurement specialists, we are at the centre of where service excellence, transformation and innovation are happening within government. Citizens’ Services is also the gateway to government procurement for businesses that employ so many people throughout the province.
Core government spends nearly $7 million each year on goods and services on behalf of British Columbians, which provides us with tremendous opportunities. That is why we’re making a big change to help more people benefit when we spend their money. We’re removing barriers for small and medium-sized businesses. We’re simplifying the way procurement works, making it easier for companies to work with government while also finding the best value.
All of this work is guided by our new procurement strategy, which we launched last June, and I’m extremely proud of the progress we’ve made so far. In January, we announced the new procurement concierge program, which matches vendors and government buyers. Vendors bring forward innovative solutions to government business challenges. All this takes place before the bidding process, making it simpler, faster and less costly for companies to work with us. This dynamic process also ensures that government can take advantage of new technologies and innovation on behalf of all British Columbians.
In addition to being more collaborative and solution-oriented, we’re also improving the tools we use. B.C. Bid is the virtual face of government procurement, but the system is over 20 years old and needs a serious overhaul. It’s like trying to do business with a Commodore 64 and trying to interface with today’s technologies. The limitations of B.C. Bid are the number one thing I hear from businesses about the challenges of working with government. That’s why we’re taking action to fix this. Work is now underway to replace this ageing system, and we expect the new B.C. Bid to be ready in 2020.
Now, in order to deliver these new and exciting systems, we need — wait for it — connectivity. Working to connect all British Columbians to affordable high-speed Internet, regardless of where they live, is a priority for me and my ministry. We work with our federal, local and private sector partners to ensure that British Columbians in rural and Indigenous communities have access to this essential service. Broadband gives people more opportunities to learn, to do business, to access services and stay connected.
We want people in rural and Indigenous communities to have the same access as those in urban centres. As I often say, we have to make sure that the new digital railroad reaches every corner of our province so that every corner of the province has the opportunity to participate in the new digital economies.
Along with improving Internet connectivity, we are also responsible for the IT services that are essential to government operations. Our property division manages the province’s real estate portfolio and provides everything needed to design, set up and manage government workplaces. We are responsible for overseeing corporate information management, access to information, privacy protection and training in these areas.
Our Service B.C. centres help people access over 600 government programs and services, including renewing their B.C. Services Card, organ donor registration, accessing child care subsidies, starting a business or applying for a liquor licence. The Service B.C. contact centre helps British Columbians by phone, email and text, and can provide service in more than 100 languages.
My ministry is committed to putting people first while making effective use of our financial resources. I’d like to now provide an overview on our budget. My ministry has been allocated $50 million in additional funding within government’s 2018-19 fiscal plan to further expand high-speed Internet services.
This investment will benefit approximately 200 rural and Indigenous communities and acknowledges the critical role that broadband service plays for people in rural communities. It means they will have better access to opportunities to learn, to do business, to plan for emergencies and to stay connected with friends and family. These funds will ensure people in B.C.’s smaller communities have internet speeds of a minimum of 50 megabytes per second, which is the current CRTC standard.
This investment is also an important step in achieving our government’s commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It will help Indigenous communities have the technologies they need to participate in the digital economy and better access health services and education, which are so important for people to prosper.
My ministry’s operating budget for 2019-2020 is $552 million, compared to a restated 2018-19 budget of $533 million. This is an increase of almost $19 million or 3.6 percent. Almost $5 million will support energy-smart projects for provincially owned properties and help us do our part to achieve the targets outlined in our awesome CleanBC plan. We’ll do this by using new smart building technologies and expanding vehicle charging stations at provincial facilities. These projects will save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut operating costs.
An increase in our operating budget will also allow us to hire more facilities and IT staff so we can continue to support ministries in delivering the services people count on. Budget 2019 also includes an increase of almost $3.8 million to support operating and maintenance costs for new buildings such as the Abbotsford courthouse and the new youth mental health and addiction centre at Valleyview, which is slated to open this spring.
