Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 141

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing Act

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2018

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment

Act, 2018

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment

Act, 2018

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training

Hon. M. Mark

S. Cadieux

S. Gibson

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 5 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 6 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 10 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 11 — International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act,

Bill 12 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 13 — Public Service Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 14 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 15 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act,

Bill 16 — Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 17 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 18 — Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act,

Bill 19 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act,

Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 21 — Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 28 — Public Interest Disclosure Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

E. Foster

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture

(continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. L. Popham

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

D. Barnett

J. Yap

J. Thornthwaite

T. Wat

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. de Jong: Visiting us in the precinct today is a group of 30 grade 5 students from

Alexander Elementary School in Abbotsford. They are here accompanied by, I think,

ten volunteer parents and, of course, their teacher, Ms. Patricia Kennaley. I know

the House will make these students from Alexander feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL

AND LICENSING

ACT

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, read a third time and

passed.

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

[1:35 p.m.]

BILL 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD

DONATIONS ACT

Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 33. In the Douglas Fir

Room, Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Finance. In the Birch Room, Committee C, I call continued debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; R. Chouhan in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

section 4 (continued) .

S. Sullivan: The question that I have is around 34.27(3)(b). “Subject to subsection

(4), money in the reserve fund, together with interest on it, may be used only

for the following purposes…to pay principal and interest on a debt incurred by

the authority as a result of an expenditure under paragraph (a).”

This

section says that money can be used to pay interest on debt

incurred as a capital expenditure. If a project is done as a P3 venture, will

the debts payable for construction be included in this?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s for capital that’s owned by the entity.

S. Sullivan: Question on 34.27(4). “If the amount to the credit of the reserve fund

is greater than required for the purposes set out in subsection (3), the

authority may, by bylaw, transfer all or part of the amount to another fund

established by the authority for a capital purpose.”

This, I think, opens the door for scope creep. The question is: why is

it that some or all of the remaining credit would be diverted to another

capital fund instead of being returned to those who initially paid for this

development cost or maintaining it within that transit area?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, this mirrors the current local government and greater

Vancouver sewage district legislation — DCC legislation. It’s the exact same

language.

If the member looks further down to

section 7, the inspector needs to

approve that, and there’s no reason why the inspector wouldn’t approve

that.

S. Sullivan: Okay. If the inspector does approve…. I guess the real question is: will

there be some connection to that original project? Can this just go anywhere

that the authority wants it to go, or will the people who paid the DCCs

actually, in some way, benefit?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In this instance, the authority would need to demonstrate to the

inspector that there’s a rationale for transferring these funds to another

capital project. It’s intended to expand the transit system, so it still has to

be consistent use for the transit system.

S. Sullivan: I think I’m hearing from your response that there would be some

relationship between where the DCC came from and where it gets

supplied.

Hon. S. Robinson: The expectation is that it stays strictly for capital use to expand the

regional transit system.

S. Sullivan: But if it’s one end of the region, and then the amount from the DCC

taken out of this region ends up going to a completely different area, that

does disassociate the place from where it comes to the place where it’s

spent.

Hon. S. Robinson: These are regional systems, so investments are made right across the

region.

S. Sullivan: Okay. So 34. 31(1): “The authority and a collection entity may enter

into an agreement under which (

a) the authority agrees that all, or a portion

of, the development cost charges that would otherwise apply are not required to

be collected and remitted by the collection, and (

b) the collection entity

agrees to pay the authority an amount equal….”

The question: could the minister explain the reason as to why the

authority would want to enter into an agreement with the collection entity to

replace development cost charges with a payment? And if the payment scheme

between the authority and a collection entity changed, would this impact those

who have to pay the developer cost charge? If so, would they be notified of the

change?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is a provision that provides flexibility. There could be some

municipality, for example, where there may be an administrative burden in terms

of collecting DCCs. It may not be part of the structure of the municipality. It

provides the opportunity for the municipality and the authority to enter into

an agreement that the municipality would directly contribute the portion of the

DCC that’s required — directly from the municipality to the

authority.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: First, I’d like to thank my support staff that are here with me. I’ve

got Kevin Volk, Mary Storzer and Joshua Craig. I want to thank them very much

for their work. And I want to express appreciation to the member opposite, who

asked some very thoughtful questions. I express appreciation for his work on

this bill.

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

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 33, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment

Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Targets Amendment Act, 2018.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; R. Chouhan in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:53 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister can explain. I see they’re repealing

paragraph (

a) and changing it with the 2030 target. There was a 33 percent

reduction previously in (

a) by 2020, and now we’re seeing this change to a 40

percent reduction by 2030. I’m wondering if the trajectory of emissions, from

the original bill, has changed.

[1:55 p.m.]

In other words, the original bill spoke to continuing on. There was an

interim target at 2020 of a 33 percent reduction. We now see this bill, with

that same continuation of an even lower emission target than 40 percent, but 40

percent by 2030 is the new target. Is that the original target timeline, from

the original bill in 2007, for 2030?

Hon. G. Heyman: There was never a 2030 target, specifically. There was a 2020 target of

33 percent, as the member knows. In November 2015, the climate leadership team

appointed by Christy Clark and the former government reported out that it was

impossible to meet that target. In fact, emissions rose in British Columbia by

4½ percent between 2010 and 2015, and that target is clearly out of

reach.

The climate leadership team recommended that in order to meet the 2050

target, a target of 40 percent below 2007 levels was an appropriate and

achievable new target to set. We have committed to adopt that, despite the fact

that two and a half years have passed since that target was recommended — one

and a half of them under the former government — without actions being taken.

We still believe that that’s achievable. We’ve added a 2040 target so that we

can indicate to British Columbians and to industry that there is a clear path

to achieve the 80 percent reduction by 2050.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that answer, but it didn’t really answer the question that

I was looking for. I understand that this is a 2030 target — in writing, within

this bill — to replace the 2020 target in the previous bill, but the end point

in both bills has always been an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The question was: is this 2030 target that is now being inserted into

this bill, a 40 percent reduction, in keeping with any internal projections of

a trajectory? You can’t go from a 33 percent to an 80 percent reduction

overnight. Obviously, there has to be a steady regression of

reductions.

Is the 40 percent reduction by 2030 targeted in this bill on the same

trajectory level as the original bill, which had a 2020 target? Is that the

same? There must have been some internal targeting for 2030. There were

five-year check-ins on the previous bill. There was supposed to be

every-even-year reporting, as this bill updates as well. Certainly, there had

to be some internal benchmark targets, from the original bill, from 2020 to

2050. Was that original 2030 target 40 percent, or was it higher than 40

percent? Was it supposed to be 42 percent, or was it supposed to be 38

percent?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: In terms of internal modelling of where we could be by 2030, based on an

assumption that we were going to meet the 2020 targets, this is less steep.

What we have chosen to do and what the climate leadership team suggested in

2015 was that we have a steady and gradual path based on where we were at that

point, which was considerably further behind where British Columbia should have

been, if the path to the 2020 target had been maintained.

It is a gradual, achievable path on the way to the 2050 target, as

recommended by the climate leadership team.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify, to make abundantly clear what “less steep” means in

terms of a trajectory, the original 2007 legislation spoke to a 2020 target

that is being repealed by this 2030 target, and that original trajectory from

back in 2007 would have spoken to a greater reduction than the 40 percent

reduction that we see in this bill.

Hon. G. Heyman: The original plan internally, in order to meet the targets, was about a

2.53 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions every year. But of course,

as I’ve pointed out, after the first couple of years, emissions began to rise

again, with both a change in leadership in the previous government and a change

in policy emphasis with respect to maintaining the kind of momentum needed to

drive those continual reductions.

Yes, this is less steep than would have been achieved had the previous

government and government policy kept us on that 2.53 percent reduction path

per year. But it is, nonetheless, a gradual and direct line between now and the

legislated goal of 80 percent reduction by 2050, as recommended, as I’ve said

before, by the climate leadership team in 2015, in recognition of the fact that

emissions had risen instead of going down and there was a need to

recalibrate.

P. Milobar: Could the minister provide, then, what that original percentage was? I

don’t have my calculator with me. The 2.53 a year would have originally

resulted in a 2030 target of what percentage versus the 40 percent that we see

in this bill?

[2:05 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m going to, perhaps, give a bit more information than the member

requested, but it’s useful to set context.

Under the initial legislation, with a 2020 target of a 33 percent

reduction below 2007 levels of 64.6 megatonnes, we would have been looking to

get to about 43.3 megatonnes by 2020. The last calculation in 2015 is 63.3

megatonnes. So that leaves a gap of about 24½ megatonnes to go to meet our

target by 2030.

Obviously, it’s a big gap between 63.3 megatonnes in 2015 and the

possibility of achieving 43.3 by 2020, which is precisely why both the climate

leadership team and the government of the day said that it was impossible to

meet the 2020 targets. But if emissions had not gone up between 2010 and 2015,

if policy and choices and actions of the government of B.C. and within B.C. had

continued, the overall trajectory between 2007 and 2020 would have been about a

1.43 percent reduction a year.

[2:15 p.m.]

In order for us to meet our 2030 target, the new target, given where

we’re at today, we need to reduce emissions by about 2.44 percent a year going

forward. That will be challenging, but the climate leadership team believed it

was possible with hard work and dedication and a good climate action strategy,

which we will be developing and consulting British Columbians on and releasing

in its totality — although we’ll have benchmark announcements along the way,

between now and fall 2018.

P. Milobar: I have several questions around the trajectory. I think it’s very

important for people to understand what the original trajectory targets were

and what these new targets are, especially in the context of the environment

we’re living in right now, politically, in terms of so much hanging in the

balance in terms of the government’s ability to govern and the stated reality

of whether or not a new climate plan is actionable and achievable or not by the

members of the Third Party, which is a totally understandable position to

take.

The previous answer the minister gave was that the original trajectory

was slated to be 2.53 percent a year. Even if we are generous and start that

clock in 2010 to get to 2030, that means that by 2030, we would have seen a 50

percent reduction, instead of the 40 percent that we see in this bill. If you

start the clock in 2008 to 2030 with that 2.53 percent trajectory — and this is

without any compounding; this is just straight across — 22 years times that is

a little over 55 percent reduction by 2030. Those trajectories were created to

get to an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The typical, easiest areas to start to find large reductions, it stands

to reason, are on the front end of these types of plans, as you can get to the

big sources that are easier, potentially, to change out or see large gains

made. It would be natural to see a trajectory start to flatten out and those

last few needed percentages be much harder to get, to be much less large

scale.