Modernizing the way we deliver services is also a key focus of my ministry. There is almost $3.5 million allocated for the continued expansion of the B.C. Services Card program. We’re working hard to increase the amount of government services people can access using their secure card, saving them time, energy and frustration and helping them take full advantage of government programs and services.
My ministry’s capital budget for 2019-2020 is increased by $104 million, or 33 percent, when compared to the 2018-19 restated budget. This increase means we can continue our efforts to modernize government work environments and improve IT services and supports for staff; acquire property to support and improve delivery of government services for people, children and families; and retrofit and upgrade government buildings to be more environmentally friendly. These are only a sample of the many, many vital projects, programs and services that my ministry provides on behalf of government and the people of British Columbia.
As the demand for services expands across government, so does the work of my ministry. Budget 2019 provides the funding we need to better support British Columbians. We are working hard on our mandate commitments, which are: (1) institute a cap on the value and the length of government IT contracts, save money, increase innovation and improve competition to help our technology sector grow; (2) ensure government IT and software development procurement works better for companies that hire locally and have a local supply chain; (3) improve access-to-information rules to provide greater public accountability; and (4) to improve response and processing times for freedom-of-information requests.
While these are ambitious goals, I can say we are making progress. For example, our FOI response times have improved from 80 percent on time to 90 percent. We’re continuing our work to make the FOI system better for British Columbians. Our new procurement strategy is making it easier for companies to work with government and ensure British Columbians benefit when we spend public money. With all of this, we take great care to make sure we are working hard for people.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to recognize the committed, dedicated public servants that work at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. The executives, managers and front-line staff are a dynamic team that take their role providing services for government and British Columbians very, very seriously. I am continually impressed and in awe of their efforts to innovate and improve how government does business. I look forward to meeting even more of the staff in the coming year. Now I am happy to take your questions.
S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister for the opening comments.
Just to let the minister know, our first few questions this morning will be budget-related. You’ve provided some of the information, but I think we want to go through, in a little bit more detail, the core business areas and the capital areas in the core budget. This afternoon, we’ll move into many of the areas that are under the minister’s responsibility — procurement, freedom of information, security and connectivity in those areas — but for the first short period we have this morning, more specifically on the budget items.
I firstly also want to acknowledge and thank your staff for the briefing they provided to us, the opportunity to go through the budget. That was very helpful, and we appreciate that information.
Maybe I’ll jump right into it, then, in terms of the core budget operating areas. I wonder if we can just go down through the specific operating areas and have the minister explain and put on the record in maybe a little more detail, by operating area, the changes or the additions to the budget — and, in one case, a reduction — in the major operating areas. So maybe, in the first part, the minister could just restate or provide the detail around the increase in the operating category around citizens’ services from approximately $28 million up to $32 million — the difference there.
Hon. J. Sims: The budget increase that you are seeing in services to citizens and businesses — the $3.451 million there — is for the B.C. Services Card that used to sit in contingency. Now it’s being put into the budget.
The salaries and the rest of it is made up with the salaries and benefits to support the sustainable services mandate. It’s a reflection of the changes in the benefit rates.
S. Thomson: Just a follow-up to that, then, in terms of that amount in supporting the services card.
Those dollars or those additional resources — is that primarily additional staffing and support for the card, or is it additional services that are going to be on-boarded and added to the services card? Where specifically is that additional funding to be allocated? Is it primarily more people and resources, or is it in services and systems that support the service card?
Hon. J. Sims: I thank my colleague for that question. As I had said previously, this is money that was originally sitting in contingency and was being used from contingency. It’s now just being made part of the permanent funding. It is primarily for staffing for that program, but no additional staffing is being added. It’s just a matter of from contingency now into permanent staffing.
S. Thomson: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Then let’s look at the procurement and supply services under the major operating areas, an increase of approximately $950,000 there. Can she explain the additional funding that’s in that operating category?
Hon. J. Sims: This budget increase, once again, is for salaries and benefits to support the sustainable services mandate and the economic stability mandate and dividend and changes in the benefit rate. It’s just a lift to cover that.
S. Thomson: Through to the real property category under the operating expenses, an increase there of approximately $10 million in that category. Can the minister clarify what’s included in that category?