Now we’re hearing that the new trajectory is 2.44 percent in this plan,

which would indicate that there’s either a slated trajectory that’s going to

try to stay on a constant, steep downward pressure or a levelling off. So I’m

curious, then: 2040, under the old plan at 2.53, would be another ten years.

We’d be at — 55 plus 25 is what? — almost 80 percent right there, by

The trajectory is now to, say, 60 percent by 2040. So what would have

been the original waypoint check-in percentage of 2040 of the original plan

versus what this new piece of legislation is suggesting we have? We never did

have a 2030 or 2040 in print — a waypoint check-in place. But there had to have

been modelling in the background to get you to that ultimate target of 80

percent reduction by 2050.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, there are a number of variables and assumptions. We’re going to

have to do the best that we can.

First of all, I want to correct something I said in my last answer. This

is one of the problems with playing with numbers on the fly. I previously said

that the former plan had us reducing 2.53 percent a year to reach the 2020

target. Then I said 1.43 in a subsequent answer. It is 2.53. So the member is

correct, and my second answer was not correct. My first one was.

The other thing to note here is that if that trajectory were to

continue, however…. The member’s quite right. You achieve some greater

reductions early. If we were to continue, for instance, a 2.53 percent

reduction not compounded over the life of the legislation until 2050, or 42

years, there would have been a 106 percent reduction in emissions, which

clearly is impossible. Obviously, things change as you go forward.

[2:25 p.m.]

With that in mind, the goal would now be, in order to reach the 2030

target, about 3.33 percent a year, but my previous caution still

applies.

The rest of the member’s question was: how are we going to get there?

That’s precisely the modelling and strategy that we will be developing between

now and the fall. If it was developed now, I would answer the question now, but

I’m not able to do that because we’re developing the strategy. But suffice it

to say, the original modelling that was done in 2015 showed ways to get there.

Clearly, that will have to be adjusted, but we don’t believe it’s impossible.

It will be challenging, for sure. But we will do modelling, and we will share

that with the member and all British Columbians.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that clarification. So the new target has to be almost 1

percent a year more than the previous target, almost about a 33 percent

reduction per year to be able to hit it.

Was the original modelling…? Did it contain the prospects of the impact

of LNG and its plan compared to the potential impacts of this plan? I can

appreciate there needs to be the full plan still fully vetted out, but the

target is still a target. The prospect of LNG being put into a plan that now

sees a one-third increase in how aggressive the yearly target-making has to be

would be a significant difference in potential ramifications.

I’m wondering: did that 2007 plan that set those initial targets on a

rate of a 2.53-percent-a-year reduction include LNG, now that we see a plan

that’s going to require a 3.33 percent yearly reduction?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I think that the member said “almost” 1 percent. It’s 0.8,

which could be almost 1 percent. But it is 0.8 percent more.

With respect to the question about the 2007 plan, it’s a little

difficult for me to answer, because that’s 11 years ago and many of the staff

who were there at the time are no longer here. But there wasn’t really a plan.

There were legislated targets, and then the climate action secretariat was

formed to begin to develop a plan. But LNG was not really a factor in 2007. It

wasn’t particularly a provincial consideration.

The climate leadership team, in 2015, however, when modelling the

possibility of achieving reductions of 40 percent by 2030, did include some LNG

development. I believe it was along the lines of one large development and one

smallish development.

[2:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Yes, I recognize it’s 0.8. Percentage-wise, it’s still about a 33

percent — I guess we could call it 31½ percent — difference from 2.53. It’s

still about a third of an increase, which is not insignificant,

though.

I think the key to that difference is that if we’re looking at a target

that is actually seeking to have greater reductions than what we saw in

previous years or than were attainable in previous years, all these years down

the road that didn’t include an LNG industry at the same time, that 0.8 or that

33 percent increase to reductions yearly starts to become a very significant

number with this new plan.

I’m asking these questions because when we spoke to this at second

reading, the minister was pointing out how significant these changes in this

plan are. I’m trying to get to the heart of how significant they actually

are.

To clarify, then, with the minister, the target itself hasn’t changed.

The 2030 target and the 2040 target haven’t changed from what we saw coming

forward in 2015, with a new look and a review of where we were at with things.

The 3.33 percent reduction would have been the same recommendation, then, to

hit that trajectory point that was the 2015 update.

It’s really around: how is the minister going to manage the various

sectors, including the LNG industry? Is that what I’m hearing with the

answer?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s difficult to talk about targets for 2030 or 2040 essentially being

the same as under the previous legislation or the previous plan, because the

irrefutable fact is that emissions rose by 4½ percent between 2010 and

Now, I’m going to assume that at some point, whoever was in government,

people wouldn’t have let them continue to rise between now and 2050, because

the outcome of that would be catastrophic. What I could say and will say is

that I hope we’re all, on all sides of this House, committed to meeting the

B.C. target of 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050, not just because it’s B.C.

legislation introduced by an iteration of the previous government in 2007, but

because it’s also Canada’s commitment. It’s the world’s commitment.

I think we all recognize that there are deep economic consequences, as

well as human consequences, not just in the south, not just in low-lying island

nations. We’re seeing impacts today that are affecting the economy and

affecting people’s homes, and they’ll only get worse if they continue to rise.

All I can say is that we’re committed to trying to set a reasonable set of

interim targets between now and 2050. That’s what we’ve done with a 2030 and a

2040 target.

[2:35 p.m.]

We will be developing a plan across different sectors of life and the

economy, buildings and homes, transportation and industry, to show how we can

put together a mix of measures in every area of B.C. life to move us toward

that target in a reasonable way and in a way that seizes economic

opportunities, helps to transition our economy in a planned and deliberate way,

rather than waiting too late and having to have massive disruption one way or

the other by the actions we have to take or by the consequences of failing to

take action.

P. Milobar: Well, I think there are two separate things. There’s setting a target,

and then there’s trying to get to the target. There’s no doubt — it’s well

known — that we weren’t going to hit the 2020 target. You’ve not heard any

dispute around that, and I don’t think you’re hearing any dispute around the

fact that we need to continue to redouble efforts and try to see

reductions.

However, we are in a unique parliamentary situation right now where we

do have a government that’s been told very clearly, several times publicly,

that their very existence hinges on a plan coming forward that’s not just

setting targets but is actually achievable. So we need to get to the root of:

is this target achievable? A target’s laudable; whether it’s achievable or not

is another question.

Another question I would have around this

section is the addition of:

“The minister… by order” establishing “greenhouse gas emission targets for

individual sectors.” My assump­tion is — the minister can correct me if I’m

wrong — that this would give the minister the ability, through regulation, to

be able to set targets for individual sectors.

If an LNG final investment decision was to come forward this summer,

would that give the minister the ability to pro­vide reassurance and targets

that LNG would expect to be held to, for them, as they’re making their final

investment decision? Does that give more certainty for the minister and the LNG

proponents, regardless of where they may be located, to know, whether or not,

what their targets would be moving forward as they’re making their investment

decision?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I just want to clarify for the member that the bill refers

to a ministerial order, not a cabinet order. They have effectively the same

weight, but they are different. The intention was not to drill down very deeply

beyond what the climate leadership team suggested in 2015. The sectors,

broadly, are industry, transportation and buildings and homes in communities.

In the ability to set the order is to have the flexibility to see where there

is great opportunity and where adjustments may need to be made to meet the

overall targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050.

The idea, and this was what was communicated to LNG Canada in a letter

from the Premier, was…. One of the conditions that the province had, that we’ve

always had, is that LNG development needed to fit within a legislated emission

reduction target.

[2:40 p.m.]

That would be reached by government working with industry, including the

LNG sector, to identify opportunities for, overall within the industrial

sector, meeting the reductions that would need to be the industry sector’s

contribution to meeting our target of 40 percent reduction.

The member has gone a bit further and asked specifically how that can

happen. All I can say is what I’ve said before. We’re working on the strategy.

It will be released publicly. We’re engaged with industry. We’re engaged with

municipalities. We’re engaged with the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth

Advisory Council.

We’re engaged with different industries — for instance, oil and gas,

cement, forestry, the building sector — about how we can work together to

ensure a smooth transition, economic opportunity, application of technologies,

use of incremental carbon tax revenue, clean technologies funds and incentives

to set and meet world-leading benchmarks. That is all being worked

on.

As elements are finalized, some of them will be announced between now

and the fall, and they’ll all be knit together in a strategy that British

Columbians and members opposite will be able to judge and, certainly,

question.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that answer. I do recognize that it may not be the intent.

However, all the industries the minister referenced in that answer, other than

LNG, currently exist, currently operate and currently provide a source of

emissions to our overall GHG load. LNG doesn’t in any significant way, shape or

form. That’s a new insertion in. I fully recognize, and I think it’s safe to

say we canvassed this point fairly well in estimates — it seems like so long

ago now — that the plan will come forward in the fall. The minister has been

very consistent with that in all the answers today and as we spoke to this bill

earlier as well.

However, there is the potential, as we’ve just seen over the last couple

days in the media, as well, of a final investment decision for LNG of a $40

billion investment decision sometime before, potentially, the plan is actually

developed and released to the public and given public scrutiny.

The question around item (b)(4), adding that subsection, is: does that

give the minister the ability, the authorization, to sit down with a proponent

for an LNG plant and be able to say definitively: “This will be what your GHG

targets will be if you choose to make a $40 billion investment decision in

British Columbia”? Does that give the minister more certainty to make that

statement to someone like an LNG proponent over the summer months when this

House is not in session, versus after the plan is official and

public?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I think it’s implicit, in the Premier’s letter to LNG Canada

about needing to fit within our legislated GHG reduction targets that will be

in place when this bill becomes

an act, that they would be working….

[2:45 p.m.]

If they choose to become part of B.C.’s industrial sector or if any

other LNG proponent in the future wishes to be part of B.C.’s industrial

sector, regardless of what happens with the current proposal, there’s an onus

to work with the rest of the industrial community to collectively discuss how

to reach the target. I’ve certainly engaged with members of industry

associations as well as the Business Council of B.C., saying essentially that

and offering to work with them.

But it’s not my intention to use this bill, nor was this bill drafted

with that intention, to give the minister the power to use this to point

specifically to a target for LNG. It’s thought of more broadly in terms of, as

I said, the three large sectors that were identified by the climate leadership

team in 2015.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that answer too. However, I’m not curious about the

intention; I’m curious about the legislative power that this clause would

actually provide or not. Ultimately, that’s what could change tomorrow, next

week, a month from now, if someone comes and knocks on the minister’s

door.

If we have targets set for the industrial sector, certainly I think the

minister could recognize that not every piece of that industrial sector is

going to be asked to find the same types of GHG reductions or have the same

impact of the overall number. Every industry is distinctly different by what it

generates, by what ability it has to try to reduce.

We’ve heard the minister talk at length about making sure that

trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries are kept competitive. So each type

of industry within the industrial sector is going to have its own individual

range of targeting that it’s going to need to meet within that overall bundle

called the industrial sector.

The question was: does this clause give the minister the legislative

ability, the legal ability, to sit down with an LNG proponent and give

certainty and a legally valid assurance that this would be what their expected

target would be if they chose to go ahead with a $40 billion

investment?

It’s not what the intention of the minister today is but what the

legislative ability of this

section provides the minister to do. What extra

power does it grant him? Does he have the power to make that type of call, over

the summer months, before the public and this House would see what the final

climate action plan would look like moving forward?

Hon. G. Heyman: I can say to the member, and to all members, we certainly never

contemplated that. That’s not why the

section was drafted the way it was. We

don’t think of LNG as a sector. Again, we think of the sectors as being

industry broadly, the built environment broadly and transportation

broadly.

[2:50 p.m.]

I mean, it would be up to legislative counsel to say if it was

hypothetically possible to use a ministerial order in that way. We haven’t

thought about it, because that’s not why it was drafted. That’s not what we

were thinking of doing. That’s not what we are thinking of doing.

Our approach has been to work with industry broadly, in a collaborative

way, to say: “Here’s where we see economically viable opportunities over time

to reduce emissions to fit within an overall strategy and plan to meet our

targets.” That’s the approach we’re taking.

P. Milobar: Well, you know what they say about roads being paved with the best of

intentions.

I’m having trouble understanding…. The people within government, the

public service, are very professional, very much know what can and can’t be

done with various clauses as they get inserted into bills. There’s not a

definitive answer as to whether or not…. Again, it’s maybe what the minister’s

intentions are, but we’re talking about international, large

companies.

I know that the minister, in previous career paths, probably would have

been very leery of the negotiating clout and style of large international

companies with multi-billion dollar potential — with thousands of jobs and

economic growth, waiting, and the pressure that puts on a government as people

are trying to negotiate and get to a final investment decision.

We saw it with the recent announcements around tax rates and other

things of that nature as they relate to LNG as well. Again, this side fully

supports LNG. I’m not trying to give that impression. But it’s not out of the

realm of possibility that a company, any company — and not out of malice but

out of due diligence on their part, as they’re trying to decide whether to

invest $40 billion, and you have the potential of an updated greenhouse gas

target plan coming in — is wanting to know with certainty where they are going

to fit within that plan.

Does this clause, whether it was intended to provide the minister that

ability or not, provide the minister the ability to give certainty around an

LNG plant — what their individual targets would be expected to be, moving

forward, within any type of greenhouse gas reduction plan being

contemplated?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think I’ve answered the question. I could keep repeating the answer,

but I don’t want to do that. I think a single LNG plant, or even LNG, is not a

sector within the contemplation of either the climate leadership team or

general economics — and certainly this bill.

What LNG Canada requested from the B.C. government was some clarity

around the financial conditions, the tax considerations and any other

conditions that would pertain. The Premier outlined those in a letter. The

company expressed appreciation for the clarity of the letter and said they were

satisfied that they had the information they needed to speak to their

investors.

[2:55 p.m.]

The LNG Alliance has expressed to our government and me, personally, the

same. They appreciate the clarity, and they believe they have the information

they need going forward. Others in the broader oil and gas sector have said the

same thing.

I think that’s all the answer I can give.

P. Milobar: I appreciate the minister’s answers. You know, I’m really not trying to

make this a gotcha moment. But cabinet shuffles can happen tomorrow. I don’t

think they will. I don’t think the minister has put himself in that position,

but that does happen. Governments could change tomorrow — or I guess 29 days

from tomorrow. I don’t think that’s going to happen either, but it will happen

at some point in the future.

The minister will not be the minister in perpetuity, but this bill will.

So the language in this bill is very important to understand what powers it

gives both this minister and future ministers that wasn’t in the previous bill.

It was important enough to insert in, so I think it’s important for everybody

to understand what powers that actually gives this minister and future

ministers around this topic.

I can appreciate the minister saying that LNG is part of the overall

industrial sector. However, that’s just a recommendation, and that’s language

being used in a yet-to-be-approved updated document in the fall, which also

isn’t a piece, necessarily, of this legislation. It’s more of a guiding

document, as the minister has reminded me in estimates several times as well,

in terms of potential ways to action and move forward to hit these

targets.

Again, does this give the minister…? I guess I’ll rephrase the question

a little bit around ministerial powers and even take LNG out of it. Does it

also give the minister the ability to define what sectors there are? Currently

there are three excepted sectors, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t have a

fourth. It doesn’t mean LNG couldn’t be its own stand-alone sector, if that’s

what people want to see in a plan moving forward.

There’s nowhere in this legislation that I see, in this update, and

there’s none that I see in the original 2007 legislation that clearly

identifies those three individual sectors as the true individual sectors that

would be referenced here as individual sectors.

Does this, again, give any Minister of Environment the ability, the

authorization, to move ahead with individualized targets within sectors and/or

actually create however many sectors they would like to see? Instead of three,

we could have four sectors, where LNG is a stand-alone sector that, under this

provision, would have the minister have enough power and authority to then

grant that sector its own target.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ve spoken to the member about the intent of the government, not just

this minister but the government, and the reasons why the legislation was

drafted the way it is. The member seems to be looking for a yes-or-no answer,

so the answer is yes.

P. Milobar: So to summarize, if

section 2, without further amendments, is passed,

those voting in favour would be voting on essentially the same targets that we

saw laid out in 2007, with updated dates, with the relevant target numbers that

would have been on about the same trajectory — actually, I guess it was a 33

percent different trajectory now, in fairness — to try to catch up.

We would also be voting in favour of allowing the Minister of

Environment to be able to make an industry-specific promise or assurance to

some industry, like an LNG industry, of what their sectoral targets would be,

even in the absence of an updated plan in the fall.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the first part of the minister’s question is no, because

we’re repealing the 2020 target, which was set in 2007. We’re repealing it

specifically because it can’t be reached.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Heyman: Apparently, I called the member “minister” instead of “member.” I meant

member.

Also, I don’t think it’s reasonable or quite accurate to say that the

other targets that are set for 2030 and 2040 are consistent with what was done

in 2007, because they simply didn’t exist.

The answer to the second part of the member’s question, with respect to

ministerial orders, is as I’ve said previously: yes, just as it is in almost

every piece of legislation that contains provisions for future standards,

future limits, future numbers, to be set by order-in-council or by ministerial

order. It’s a common practice.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be reported as complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I now call estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, SKILLS AND

TRAINING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $2,211,614,000.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to introduce her staff?

Hon. M. Mark: Yes, I do. First, I’d like to acknowledge that we’re gathering on the

unceded territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt

First Nations.

I’d like to introduce my staff who are with me: my deputy minister,

Shannon Baskerville, to my right; my assistant deputy ministers, Jeff Vasey and

Bindi Sawchuk, as well as Kevin Brewster; and Tony Loughran, my executive

lead.

This is my first time doing this in this House, in these chambers. Other

staff will be joining us as their expertise is needed this afternoon. I’d like

to thank the members opposite for being here today and being advocates for

post-secondary education, skills and training, and allowing me to provide a

brief introduction to today’s estimates.

My first ten months — it will be ten months tomorrow as minister — have

been busy, exciting and inspiring. Our government is working to ensure all

British Columbians can access affordable education and training. This includes

a commitment to the implementation of the UNDRIP, the United Nations

declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as the 94 calls to

action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which the Premier included

in my mandate letter — and for all members of cabinet.

We know that education is a great equalizer that can transform people’s

lives. We’re striving to make it more affordable for people to get an education

so that they can unlock their full potential. Our government was elected on

three pillars — making people’s lives more affordable, improving the services

that people count on and creating an innovative, sustainable economy for people

to get 21st-century jobs.

We’ve been quick to make post-secondary education more accessible and

affordable. Budget 2018 included historic investments in tech talent and early

childhood education. We’ve added hundreds more opportunities in trades, teacher

training, health care, engineering and computer science. Affordability barriers

are being removed.

From aviation to animation, from tourism to trades, we need it all. We

programs for thousands of students by making them tuition-free. The interest

rate for B.C. student loans was cut by 2.5 percent, providing about $1.5

million in interest relief, in 2018 and 2019, for about 200,000

students.

[3:15 p.m.]

The first provincewide tuition waiver program to support former youth in

care was rolled out in September at all public post-secondary institutions

across B.C. As a result, 77 percent more students this year are attending

public post-secondary institutions and benefiting from this program. That’s

over 335 former youth in care accessing life-changing education. I believe in

them, I know the member opposite believes in them, and we know that it’s about

making their future brighter. In fact, I just heard last week the story of a

young woman who is now studying pre-med and who hadn’t even thought that she

would be going to university as of last year.

We also announced the first major investment in tech programming at

post-secondary institutions in over a decade. A total of 2,900 tech spaces will

provide 1,000 additional tech grads by the year 2025. This includes the first

full software engineering program in the Interior, at TRU, and the first full

civil and environmental engineering degree in northern B.C., at the University

of Northern British Columbia.

In March, at an event with the Songhees Nation, I was thrilled to

announce $21 million over three years for the Aboriginal community-based

training partnership program. Over 40 communities will receive funding to

provide Indigenous learners with the education and skills to further their

education and advance their careers.

In December, which feels like decades ago, we launched a public

education campaign to raise awareness about sexual violence prevention and

misconduct and to respond to strengthening the policy. We received about 370

submissions providing feedback from students, faculty and staff on what more

can be done to prevent sexual violence on campus. We’ll continue to work with

public institutions and stakeholders to strengthen the policy on this very,

very important issue.

Affordable and accessible quality post-secondary education will ensure

that no British Columbian is left behind, so that we can share the wealth of

our strong economy. That’s why our Premier announced yesterday, at the B.C.

Tech Summit, a historic $12 million for graduate scholarships, supporting 800

grad students in B.C. with scholarships of $15,000 each. We will continue to

lift as we climb, as we break down barriers.

The ministry has successfully negotiated a new workforce development

next six years to deliver new programming that supports workers and employers.

Programs will help vulnerable and underrepresented groups receive skills

training and employment support so that they can get good-paying,

family-supporting jobs. This will mean hope and opportunities for groups such

as Indigenous people, older workers, survivors of violence and individuals who

face barriers such as mental health challenges and homelessness.

We’ll also be able to better respond to skills training needs of

communities and employers with more flexible and timely programming. At every

opportunity, I’ve travelled across the province and met with students, faculty,

skills training providers and staff to listen, learn, engage and move forward

on our shared goals.

I’m proud of the choices our government has made and the work that we’ve

done over the last ten months. I’m very excited about the months and years

ahead as we build the best B.C. I look forward to answering

questions.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister and staff, for being here today to answer questions

on the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. I’m going to start

out with some general questions, some questions around budget and a couple of

other topics. Then the member for Abbotsford-Mission will forward on from there

with more things specific to skills training and capital.

Just to start off, the minister, in her opening statement, mentioned

investments in aviation. I know that the minister travelled to Kelowna in

February to examine a partnership that is underway with KF Aerospace and issued

a press release in which she was quoted. Can the minister confirm for me or

explain for me her decision on approving the visit and the accompanying press

release? Were any of the decisions made regarding her speaking notes, press

release, logistics for the event, any approvals, done by email?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I believe the date was February 8. I just had my staff look through the

calendar. All records that would have been approved would be with the office of

primary responsibility, which would be GCPE. They do the event planning for our

ministry and make arrangements on press releases and podium setup and all of

those details that happen, logistically, for events.

S. Cadieux: So the minister didn’t approve anything via email response to GCPE. The

minister did not do any follow-up from that visit to the owner of Kelowna

Flightcraft or any of the other institutions, like Okanagan College, that she

visited that day — to the president, to say: “Hey, thank you very much for the

visit.” There were no emails that originated from the minister’s account,

then.

Hon. M. Mark: With respect to what the event is going to be, where it is, what time it

is, all of those logistics are left to GCPE. There were no email thank-you

notes to presidents or KPU. There were no exchanges whatsoever by email. The

discussion and the planning happens in my ministry office, with my staff, when

we look at the logistics of: what is the best time to fly up? What is the best

time to fly back? The rest is organized by the staff to host that

event.

S. Cadieux: All right. A similar question, just for clarity. The minister mentioned

the historic event, the event with the Songhees First Nation around Aboriginal

training. Good announcement. I congratulate the minister on that. But again,

that event happened in March. Is the minister confirming today that there were

no emails originating from her office to anyone related to that event

either?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Sorry, I apologize that I’m using acronyms. So GCPE, government

communications and public engagement, managed the logistics of the events — the

podium setup, if there’s coffee that’s required, connecting with the host and,

potentially, putting out a press release. There’s a lot that goes into the

planning and the execution of an event, as the member opposite can relate in

her previous experience. But all final records of how that day is launched are

with GCPE.

S. Cadieux: I’m just trying to get some context about how things operate. I

understand how events are planned through GCPE and how the records of decision

would be kept.

In the months of February, March, April or May, has the minister sent

any emails to anyone like a university president or a faculty association

representative or a student association representative to say hello, to say

thank you for a meeting, to initiate a meeting? Has she had any direct contact

from her personal government email account with anyone outside of her

ministry?

Hon. M. Mark: I can’t say with 100 percent accuracy that I haven’t sent an email in

that period to anyone. I can tell you that I sent a thank-you card to the

president of Simon Fraser University — a hand card from the minister’s office.

With respect to Outlook and email addresses that are populated, I do not know

any of the emails of any of the presidents at any of the 25 post-secondary

institutions.

I can almost say with 100 percent accuracy that I’ve never sent an email

to any of those presidents or to the student body — the federation of students

and the AMS student body. So I can say with 100 percent confidence — close to

99 percent confidence — that from my Outlook sent email,

melanie.mark@gov.bc.ca, I have never sent those emails.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I’m a little surprised that the minister hasn’t

sent any emails to any stakeholders herself or had any contact with

stakeholders directly. But that’s fine. Thank you for the answer.

Moving on. UBC pays about $1 billion in salaries every year and will be

facing approximately $23 million in employer health tax. What is the total

impact on university budgets of the employer health tax?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I just wanted to clarify one point that was made earlier, because I

really appreciate the nature of the question from the member opposite about

relationships. I value the relationships of the stakeholders in post-secondary.

There are 25 presidents. There are student bodies and advocacy

groups.

The nature of our business is in person. The nature of our businesses is

visiting their campuses. If they have official requests, that is all managed

through the ministerial public account email address. That is all filed under

CLIFF.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I leave the nature of that work to be all in the public record for any

official business that they have a request for so that we can track and change.

When the member opposite says…. I find it a little bit odd. I apologize, but

the way I do business is in person with folks because I think the 25

institutions appreciate that relationship.

With respect to the question regarding the employer health tax, we’re

still in discussions with all public post-secondary institutions about the

employer health tax and the elimination of MSP. At this moment in time, it’s

premature to draw any conclusions about the employer health tax.

S. Cadieux: From the minister’s comments now about the employer health tax and

discussions, does that mean, then, that the minister and the ministry did know

calculations ahead of the announcement of the tax in the budget of what the

impact on universities would be?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is the Minister

of Finance’s responsibility, the employer health tax. Our government is fully

eliminating MSP premiums, saving individuals up to $900 a year and families up

to $1,800 a year.

To ensure funding for our health care system, we’re introducing the

lowest payroll tax in Canada. We have set an implementation date of January 1,

2019 to eliminate MSP premiums so we can have a smooth transition for all

employers, including the public sector. The transition gives the Minister of

Finance the time to have the conversations we need with all public sector

employees, including public post-secondary institutions.

S. Cadieux: Is the minister saying, then, that the public should disregard the

three-year budget plan and the balanced budget that it proposes?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member for the question. The Minister of Finance is

responsible for the employers health tax. Budget 2018 brings many benefits to

British Columbians, and of course, the public should not disregard Budget

Just a few highlights from the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills

and Training: $400 million to invest in new student housing; $19 million

million over three years for Indigenous skills training; $2 million for

Canada’s first Indigenous law program at UVic; $11 million added to technology

programming; $7.4 million for new early childhood educators; $6 million for

tuition-waiver programs for former youth in care; $30 million for agreements

with young adults; and investing in skills and training through our workforce

development agreement with the federal government.

I look forward to having a discussion about our budget within the

Ministry for Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

S. Cadieux: The budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training

certainly doesn’t, over this year or the next two, have an additional $70

million, rough estimate, to cover the employers health tax for universities or

a number of the programs, which we’ll get to in a moment, that have been

announced. I’m curious as to how institutions are expected to defray these

costs.

I’m assuming that the minister has had…. She insinuated in one of her

earlier questions that she’s having discussions with institutions about the EHT

and its implications. I think it’s legitimate for the Minister of Advanced

Education to talk about how she anticipates that the institutions, for which

she is responsible — the universities and colleges — are expected to cover an

increased cost when their tuition cap is 2 percent and they’re already

stretched to provide their mandates within their current

allocations.

[3:40 p.m.]

Everyone I’ve spoken to so far was expecting to see a bit of a bump in

the Advanced Education Ministry, in the budget, which they didn’t see, and

instead are seeing a whole lot of new, piled-on expenses.

One more time to the minister: if there’s approximately $70 million in

new costs coming to the ministry, which line of the budget would she expect to

take that money from to cover it?

Hon. M. Mark: The Minister of Finance is responsible for the employer health tax. I’ve

mentioned in these chambers that we are in discussions. We are working closely

with all of the public post-secondary institutions about the employer health

tax.

It is premature to assume cuts will be made. We are working with

evidence. I’m not sure where the member got the figure of approximately $70

million. It is important in these chambers, especially when we speak to the

budget, that we speak to the facts of figures. That is why we’re working with

the sector to look at what the implications are going to be, if any.

I welcome more questions to talk about post-secondary education, but it

is very premature that there will be any cuts.

S. Cadieux: Well, I appreciate that. I used a rough estimate number, based on what

we know to be the salaries that the ministry is responsible for, ensuring the

universities have dollars to provide.

Since the ministry has that relationship with universities, the public

would expect that the minister would know what the salary budgets of those

institutions are and, therefore, could calculate a tax that is being

implemented by her government on those institutions, and, at minimum, after

this number of months, be able to articulate in this House, in the estimates,

what the impact on those institutions will be for the public so they are aware,

so they can anticipate, should the minister — or the Minister of Finance, as

the minister is choosing to refer to — decide to compensate the institutions,

what the impact to the fiscal plan would be, considering it is not currently in

the three-year fiscal plan.

I think it is entirely relevant to provide context, but the minister has

decided not to do that. So instead, we are using a ballpark figure we estimate,

based on the current salary budgets of institutions, recognizing that that is

an estimate, because we do not have access to the same information that the

minister did and does through the budgeting process and through the Ministry of

Finance.

Now, moving on, there’s been a $1.6 million cut to student services. Can

the minister specify what programs have been reduced, and what student services

are being reduced?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: It was a one-time funding increase in 2017-18 for StudentAid B.C. Our

ministry is covering that $1.7 million within our existing budget. It has had

no impact on students.

S. Cadieux: I need more clarity on that. The minister says there was a $1.6 million,

one-time amount that is being covered by her ministry. Well, if it’s being

covered by your ministry, it’s in the budget. And it’s not there. Can the

minister please explain what the one-time money was that is no longer

there?

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: For years, the ministry has covered the $1.7 million within the budget.

In 2017-18, there was a one-time lift. In 2018-2019, we went back to normal and

are still covering within our budget, which has no impact on

students.

S. Cadieux: The government is eliminating the education tax credit, which will save

government about $12 million a year. Is that money saved in the Ministry of

Advanced Education, or is that general revenue?

Hon. M. Mark: Can the member opposite please explain which tax credit she is referring

to, keeping in mind that the Minister of Finance is responsible for tax

credits?

S. Cadieux: That I understand. The question was whether or not the savings from the

reduction of that tax credit is money that comes back now to the Ministry of

Advanced Education. Or is it accounted for in general revenue? Does the

ministry see a benefit?

Hon. M. Mark: I believe the member opposite should be referring to the Minister of

Finance, who’s responsible for tax credits. She can speak to the tax

credit.

S. Cadieux: Okay. But all I’m asking is whether or not, with the elimination of a

tax credit that was previously available to students to the tune of about $12

million a year…. Now that the government is no longer offering that tax credit,

does the Ministry of Advanced Education see a $12 million benefit, or does that

money stay in Finance?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I would reiterate that the question is best for the Minister of Finance,

around the tax that she’s referring to, the tax credit.

What I will say is that there was a lift in this budget of $116 million

in operating funding to benefit students and our mandate priorities, such as

adult basic education, the tuition waiver program for youth in care, a lift in

the first Indigenous law program at UVic. That’s where the allocations of the

$116 million have come from in Budget 2018-2019.

S. Cadieux: Prior to the budget, knowing that the tax credit was going to be

eliminated for students, did the minister suggest to the Minister of Finance

that something should be done to replace that benefit for students?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. The Minister of

Finance is responsible for the overall budget. Our ministry received $116

million for operational funding to deliver on our priorities and government’s

commitments — and $1.2 billion in capital to invest in things like student

housing.

We are moving forward in our ministry to deliver on things that students

have been calling for, and that is to access an affordable education. They want

to access their education and training facilities that are going to give them

the opportunity they need to get the learning they need. I was just up at UNBC,

visiting the wood innovation lab. Students want those facilities. That’s what

our capital budget is for.

The operational is to offer the right programming. And of course, going

back to capital, it’s about giving them the training equipment that they need.

We are delivering, through this budget, on the priorities that our government

has set and responding to the requests of the students.

S. Cadieux: I guess the answer, then, to my question was no, that the minister

didn’t advocate for another program for students to reduce the cost of

education.

Yesterday the minister announced graduate and doctoral scholarships in

the amount of about $12 million. Where in the budget is that money?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: We were able to provide $12 million in one-time funding through Budget

2017-2018 to support 800 graduate student scholarships of $15,000 per

award.

S. Cadieux: Okay. This is one-time money out of last year’s budget, and it is not

budgeted to go forward. So this is a one-time program for those

individuals.

The ministry, along with the Premier, yesterday also announced the B.C.

Knowledge Development Fund. What is the source of that $100 million fund? Is

any of that within the Ministry of Advanced Education?

Hon. M. Mark: With respect to the scholarships, it’s one-time funding for three years.

To the question around the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund, it’s within

Advanced Education, Skills and Training’s capital fund, and the program is

approved through the Minister for Jobs, Trade and Technology.

S. Cadieux: Back in estimates in the fall, in response to the budget update from

this government, we asked about completion grants that the minister’s

government had promised during the election. The minister said they’re working

towards the completion grants for post-secondary students. “We’re not there

yet…but it doesn’t mean we’re not committed.” They’re going to “fulfil our

promises.”

Can the minister explain why Budget 2018 chose not to provide any new

financial support to students beyond what had already been announced in terms

of tuition waivers, the interest rate reduction and the ABE and ELL

programs?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. I am fully

committed to moving forward with the completion grant. It’s in my four-year

mandate letter from the Premier, on which we’ve made a lot of progress, as the

member opposite noted, around adult basic education and tuition-free or 2.5

percent lower interest on student loans.

Our ministry is currently developing policy and program options for this

new grant program, including assessing key considerations such as the program

delivery model and timing of the grant funding, as well as eligibility

criteria.

As the member opposite is aware, because I’m sure she has met with lots

of students, many of the students have said to me that they would prefer to

have the completion grant at the front end, which means it’s not at the back

end for completion. In fact, our ministry has a number of different program

areas where we help with financial aid and aid to students. We are really

working very hard as a ministry to make sure that the information is accessible

to students around where they can get their financial aid and to make sure that

the funding and eligibility criteria are seamless.

We are helping the students in most need, and that really feeds into the

pillar of our government’s commitment around addressing affordability. It’s

listening to students. As the member opposite is aware, when you’re creating

policy, you want to make sure that you assess what you have already — make sure

we do our due diligence so that we’re not having overlap and we are addressing

those gaps that are really going to benefit students’ bottom line. They are

telling me that they can’t even get into school because they feel that it’s a

bit out of reach. We want to do anything we can to eliminate those barriers

that have stood in their way.

S. Cadieux: The minister last session said there was going to be money to accompany

government’s commitment to mental health in the post-secondary sector, but we

don’t see any new funding. In fact, while it has now been articulated, the

budget for student services is flat. So can the minister tell us how her

ministry intends to move forward on mental health plans on campus if there is

no money associated with that?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Again, thank you for the question. When I had a chance to visit all of

the 25 post-secondary institutions last July, it was acute. The students made

it very clear to me that affordability was an issue, housing was an issue,

mental health was an issue and just the cost of getting an education was an

issue. That fed into their mental health.

As the member opposite is aware, I follow her on Twitter. I know that

she’s engaging with students and that mental health is a very, very serious

issue. We’ve got $4.5 million allocated over the next three years. We’re

engaging with the post-secondary sector and students around what those options

for service delivery are.

Visiting all of those 25 campuses across British Columbia shows us that

they’re not all the same. Not all of the campuses are in urban centres, and not

all services are the same. There is no cookie-cutter approach to delivering

service for mental health, as we’ve learned through our own Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions.

We’re engaging, and we are listening to students on what that program

delivery is going to look like, along with listening to the presidents and

having their understanding of what that program is going to look like — say, at

UNBC. I’ve heard from students at UNBC. Some have said that they don’t

necessarily want student services on campus. They want services off campus.

Students have said to me several times that they don’t want a cookie-cutter

approach.

The $4.5 million that is allocated is going to help us get a service

delivery program available to students that are saying mental health is a

serious issue.

S. Cadieux: A quick question, then. Where is that $4.5 million in the budget? Where

would I find that money?

Hon. M. Mark: The money was allocated in the September budget update. It’s carried

forward in Budget 2018-19 and is into Budget 2019-20. There is no specific line

item for mental health, though, that is shown in this budget, but it is

allocated in this budget.

My understanding — I’ve just spoken to my staff that are with me — is

that not all programs are identified, just because it would be a very, very

thick document to list every single program area.

S. Cadieux: Am I to believe this is one of those investments that we’re just going

to find the money somewhere eventually? We’re going to commit to it, but it’s

not really in the budget. Or would it come under student services programs? Or

would it come under educational institutions and organizations?

Is it in the big amount — and it’s anticipated that it’s in the big

amount — which is normally the amounts transferred to universities? Or is it in

the student services piece? Or is it one of those things we just hope to find

money for at the end of the year?

Hon. M. Mark: It’s under the educational institutions and organizations.

S. Cadieux: Just one final question for the minister. The minister, I know, will be

very aware, as she will have heard from students, about the challenge around

sexual violence on campus. From her previous role, I know, as well, that she

will be very aware of the challenges around violence against women,

particularly, and the concerns on campus around that that led to the

institutions policy development.

To date, there has been no money to follow the policy, so institutions

are expected, at this point, to institute policies related to sexual violence

on campus and address that properly and provide services to students through

their existing budgets, with no additional allocations.

[4:20 p.m.]

Does the minister anticipate adding dollars to support this initiative,

or is the minister intending for universities to continue to find that money

somewhere within their budgets?

Hon. M. Mark: I really appreciate the question from the member opposite. In these

chambers, there’s a little bit of push and pull, a little bit of debate. We

don’t always agree, but there is one thing that we do agree on, and that’s

about the safety of students on campus. We agree that all of our students — our

friends, our faculty, our loved ones, the people that go to work, go to school,

go to learn, go to teach — should be free of violence. I will say again in

these chambers that I commend the leadership, when the members opposite were in

government, in bringing forward the law.

As soon as I became minister, I heard feedback about the policy. The

policy, some said, didn’t go far enough and wasn’t robust enough. There were

still potential holes or gaps. It’s important that we listen. This is a very,

very sensitive issue.

I would say four months after becoming minister, which I think is quick,

I said: “Look, I want to go out and listen to students.” We heard from people

370 submitted their feedback on where the policies need to go and what needs to

be changed.

Again, around the sensitivity of the issue, people don’t all want to

access services and programs the same way. Therefore, that has an implication

on how and what you deliver. Therefore, when the member opposite asks about

costs, there’s no cookie-cutter approach.

[4:25 p.m.]

I can assure you that we will consider the feedback and any requests for

funding implications for the implementation of this policy. I can also assure

the member opposite that the presidents take this matter seriously and that

they are going to do their part. They’ve assured me that they are going to do

their part to support not just students — the students, faculty, and everyone

that I’d mentioned earlier who is visiting, accessing those public

post-secondary institutions.

Again, thank you for the question. I’m happy to have a further

discussion on what that feedback is once we get the analysis put together.

Right now we know that where the feedback went, greater awareness in the

K-to-12 system, greater awareness in the secondary system so that we can

prevent.

The whole emphasis was: prevent, prevent, prevent. So hopefully, we

don’t have to pay for programs that respond to sexual violence. The emphasis is

really on prevention and awareness — and if you have to call in a service, that

that help is there when you need it.

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the minister. I know that she’s passionate about the issue,

as am I. I know that there is work underway to review the policies and where

things are at. I understand the complexity of implementation of programs and

services.

Certainly, I hope that the minister is considering the capacity of the

various organizations to do that. While all, I believe, do have the right

intention, I certainly don’t think that they all have the same financial

capacity or, frankly, knowledge capacity at their institutions to implement the

necessary mix of services and supports, both in prevention, which is definitely

important….

As much as I think we would all like to hope we could get to the utopia

where it would never happen, that we wouldn’t need supports, I know that the

member knows that is unlikely and that we want to make sure that those supports

are in place and appropriately delivered to minimize trauma and additional

distress.

I thank the minister and staff for the answers to my questions this

afternoon. I will pass off now to the member for Abbotsford-Mission to

continue.

S. Gibson: I’m pleased to be here today with regards to Advanced Education

estimates and continuing on from my colleague from South Surrey.

We’ve heard that the minister has a particular interest in skills

training — the practical side, as you might say, of our workforce — in her

facet of her ministry. I’m going to be asking a few questions, at the start,

regarding apprenticeship ratios.

Just a simple question. What are your aspirations for ideal

apprenticeship ratios? What are your goals for apprenticeship

ratios?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. It is a steep

learning curve to learn about the Red Seals and the trades and the magic that

they do across the province to build our roads, our schools. I am very, very

passionate about the trades.

[4:30 p.m.]

Looking to my mandate letter from the Premier, it is very clear that I

have to — I just want to get the correct wording — “work with the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure to implement effective apprenticeship ratios

in government-funded infrastructure projects and increase participation of

equity-seeking groups in the skilled work force.”

I will say for the record that apprenticeships are essential to the

training for our future construction workforce, and increasing on-the-job

training opportunities for apprentices on public projects will create more

opportunities for apprentices to complete their training and have meaningful,

sustainable jobs. What I keep hearing from the sector is really the importance

of having their completion, their Red Seal, and how valuable that Red Seal

is.

Our government is investing $15.8 billion in taxpayer-supported capital

spending over the next three years. We can maximize the value of that spending

by ensuring that the construction of public projects also helps train our

future workforce. We believe it’s a win-win. We have been engaging with

industry stakeholders to develop ways to help apprentices get the experience

that they need to be fully qualified and become certified

journeypeople.

For the member opposite, he might want to know who some of those

individuals are that we’re engaging. We’ve had numerous discussions and round

tables. Clifford White, Chief of the Gitxaala Nation. Jud Martell from the B.C.

Building Trades. Tom Sigurdson from the B.C. Building Trades. Lindsay Langill,

the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Laird Cronk from the

B.C. Federation of Labour. Reighardt van Enter, Progressive Contractors

Association. Larry Richardson, the Christian Labour Association of

Canada.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Kelly Scott, B.C. Road Builders. Lisa Langevin, IBEW 213, women in

trades. Julia Balentyne, Build Together co-chair. Peter Baker, director of the

Squamish training centre. Thomas Nyce, Indigenous affairs representative with

Ledcor. Margo Middleton, Middleton Petroleum Services in Kamloops. Roberta

Ellis, the board chair for the Industry Training Authority. Robert Lashin from

Houle Electric. Clyde Scollan from the Construction Labour Relations

Association and Tara MacDqqonald, who’s an apprentice in sheet

metal.

We’re engaging and coming together to develop a policy on effective

apprenticeship ratios.

S. Gibson: I think the remarks are encouraging, but I guess I was hoping for

something a little more tangible. The expectation is that these apprenticeship

ratios will be implemented in the coming months and years ahead. I guess I

would like to know…. My question to the minister is: what are those ratios

going to be? What are your aspirations for those? Perhaps I could pin you down

just a little bit with respect to an exact date of implementation. I think that

would be helpful for the province to hear. It’s indirectly part of your

management letter, as I understand it.

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We are engaging with

the sector to determine what would be the most effective apprenticeship ratio.

We are developing a policy, and we’re not going to develop that policy on the

back of a napkin. We’re going to do that by engaging with the sector. It is yet

to be determined. When we finalize the policy, we will announce that to the

public. There is a great deal of interest in what the ratio will be, and there

is a great deal of opinion. Not everyone is on the same page. I can assure you

of that.

That is about developing policy. Developing policy is about engaging

people and having discussions around what will be the most effective ratio so

that people succeed. The people at the centre of this policy are the

apprentices. The apprentices need — they require; they desire — that hands-on

training where they can work towards getting those hours that are going to help

them achieve their journeypersons and their Red Seals.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Gibson: The monitoring dimension to apprenticeships is identified in the

ministry service plan. What is the budget for that? How much money has been

allocated for the monitoring? Perhaps it could be explained a little more as to

what that entails.

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the member is asking a question. We haven’t created the

policy yet, but I just want to underscore the kind of rationale and the vision.

Before any ratio target number is determined, we need to understand what

“effective” means, both to the construction of public infrastructure and, most

importantly, for the training, mentorship and safety of apprentices on the

worksites.

What the stakeholders have told us so far…. These are elements that

we’re looking at when we look at “effective” — what that means. That means

enhancing apprentice work-based training, job opportunities and completion,

maintaining workplace health and safety, allowing flexibility for employers,

maintaining reasonable costs for employers and government, and ensuring

fairness and transparency in government procurement. Those are the objectives

that stakeholders said that we, as government, should be considering as we

create the policy.

S. Gibson: The minister has indicated her aspirations for co-op. This is something

I have in common with the minister. I think co-op, when it’s used

appropriately, is pretty amazing and has great dividends, especially for our

younger workers. The minister indicated that she wants to increase co-op

placements, which I think is laudable, but there’s no mention in the ITA

mandate letter. In fact, there are no co-op targets mentioned.

Am I assuming that co-op targets have been abandoned? If not, what are

they, and what’s the budget for them?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Just to clarify, is the question about co-ops at post-secondary

institutions, or is it about work experience in high school? We just want to

make the connection that the questioning isn’t about the trades. Or is it about

experience at the post-secondary institutions?

S. Gibson: The minister has identified that she would like to have a formula for

how trades seats are allocated. What is that formula, and has it changed at

all?

Hon. M. Mark: I just wanted to clarify. The question earlier was around whether I as a

minister care about co-ops — that it’s not in our mandate letter. Co-ops are in

our mandate letter. It says: “Expand B.C.’s technology-related post-secondary

programs, co-op programs, and work to establish technology and innovation

centres in key areas of the economy.” That stands as a commitment in our

mandate letter.

To clarify, the member opposite is talking about trades seats, which

fall under the Industry Training Authority, which is one of my Crown

responsibilities. So to the question, in 2018-19, the Industry Training

Authority plans to invest about $72.7 million to purchase 27,151 trades seats.

This amount is consistent with 2017 and 2018 levels. Funding is provided to 15

public trainers — those are the public post-secondary institutions — and 25

non-public trainers to deliver apprenticeship and foundation training

seats.

[4:45 p.m.]

Funding projections are based on, in the formula, an independent three-

to five-year labour market supply-and-demand analysis, informed by the B.C.

labour market outlook; past enrolment levels in trades programs at public and

non-public training institutions and the current apprenticeship registration

levels; as well as, finally, consultations with industry via sector advisory

groups in sector round tables. So there is a formula that exists through the

Industry Training Authority.

S. Gibson: On another matter, at Thompson Rivers University, there was a program

apparently announced, a four-year degree program in electrical, computer and

software engineering. Only a portion was approved. I’m wondering when the

balance of that will be approved and where the money was allocated that was

originally approved for a complete program in electrical, computer and software

engineering.

Hon. M. Mark: I had to go through my big table here of where the seats are, the 2,900

seats that our government committed to, to invest in tech. As the member

opposite can appreciate, we’ve got 25 post-secondary institutions across

British Columbia. It’s an ecosystem. It is important to me that we have

training available across the ecosystem and across the region. We continually

hear in this House the importance of serving British Columbians, not just in

Vancouver, not just on Vancouver Island, not just in the Interior and not just

in the north, but having a balanced approach.

With respect to TRU, our government committed to 140 seats at Thompson

Rivers University for the first software engineering program to ever be offered

at TRU. That is something that they’re very proud of and our government is very

proud of.

[4:50 p.m.]

There is another first: the first civil and environmental engineering

program at the University of Northern British Columbia, another first that UNBC

is very proud of and our government’s really proud of.

I would just have to say for the member opposite that we’re just getting

started. We’re just getting started on injecting in tech, and those 2,900 seats

are most appreciated at the post-secondary institutions across B.C.

S. Gibson: When will the other two aspects of the program be added?

Hon. M. Mark: Well, 2,900 seats, $42 million — that’s a pretty significant investment

by my determination, and it’s the first significant investment in over a decade

for technology and training opportunities for students across British

Columbia.

We looked at the entire ecosystem. We worked with the presidents and the

post-secondary ecosystem to determine the best locations and program details

for the services and courses that they wanted to offer in their backyard. They

were fully at the table when we had those discussions.

TRU is very, very proud to be able to offer the first software

engineering program in their backyard. Clearly, what we heard at TRU, when I

was there for the announcement, is that students want to study close to home

and get a job when they graduate close to home so that they could raise their

families.

S. Gibson: With regard to compulsory trades, last fall the minister appeared to be

hesitant to respond to a query regarding compulsory trades. However, we hear

now that government is looking at certain particular trades. I’m wondering if

the minister would share her views on compulsory trades and her government’s

vision on implementation, if any, of trades.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: You’re right. There are people talking about compulsory trades. Our

government has heard a desire to return to compulsory trades. I’ve heard from

stakeholders who have concerns about worker safety and opportunities for

apprentices and consumer protection.

Our government is committed to completing a review of B.C.’s existing

safety and credentialing requirements. We are also reviewing how compulsory

trades designations could be used to improve worker safety and consumer

protection.

I want to emphasize that it’s important that our trade workers and

apprentices are supported while our work sites are safe. My ministry will be

working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Labour and the

Industry Training Authority, who I’ve asked, through the mandate letter, to

complete this review. A key part of this review will be connecting with

employers of trade workers, labour groups and apprentices to ensure their input

is included in this review.

We will ensure there is a consistent and transparent approach for system

stakeholders to review the information and provide feedback to government. With

respect to timelines, we expect the review to be completed in

2018-2019.

S. Gibson: The minister has said that she would not restrict open shops. She was

quoted as saying that. Is there not an incongruency between that statement and

the one that government is identifying that would contemplate compulsory

trades? There seems to be an inconsistency there. Perhaps the minister could

speak to that.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: There is no inconsistency. It’s premature to make assumptions on the

outcome of the review. The review is underway. As the results are known, we

will share the results of the review when it’s complete, in

2018-2019.

S. Gibson: With regard to the sector advisory groups, part of the ITA, the minister

is ordering a review of these. Can we assume that the current shareholders,

whatever the configuration, will continue to be involved — that the current

shareholders will continue to be a part of the process?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. It’s a good one, and it’s one that we made

clear in the mandate letter for the Industry Training Authority, which

specifically states: “Work closely with government to review, align and update

the mandate of sector advisory groups and the approach to membership in order

to ensure that members have in-depth knowledge of the sector they represent and

can provide relevant advice on how to improve B.C.’s trades training system,

and that training providers, apprentices and journeypeople are adequately

represented.”

The instructions, the requests in the mandate letter to the ITA are to

submit recommendations for updating the sector advisory group’s mandates and

membership structure to government by September 30, 2018 and, once approved,

implement those recommendations by March 31, 2019.

S. Gibson: Is the minister contemplating adding any new sector advisory groups?

What are her plans for the LNG sector advisory group?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. The sector advisory groups are very

important. They play a very important role in terms of giving us input and

telling us what the needs of their members are, their sector. They funnel that

information through the ITA, through their SAGs, their sector advisory

groups.

The review that I have mandated the ITA to go forward with will help

inform how we can strengthen those SAGs. We don’t have that determination yet.

We’re not going to know until the review is complete in 2018-2019, so I look

forward to the outcome of that and, most importantly, making sure that those

sector advisory groups are supported.

S. Gibson: A little bit on budget allocation. I know we’re kind of winding down

here.

On budget allocation. I think, surprisingly for some of us, there was

quite a lot reduced from the labour market strategy and planning budget. That

really, often, forms the vision for what we would characterize on this side of

the House as part of a jobs plan. That $8 million was removed.

We’re kind of wondering, on this side of the House, what kind of vision

you have if that budget was reduced so dramatically. What are the goals now,

given that you don’t have that funding in the marketing strategy and planning

over the previous year? That would be a question to the minister.

Hon. M. Mark: Can the member opposite clarify, just be a little bit more specific, on

what the question is referring to?

The Chair: Member for Abbotsford-Mission, the minister is seeking clarification

on your question.

S. Gibson: If I understand the question, you want a clarification,

Minister?

I’m advised that there’s a labour market strategy and planning budget,

and that there was a significant amount reduced over the previous year. This

was what we would characterize on this side of the House as part of the job

plan. If that doesn’t meet with your information, I’m happy to research it

further, but that amount was fairly significant. It also ties in with a

reduction in information systems as well. That, perhaps, will be a reminder

about that.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. There wasn’t a

reduction in Advanced Education’s budget. Programs that the member opposite is

referring to were transferred to the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology,

which he refers to as $8 million. In Budget 2018, in our budget, it increased

by $10 million under the line item “Labour market and information” to support

Indigenous skills training.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was granted

leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the

precinct. Please take your seats.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018

International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018

Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Public Service Amendment Act, 2018

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act,

Securities Amendment Act, 2018

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018

Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act,

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018

Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018

Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018

Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018

Public Interest Disclosure Act

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to

these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Just before I go, I’d like to say that represents a whole ton of work. I’d

just like to thank all of you for your work over the last couple of weeks and to

say I hope you have an opportunity to enjoy time with your families this

weekend.

There’s been a ton of work going on with respect to the floods, and I’d

just like to express appreciation for everybody who has been handling that and

working so hard on behalf of the people who are suffering from that

situation.

Thank you all, and I’ll see you again soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:30 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Noting the hour and noting the amount of work that’s done, I move the House

do now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, May 28.

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $172,581,000

(continued) .

T. Redies: Just before the break, we were talking about the impact of falling house

prices on government revenue. I think the minister indicated that a 1 percent

decline in prices would have about a $20 million impact on the government

revenue. So if we were talking about a 25 percent decline, like some experts

are predicting, that would have a $500 million impact on government revenue. Am

I correct?

Hon. C. James: Yeah, the numbers are right. You have the numbers. But I think you have

to also remember, as I said earlier before we took our break at lunch, if

you’re looking at simply that number, that assumes everything else remains

static. Also, remember that when you’re talking about the property transfer

tax, that also takes into account the sales price but also the volume, which

again can change those numbers.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer.

On February 21, you were specifically asked in the scrum, with respect

to your government’s intervention in the housing market, if the goal was a

decline in home prices. You said yes. You added a further quote: “I hope we

don’t see the kind of escalation you are seeing now in the market.” Minister,

was your government’s intention to bring about a price drop in the markets, yes

or no?

Hon. C. James: I think the member has heard me say this, probably, almost every day

over the last couple of months in talking about the comprehensive housing plan.

As we said when we brought in the comprehensive housing plan, one of the things

we are looking to do is moderate the market. We believe that that’s important.

If you take a look at the excessive price escalation we have seen over the last

while, moderating that is one of the goals that we have around the housing

market.

We are dealing with both supply and demand. As I mentioned earlier, we

don’t have, as government, control of all of the tools. There are tools outside

of our control — mortgage rates, interest rates — that also have an impact on

the housing market. So all of those need to be watched and need to be

addressed.

I think the key…. Again, in discussions with folks in the real estate

field, one of the big pieces that comes up over and over and over again is the

issue of mobility and that a healthy real estate market has the ability for

mobility for people in the market. They have the chance, when they are able to,

when their jobs change or when they have affordability in their family, to be

able to move up or to move to a larger place, to be able to adjust the needs of

their family, to meet the needs of their housing.

There is no mobility, particularly in the urban areas that we’ve talked

about. When you look at the vacancy rate, when you take a look at the prices in

those communities, there is no mobility. I think I mentioned before the meeting

of people who have said that they’ll never leave their place even though it may

be substandard, even though they feel it’s a place that is a challenge, because

they’re terrified they’ll never find anything else.

The goal, again, continues to be not seeing the kind of excessive price

escalation but seeing, when it comes to supply in the market, more stock and

more mobility for people in the market.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for your answer, but I do want to get a little bit

more specific. When the minister says “moderate,” does that mean the minister

does not want to see higher price increases, or is it, as she indicated on

February 21, that she wants the housing market prices to come down?

Hon. C. James: I think I’ve answered that, but I’ll answer it again. I’m hoping that we

see a moderation in the market, that we see more of a range, that we see

mobility, that we see the opportunity for people to be able to have housing

that meets their needs. So affordable housing, housing that is larger and

perhaps has a higher rate for people who are able to afford that. But there is

a mobility in the market, and that’s what I’m looking for.

[1:45 p.m.]

T. Redies: The most recent statistics calculated by the Bank of Canada in 2016

suggested a 15 percent drop in housing prices would put one in eight mortgages

in greater Vancouver underwater, and a 25 percent drop would put one in four

mortgages underwater.

As we have seen from the devastation in the United States during their

housing market correction, it’s not just governments but people that get

terribly affected when housing prices start to drop substantially.

It is a matter of confidence. It’s a matter of confidence in the market.

While sales might come back at some point in time, there is a trough period

where nobody is buying because they’re expecting the housing prices to fall. As

a former banker who has seen this, this is a terrible situation to get into for

both governments and individuals.

What I would like to ask the minister is: what analysis was done by the

Ministry of Finance on this before they implemented the myriad of property

taxes? And does it concern the minister that one in eight and one in four

British Columbians could be underwater on their mortgage if prices fall by 15

to 25 percent?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Perhaps this is just a different view of the approach here. There is no

question in my mind…. Yes, I’m an optimist, and I’m also a very proud British

Columbian. I think British Columbia will always be a place where people want to

live and work.

It will always be a favourable destination for people who are looking

for a place to live that has an incredible natural environment, that has

natural resources, that is the gateway to the Pacific, that provides the

opportunity for people from all parts of the globe to come and live here. So I

don’t take the member’s premise around a crisis. I believe that in fact,

British Columbia is always going to be a place that people want to

invest.

There are so many factors in play. I know the member has heard me say

this before, but it’s part of the reason that I’ve said that we needed a

comprehensive package to bring forward on housing measures, because there isn’t

one measure that is going to solve the problem. And it’s certainly not going to

be solved overnight. It is going to take time.

It’s going to take monitoring. It’s going to take, as I’ve talked about

before, making sure that we track as we go along, as we implement the measures

in our 30-point housing plan. It is going to take time. As I said, we’re not

going to see, I don’t believe…. A few changes in the short term.

In the long term, from my point of view, if we don’t address this

housing crisis, if we don’t address the challenges that we’re facing, then we

in fact will harm the economy. We will see the kinds of challenges that other

jurisdictions have — where investment takes a look at other places where it’s

possible for them to recruit and retain employees. From my perspective,

bringing forward these housing measures is exactly what’s needed to look at

long-term sustainable growth for British Columbia.

T. Redies: I appreciate and I believe what the government is trying to do. I

understand there is a concern around the housing market. What I am saying is

that we have to be very careful, with the intervention that governments are

taking in the housing market, that we don’t precipitate a much steeper fall

with a longer trough.

I’d just like to add to this that whether you’re in North America or

Europe, housing markets generally go in seven-year cycles. We’re in, I think, a

12-year cycle at this point in time, so there’s a high risk of a market

correction in any event. My worry is that this government, with its collection

of property taxes, is actually going to create a steeper decline and a longer

trough for us to come out of this, and this will hurt many British

Columbians.

My other worry…. I respect the fact that the minister has been very

focused on dealing with the housing crisis, but there seems to have been little

or no analysis done, with respect to the impact on British Columbians, on the

myriad of these property taxes.

We had a spec tax that wasn’t supposed to affect British Columbians but

is now affecting British Columbians. We have little or no analysis on the

impact on British Columbians if we have a significant correction in the housing

market. One in four British Columbians could be under water on their mortgage,

which is a very serious situation.

I hope I’ve made my point there. I’d like to turn to another aspect of

the housing market that is giving me, certainly, cause for concern,

particularly when we have a government that’s talking about creating

affordability and supply.

Sales in Metro Vancouver, as we talked about earlier, hit a 17-year low

in April 2018. More specifically and a leading indicator on what’s going on

with the housing market, presales fell to 43 percent in April after being at 94

percent in January, 83 percent in February and 63 percent in March. They are in

a precipitous drop. This slowing in the presale market is very problematic,

because bankers require, typically, 60 to 70 percent presales in order for

developers to get financing.

Minister, with this type of drop, are you not concerned about the impact

on the supply of housing in British Columbia, when developers are getting to

the point now where they may not even be able to get financing for

projects?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I have a few different stats to share with the member. The first piece

is just our economic analysis that continues to look at economic activity in

British Columbia — looks at a number of indicators, obviously, each

month.

One of those key factors we look at are housing starts. In April, B.C.

housing starts have averaged 42,143 annualized units year to date, April 2018.

That’s an 11 percent increase compared to the same time in 2017, the first four

months of 2017. Year-to-date activity is above the 2018 budget forecast of

approximately 32,000 units in 2018. In fact, it’s in line with last year’s

annual housing starts of 43,664 units, which was the highest level ever

recorded. So it’s continuing on.

[2:00 p.m.]

Then statistics from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp…. This report

came out in May, just a week and a half ago, and it speaks to both Vancouver

and Kelowna. Housing starts in Vancouver, in the metropolitan area — so this is

the broader area — “continued their strong trend throughout April. Year-to-date

starts were up for both single and multifamily units as builders continued to

maintain a high level of construction in response to high demand in the

apartment and condominium markets. The city of Vancouver and the North Shore

have seen the strongest activity so far in 2018.”

Then Kelowna — again, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Housing starts activity in Kelowna “picked up significantly” in the month of

April, particularly in the multi-unit segment. The recovery in housing starts

activity rivals the record seen in 2017 and was the result of large apartment

rental and condo projects that are underway. It also states: “Multi-unit

housing demand, both rental and ownership, remains strong in the Kelowna” area,

and vacancy rates remain low.

The Chair: A reminder to members to address the Chair, please.

T. Redies: Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to the minister: thank you for

that comprehensive answer.

Having said that, what I was speaking about was presales, which are a

leading indicator. The minister is talking about starts that are already

underway, projects that have been approved. As we know, in Vancouver, it takes

anywhere from 28 months to 60 months to get projects approved. These are

projects that have already been approved, have already got their presales. What

I am talking about are the new projects where presales are precipitously

dropping.

Again, it’s not just myself that is concerned about this. On May 9, the

BIV stated: “High-profile real estate developers, marketing

executives and real estate agents are bracing for a sustained downturn in the

housing market after sales in April, usually one of the most active months of

the year, plunged by double digits across Metro Vancouver.”

How much of the government’s budget is attributed to the real estate and

the construction market in B.C.?

Hon. C. James: One other stat that I think is interesting — and then I’ll get to the

issue of real estate and GDP — that the member may be interested in is building

permits. Building permits in the first three months of this year compared to

the same time last year — so again, using those constant comparisons — have

gone up 31.1 percent. Again, I think that shows the kind of strength we’re

seeing.

[2:05 p.m.]

On the percentage of the economy — real estate. Again, it depends on

what you include in the calculation, but the usual things that are included

would be construction, real estate activity, lawyers, engineers — those kinds

of things. It’s a range, depending on which economist you’re talking to. Again,

S&P, for example, which does our ratings, uses 12 percent. Others use 24

percent. So we use the range of between 12 and 24 percent of GDP.

E. Foster: Minister, we’ve had this conversation quite a few times, but to put it

on the record: on the third of April, the PST department sent out a notice to

the gravel industry and other trucking industries regarding PST on trucking.

Unfortunately, they sent it out on April 3, and it was retroactive to April 1.

So the companies had no opportunity to prepare for this.

The problem, as I’ve brought to your attention, is the unfairness of

this, as it goes across all sectors of the trucking business. The people in the

gravel pit and trucking industry will have to charge PST on their trucking,

whereas the independent truckers don’t. They don’t even have PST

numbers.

The big concern, of course, to the people in the industry — in the

gravel pits, the suppliers and so on — is that they’ve bid large contracts,

multi-million-dollar contracts, with governments — provincial and local and, to

some degree, the federal government. They do those a year or ten months in

advance and put the prices on them. Now they’ve all of a sudden got an extra 7

percent that they’ve got to add to the trucking fee,

whereas the independent

truckers don’t. They’re not on a level playing field.

My question. I brought this to your attention some time ago, and we’re

not seeing any change in this. It’s most unfair. My suggestion, of course, is

to stand the whole thing down until you can make it fair. I just wondered. I

want to get it on the record, and I want to know where we are with that. What

kind of progress have we made in it?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for raising the issue. I think, as we had that discussion at

the time, as I talked about, the government did put in place a remission order

up to March 31. But I think I would agree with the member that it doesn’t solve

the issue. It doesn’t solve the question that’s out there.

We took the opportunity of following up on the information the member

had provided — and on issues that had been raised with us, as well — to meet

with the industries. We’ve met with the cement industry; we’ve met with the

trucking industry. There are a number of groups that have concerns on this.

We’ve agreed to meet again with them. We’re doing some more work to see how we

can resolve some of the issues that they’ve raised. So it’s in progress. I

guess that’s the best way to describe it.

E. Foster: When I get back to my constituents that are in the business, what kind

of timeline can I give them on this? Either they’re going to have to eat the 7

percent hit, or they’re going to have to go back to cities — and, in some

cases, to the province — and add additional costs to their contracts. They

might lose those contracts or they might be put back.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I recognize the urgency. That was expressed to us in the meetings that

we had last week and a couple of weeks ago. Certainly, it is our intent to

resolve it as quickly as possible. I don’t want to give an exact date, because

of the changes that may be needed and to make sure that we have the time to be

able to make changes that may be needed if there are changes that have to

occur. But I certainly hope to have it resolved before the summer.

S. Furstenau: I have a question for the minister, specific to an organization in my

riding called the Cowichan Bio-Diesel Co-op, which produces biodiesel from 100

percent waste oil from local restaurants. The question that’s been raised

several times to me is about the carbon tax being applied to biodiesel. This

seems like a disincentive to something that is actually a solution to reducing

carbon: using waste oil, rather than diesel or gasoline, in cars.

I was wondering if the minister would be able to give some input on this

and whether or not we could see the carbon tax actually removed from

biodiesels.

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. This is something that has been worked on,

has been looked at and, I think, needs to continue to be looked at. I think the

challenge that is faced with the issue of biodiesel is that biodiesel gets

mixed with diesel. It’s hard, when you’re looking at putting a carbon tax on

diesel, to know the percentage of biodiesel or diesel that’s being used. How do

you, then, set a rate for that kind of mixed fuel? I guess that is the best way

to describe it. That’s part of the challenge that’s being looked at.

The previous government actually dropped the carbon tax rate on diesel

by 5 percent to recognize 5 percent biodiesel, which was being used as a mix,

to be able to try and address some of the issue around encouraging biodiesel to

be used. I think it’s an interesting issue. That may be another way of looking

at it. As we look at increases in the carbon tax, it may need another look to

see if the rate needs to be lowered, or to see if there’s another incentive

that needs to be offered. I’m happy to take a look at that idea as

well.

S. Furstenau: Thank you for that. That’s really helpful. In the case of biodiesel, the

cooperative up in Cowichan does one 100 percent biodiesel option. It’s not

mixed with any diesel. It’s actually completely created from waste vegetable

oil. I think if it’s possible for the minister and the ministry to look at that

as a particular part of this equation….

Hon. C. James: Yes, I’m happy to take a look at that and get the specifics. That

certainly makes it easier, if there’s one fuel and not two fuels to take a look

at. So we’ll take a look at that.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Bond: Thank you to our colleagues for their questions. We’re happy to be able

to fit them in.

We’re going to move on to another tax. I guess there are so many taxes

and so little time. We’re going to try to work our way through them. I’m

wondering if the minister could provide us with the mandate for the MSP Task

Force.

Hon. C. James: It’s a very simple, straightforward mandate. The task force was given a

mandate to provide advice on when to reduce the MSP premiums and how to replace

the forgone revenue.

S. Bond: I’m sure the minister will be able to confirm that she received an

interim report on February 1 from the MSP Task Force. You can imagine how,

first of all, the task force must have felt — but probably, people who provided

input as well.

The task force provided a series of recommendations to the minister

about the gargantuan task of trying to replace the forgone revenue from MSP

premiums. The first recommendation that the task force made to the minister,

prior to the budget being tabled, was: “Whatever mechanisms are chosen to

replace MSP revenue, we feel strongly that there should not be any phase-in of

the new measures and a phase-out of MSP. Rather, we suggest that MSP be

eliminated at a specific date and that the new revenue measures take effect

fully at the same time.” Why did the minister choose to ignore that

advice?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the member will certainly know this. I’m sure, as minister, she

had various task forces or committees who took a look at bringing forward

advice. Certainly, we go through that, and the Minister of Finance goes through

that each and every year with budget consultations through the Select Standing

Committee on Finance. I had the good fortune to sit on that in opposition for a

number of years and know that there were some amazing recommendations that came

forward, and that’s part of doing consultation.

Part of putting a task force together, as well, is to get those

recommendations. Then the job for government is to decide which recommendations

or what direction the government is going to go in. It’s the government’s job

to make the decisions. There were parts of the recommendation and some areas

that we felt were areas that we were going to take on and other recommendations

that we didn’t.

One of the other examples would be the premiums. The task force

recommended to look at an income-based premium on individuals. We felt we had

already looked at a tax increase for high-income earners in September’s budget,

and so we didn’t include that as part of the direction.

Very good work was done by the task force. I have had great

conversations with the people who sat on that task force. It is their job to

bring forward recommendations, and it’s the government’s job to make the

decision.

S. Bond: That’s not the only advice that the minister ignored from the task

force. We’ll ask a little bit about timing recently, because I am also familiar

with how budgets are built. This interim advice was received on February 1. I

can’t imagine that the Finance Minister will attempt to have me believe that

the employer health tax was determined just a few days before the budget was

actually tabled. Or maybe it was. They asked for advice, tabled the interim

report as provided, and the advice was ignored.

Let’s look at the third recommendation. There’s a second one that talks

about making sure there is reasonable notice. The minister believes she has

given reasonable notice. I would suggest that many employers in British

Columbia will never feel that they were given reasonable notice, but let’s look

at recommendation 3: “The amount of revenue to be replaced, approximately $1.3

billion,” and I’m quoting the report, “is a sizeable amount of money. Our

analysis to date of the available options makes it clear that no one option is

preferred, based on the principles we were asked to assess the options against.

Therefore, we feel it is important the revenue be replaced by a combination of

measures in order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.”

Why did the minister choose to ignore the fact that the recommendation

from the panel that she herself selected was that it would be inadvisable to

look at one measure to capture the revenue?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: First, on the notice. The member raised the issue of reasonable notice.

Certainly, we believe, a year…. I think the member is right. There are people

that certainly aren’t ever going to be happy with changes, but I think giving a

year’s notice was a reasonable notice.

The second piece, just back to the task force and putting in place task

forces. I think it’s part of the reason that we look for recommendations,

because it’s government’s job to make the decisions. And while there are some

examples of governments accepting all the recommendations that come forward,

there are often times — in fact, I would say, in most cases — where government

will accept some recommendations and not others, where government will take

parts of recommendations, where government will thank groups and organizations

for the work they’ve done in bringing forward recommendations, and go in a

different direction.

I think it’s important to note that that is the job of putting together

task forces or committees or doing consultations. It’s to get all of that

information, make sure that you’re well informed and then make the decision

that you believe is right, as government, which is exactly what we

did.

Then the last piece I just want to touch on. The member mentioned the

recommendation around using a variety of tools. In fact, as government, we had

already moved, in September, on the issue of the high-income earners and

bringing resources in from the high-income earners. This was a tax break that

was rolled back by the previous government. They gave a tax break to the top 2

percent of income earners. We removed that and felt that people at the top

could afford to contribute. I think it’s important to note that that action had

already taken place in the September budget.

I think the second piece is it’s important to recognize that the amount

of money coming in from MSP is $2.6 billion and the amount coming in from the

employer health tax is $1.9 billion. So we’re, in fact, not recouping all of

the resources. Again, if we’re looking at bringing in all of the money from the

MSP in a variety of tools and using a variety of measures to do that, we

aren’t, in fact, bringing in all of the resources from the MSP.

We felt that it was reasonable, as other provinces have done. And I

think this is the last piece I’ll just mention on this issue: the fact that

payroll taxes have been utilized by other provinces across this country, rather

than medical services premiums. I think there are few people who would look at

the MSP and presume that it is a good tool for any government to utilize, when

you look at the regressive nature.

We had a discussion earlier about regressive and progressive taxes. It’s

very clear, when it comes to the MSP, how regressive it was and the challenges

that that created. Whether you made $50,000 or whether you made $500,000, you,

in fact, paid the same in MSP premiums — a very difficult tax from that

perspective but also a very difficult tax to be able to administer.

I heard that from employees and empl