Hon. J. Sims: As my colleague across the way has said, this does see an increase of $10.092 million, and $4.75 million is to support the energy-smart strategy, which aligns with government’s CleanBC strategy.
The funding will enhance energy efficiency and promote clean growth in government buildings, including energy retrofit studies and implementation of the non-capital requirements in both owned and leased facilities. This will be $3.25 million. The capital budget includes an additional $8.5 million for energy retrofits.
It includes recommissioning of buildings to reduce energy costs, $500,000; smart building technology proof of concepts, $230,000; climate risk assessments, $170,000; clean energy building technology, $500,000; support for enabling activities for procurement and staffing resources, $100,000.
A $3.604 million increase is to address cost escalations related to maintaining government’s facility infrastructure, leasing taxes, hydro rates, minimum wage.
An increase of $3.609 million is primarily for operating and maintenance costs associated with the Valleyview Maples Treatment Centre, for amortization, taxes, etc., and some costs for Abbotsford courthouse, for property tax and land rent. RPDs placeholder allocation for ten of the 20. Citizens FTE budget increase related to government expansion, $1.019 million.
Offsetting budget decrease for decreasing lease cost associated with the Capital Park project is $3.277 million. Ministry clients were moved from other buildings into the first building in Capital Park, and 2019-2020 will be the first year to reflect a full year of reduced lease costs from vacated spaces following lease expiry.
S. Thomson: Just a quick question here. Maybe not a quick question. A significant portion of that increase is around the retrofit energy-smart program within buildings. Can the minister give a bit of an explanation of how the process for prioritizing and ranking that expenditure would take place when looking at the utilization of that?
Obviously, that is resources, but it doesn’t do the whole job and everything. What is the process, and how are the priorities determined into where that takes place? Is it through the initial studies? Is there an identified list of priority buildings and facilities that are working through as you utilize those resources? Is that list already developed? Do you know where and in which buildings those resources are going to be spent?
Hon. J. Sims: Just so you know, the minister hasn’t sat in a room and made a list of how it’s going to be done. We’ve had our professional public service staff, and they have been doing an assessment. What was done was an energy audit of the 20 biggest emitters. From that, a list was made, so buildings have been identified. They did use 144 milestones that they’re trying to address, but our aim is to go after the biggest emitters where we can get the biggest bang for the buck first.
S. Thomson: Just a quick follow-up question, and then my colleague will have a question around this as well. I’m not expecting an answer right now, but I wonder if…. The minister said that list and the priorities being developed…. Is that information that could be provided in a follow-up to a follow-up question so that we can see where and to what buildings those resources are going to be allocated?
Hon. J. Sims: Yes, we will release the list to you.
B. Stewart: Further on that same topic — and thank you to the minister for her opening remarks — I want to go back to the whole issue about energy savings and reducing our CO2 footprint. I want to seek some clarification between what she just talked about under the real property increase, the expenditures of $10 million on making buildings more energy-efficient, doing this energy audit and the plan that we’re going to get later this afternoon.
I want to go back to her opening comments a little bit, about the electric-vehicle-charging stations, and where that is in terms of as a cost. I realize that it’s a capital item. At least I would assume that, being that it’s an addition of leasehold improvements or whatever, the way that it’s capitalized. What’s the plan for rolling that out across government offices — the 60 Service B.C. offices — or where the ministry plans to place that focus?
Hon. J. Sims: I just want to give a little bit of an overview, and I hope that will help to elucidate. We have already spent $250,000 and put in electric-vehicle-charging stations. Other than that, you will see it in the budget line, under the capital funding. Under energy efficiency–related facility projects, CleanBC: $8.5 million is allocated there. But as my colleagues across the way know, we work with other ministries.
For example, the park board — we’re working with them. When they put in their electric-vehicle-charging stations, we will build them. They will actually have the money for those projects in their own ministries. As you know, our ministry does support the work of other ministries.
We also bill back for work we do. So for doing the government buildings that are under our jurisdiction, the moneys sit under CleanBC, the energy efficiency–related facility, and that is in the capital budget. It’s $8.5 million, in total. But not all of it, and we all understand that, is for vehicle charging.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada