Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 102

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Election Amendment Act, 2018

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Barrita Durward and work of Sweet Smiles Society

E. Foster

Junior Achievement B.C.

M. Dean

Cowboys and ranching heritage

D. Barnett

Flood preparedness

J. Rice

Engineers and geoscientists

R. Sultan

Safety in agriculture and ranching industry

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Budget revenue projections and employer health tax

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Budget revenue projections and real estate speculation tax

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

Real estate speculation tax

A. Olsen

Hon. C. James

2026 FIFA World Cup bid

J. Johal

Hon. L. Beare

Impact of employer health tax on school districts

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

Impact of employer health tax on health authorities

M. Bernier

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on post-secondary institutions

M. Lee

Hon. C. James

Budget revenue projections and employer health tax

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Air ambulance fee for wildfire evacuee

D. Barnett

Hon. A. Dix

Petitions

T. Wat

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 (continued)

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

T. Shypitka

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I am very happy to be able to introduce to the House someone that is

very well known to pretty much everybody here — a colleague, a very good

friend of mine and, in my opinion, the best MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam. I

would like the House to welcome my friend, our colleague Linda

Reimer.

Hon. S. Fraser: It seems to be the way of things. I’m missing an important occasion at

home. I want to say happy birthday, Dolores. I love you.

Hon. G. Heyman: I hope the House will join me in welcoming three guests from Clean

Energy B.C. who are joining us today and will be in the precinct throughout

the day, meeting with members and hosting a lunch: Jae Mather, from Clean

Energy B.C.; Bryan MacLeod; and Pamela Dawson. Please join me in making them

very, very welcome.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of friends of mine

that are in the gallery here today.

First, Mr. Brett Uphill. He’s a firefighter from Local 2827, from

Fernie. An interesting factoid is that Brett’s great-grandfather is the

famous, late, great Thomas Uphill, who was the longest-running MLA in the

Legislature — for 40 years. Second of all, Gregory Green, who is from the

Cranbrook local, 1253.

Now, the B.C. firefighters are in Victoria to discuss with government

issues concerning operational mental health injuries and issues in regards

to long-term exposure to toxins and chemicals due to modern fires, and to

honour our fallen member, Clayton Murrell. We did a little bit of respect

for him last night as well.

Would the House please welcome Gregory and Brett.

C. Oakes: I, too, would like to welcome the B.C. firefighters today and to say

thank you on behalf of the colleagues from Cariboo and Fraser-Nicola. It’s

great to live in a province that when something happens such as the 2017

wildfire season, we know that we have men and women from across this

province to come to our aid and support. Thank you from the bottom of our

hearts.

B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased today to introduce students from the Garibaldi high

school robotics club. They are competing in the first robotics competition

this week. They’re all wearing red up in the gallery. The students are Anna

Patti, Amy Ehlert, Jacob Huska, Trevor Fox, Greg Adams, Shannon Lebay, Jay

Jang, Jacob Dusell and teacher Niko Skartvedt.

I just wanted to say there’s a number of those students that are also

in the school band program, which is a great example of how our future

creative economy will work between science and art. Thank you so much, and

please make these students welcome.

L. Throness: I had the privilege today of meeting with three brave firefighters

from Chilliwack. I’d like to thank them for coming. There’s Greg Zutter is a

personal friend, and he’s lieutenant of training in Chilliwack; Ross Trout,

who is president of Local 2826; and Dave Sawer, who’s secretary of Local

2826. Could we welcome them please.

[10:10 a.m.]

T. Shypitka: I would be remiss…. I forgot Mr. Justin Bettcher, who’s also from

Cranbrook Local 1253. Please welcome him to the House.

Sorry, Justin.

Hon. H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure…. I know that all of you, or most

of you, were there last night. One of the best receptions that anybody could

put on is by the B.C. Professional Firefighters. They were there yesterday.

They are here today. They’re here to educate us about the dangers of their

job and how they are going about protecting us when they are putting

themselves in danger in many ways.

I just want to say to them, on behalf of the entire House here: thank

you. Thank you for doing such a fantastic job, because you are the key

people out there. That’s what British Columbia is all about: helping each

other, even when we are putting our own lives on the line. Thank you very

much, B.C. Professional Firefighters.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Ashley Louie, who’s in the

gallery today. Ashley was a student of mine when I taught at Dwight. She was

in my adviser group.

Every morning Ashley would arrive at school, and we’d gather in

adviser group. She was always cheerful, always smiling and always laughing.

She brought joy to school every day, and she arrived today with the same

smile and bright cheer. She’s currently studying child and youth care at

Vancouver Island University, and I’m absolutely delighted she’s here. Please

make her feel welcome.

D. Davies: It gives me pleasure to welcome a couple of guests here today, both

representing IAFF Local 2143 from Fort St. John — Chris Austin, who shares

the same barber as I do; and Aaron Tjepkema. Please make them feel

welcome.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to be welcoming students and teachers from the high

school Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington — a

number of students, two classes. They’re led by the very able Bonnie

Burnell, who teaches social studies, and Mr. Auton Lum. They’re accompanied

also by Mr. Nick Akrap, retired teacher Gina Main and assistant teacher

Shauna Mathieson.

Congratulations to…. They have a great sports program at Tupper, and

the boys’ team placed fifth in the province. They’re just a terrific school

that really embraces diversity. I ask everybody to please give them a very

warm welcome.

T. Redies: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Dylan Van Rooyen, who’s

with the White Rock and Surrey fire associations. They do a great job for us

in our riding. They have lots of charity events to raise money for great

causes. It also gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the White Rock

firefighters who went to fight the fires in the Interior of B.C. this summer

and who showed great bravery and courage in doing that. Please welcome Mr.

Dylan Van Rooyen to the House.

B. Stewart: I’d like to welcome to the precinct two of West Kelowna’s finest

firefighters, Trevor Bredin and Nathan Pike, who joined us last night at the

reception. They’re here today to talk more about firefighting in a community

that has fought its fair share of forest fire interactions in the last ten

years of its establishment. I appreciate them being here today to share that

with me.

M. Dean: Today in the gallery, we have Brita Harrison Brooke. She’s with us

from Junior Achievement B.C. Would the House please make her very

welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: There are two stellar firefighters from Port Alberni visiting us in

the precinct today, Ben Halychuk and Jason Roberts. Would the House please

make them feel very, very welcome.

B. Ma: I would be remiss if I did not note that we have several firefighters

from North Vancouver with us today. I don’t know if they’re in the gallery,

because I can’t see all the way behind me, but we have at least five

firefighters from the district of North Vancouver and the city of North

Vancouver. They and their team keep us all very safe out there on the North

Shore, and I’m very grateful to them. Would the House please join me in

making them feel welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Today is a day that I feel very, very safe in the Legislature with all

of the firefighters that have been introduced today. I would like to add two

from the Salt Spring Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 4467, Mr. Warren

Nuyens and Mitchell Sherrin. Please, would this House make them feel

welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me pleasure to introduce our Burnaby firefighters. We met

with them last night — Paul, Scott, Jeff and Miles. They’re all very

hard-working people. Through their charity, Burnaby Fire Fighters Charitable

Society, they have done such a wonderful job in the last many, many years

helping people and helping kids in the schools. I want to say thank you so

much for all the work they are doing in Burnaby. Please join me to welcome

my Burnaby firefighters.

Hon. M. Mungall: We have a few guests in the House from Clean Energy B.C. We have Jae

Mather, Bryan MacLeod and Pamela Dawson, who’s also the vice-president of

SRE Hydro Canada. May the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m delighted today to introduce two staff from my ministry, Ronda

Richardson and Chris Hauff. Chris is the new MCIO, and Ronda is a senior

business consultant, and both hail from our corporate services branch. May I

ask that you all make them very welcome into this House.

I would also like to add my welcome to the amazing firefighters here

from Surrey, B.C.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to welcome today two of the firefighters from Maple Ridge. We

have Chris McKee and Dave Harcus in the House, and I ask that the members

please make them feel very welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, would add my welcome to International Association of Fire

Fighters 1286. Cory Parker and his colleagues do an outstanding job on

behalf of the city of Richmond. We’re ever so delighted they’re here, and we

appreciate the opportunity to meet with them later today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M205 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act,

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill that, if enacted,

would lower the voting age to 16 in British Columbia.

The voting age in British Columbia was not always 18. Federally it

wasn’t until 1970 that the Canada Elections Act was amended to drop the

voting age from 21 to 18. In British Columbia we made the jump in two

steps. First, in 1952 we dropped the voting age from 21 to 19, but it

wasn’t until 1992 that we made the subsequent change to lower the age to

Around the world, more and more jurisdictions are openly

discussing the notion of dropping the voting age to 16, and, in fact, a

growing number have actually done so. Austria, Argentina, Brazil,

Germany and Scotland are but a few of the jurisdictions that have

extended voting rights to 16-year-olds. There’s ample evidence to

suggest that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the

more likely they are to develop voting as a habit throughout their

lifetime.

Sadly, in the 2017 election, only 56 percent of youth aged 18 to

24 and only 46 percent of young adults aged 25 to 34 voted here in

British Columbia. Compare that to the provincial average of 61 percent

and to the 75 percent of seniors aged 65 to 74 who voted. It’s also a

common misconception that 16-years-old are not as informed and engaged

in political issues as older voters. The research, however, says

otherwise.

Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are old enough to drive, pay taxes, get

married and sign up for the military. They should have a say in the

direction our province is heading as they ultimately inherit what we

leave behind.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205, Election Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[10:20 a.m.]

D. Davies: I move that a bill intituled Electoral Districts Renaming

Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Mr. Speaker: Member, it’s not on the order paper yet.

D. Davies: All right, hon. Speaker. We will get this sorted out. Thank

you.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BARRITA DURWARD

AND WORK OF SWEET SMILES

SOCIETY

E. Foster: I rise today to talk about an individual in my riding and the

society that she formed. The Sweet Smiles Society is a non-profit

operating in Canada and Mexico that aims to relieve poverty by providing

the basic necessities of life, including clean water, food, clothing and

shelter to abused and needy children.

Barrita Durward, president of the Sweet Smiles Society, founded it

nine years ago after she returned from a trip to a orphanage in Cozumel,

Mexico. The society is composed of individuals who donate their time and

skills to help children and families who are less fortunate. To date,

our community has helped the Sweet Smiles Society raise approximately

$215,000.

In Mexico, Sweet Smiles currently assists three orphanages, City

of Angels in Cozumel as well as one in Puerto Vallarta and one in

Bonneville. These orphanages provide a safe and healthy environment for

children, many of whom have lived a life of abuse and

abandonment.

Barrita travels to Mexico three times a year with groups of around

12 people at a time to help with construction projects at the

orphanages. Construction trips have been attended by volunteers as old

as 78 and as young as ten. They are currently working on a new project

for family preservation — orphanage prevention — in Mexico. It aims to

help rebuild self-worth and value within local families to keep them

together.

Locals are entitled to land grants from the government. However,

due to poverty for most of the residents, building a home on this land

is not feasible. Countless volunteer hours and $29,000 later, Sweet

Smiles Society has just finished building the second home for this new

project.

It should also be noted that Barrita and her volunteers pay their

own way on these trips. All funds raised go to the project. I want to

say a very big thank you to Barrita Durward, who has given a tremendous

amount of her own time and her own money to make this project a

success.

JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT B.C.

M. Dean: Junior Achievement British Columbia provides youth in our province

with the skills to make better financial decisions, start a company,

develop a career plan and express their innovative spirit. This

international, non-profit organization provides business training

programs to schools, delivered by volunteers from local business

groups.

In my constituency, grade 8 students at Rockheights Middle School

have been participating in JABC’s Dollars with Sense program. The

program provides students with personal money management skills and

challenges them to apply these concepts in their own lives. At École

Victor Brodeur, students in grade 8 are gaining a hands-on learning

experience running their own retail stand.

The Business of Our Own program helps students identify the key

success factors needed to turn personal and team performance into

profit. Grade 10 and 11 students are participating in Economics for

Success, which helps them to plan their own education and career

path.

Over the last ten years, JABC has inspired and prepared thousands

of B.C. youth. This forward-thinking organization is going to extend its

program to serve Indigenous communities in partnership with First Nation

leaders. JABC now has programs in 56 of the province’s 60 school

districts and, for 12 years, has been working in cooperation with the

B.C. government.

Please join me in recognizing and thanking all of those who

contribute their time and energy to Junior Achievement British

Columbia.

COWBOYS AND RANCHING HERITAGE

D. Barnett: When we think of cowboys, the Hollywood image tends to whitewash

over their actual contribution to building our province. Cowboys are a

true part of the historical landscape of British Columbia. Ever since

the first herd of cattle was driven through the mountains, there have

been cowboys.

[10:25 a.m.]

I would therefore like to take a moment to bring attention and

thanks to our cowboys. This week is B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week. They’re

an important part of our history, and I work every day in this House to

ensure they are part of our future.

They used to struggle against bandits, plagues and coyotes, but

that has since been replaced with changing and uncertain economic and

environmental conditions. While the challenges may seem more difficult,

cowboys and ranchers are still a pretty resilient breed.

This year we are honouring two exceptional British Columbians into

the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame. Lois Tucker Daling is being honoured in

the category of working cowboy, and Ken Fawcett is being added in the

category of ranching pioneer.

The history of cowboys in British Columbia is the story of

collaboration, hard work and community. Early settlers worked alongside

Indigenous horsemen, and it is said that early British Columbia cowboys

first herd of cattle crossed into B.C. from Oregon in the mid-1800s and

never left.

B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week is an opportunity to understand how the

ranching community continues to provide our province with an important

food source while continuing to take care of the land. That is why it is

important to recognize cowboys as an important part of our future as

well as our history.

FLOOD PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: Spring flooding last year forced more than 2,500 British

Columbians from their homes and threatened thousands more with

evacuation alerts. Almost a year later some communities are still

recovering. As we move out of what has been a long, wet and snowy

winter, we once again need to pay heed to the potential perils of the

coming spring season. This winter has brought high snowpack levels to

parts of B.C., and while this does not necessarily foreshadow an active

flood year, wildfire sites in the Cariboo, central and southeast regions

of the province are being evaluated for potential hazards.

Wildfire-affected areas tend to be vulnerable to flooding, so we

are installing culverts to protect roads and building berms to direct

water away from homes and other valuable infrastructure. Emergency

management B.C. is also investing in flood risk mitigation. In February,

the governments of Canada and British Columbia announced funding for 30

flood-related projects through the natural disaster mitigation program.

These risk assessments, flood-mapping projects and mitigation

initiatives are valued at over $12 million.

We can, and I hope MLAs here will, take every opportunity to

reinforce the importance of flood preparedness with our friends and

neighbours, encouraging them to develop a household emergency plan, to

put together emergency kits and to prepare their homes for the threat of

flooding. If living near a waterway, it’s important to recognize the

warning signs, and all British Columbians can stay safe by keeping their

distance from the water when flooding does occur. Six inches of

fast-moving water is enough to knock over an adult, and two feet can

wash away most vehicles.

With the spring freshet soon upon us, join me in spreading the

word about flood preparedness. There is a wealth of information online

on the PreparedB.C. website. You can visit that site at

gov.bc.ca/preparedbc.

ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS

R. Sultan: March is engineers and geoscientists month. I’m proud to be one.

So are two other members of this Legislature. You can recognize us by

our iron rings. Legend has it that the iron came from the remains of the

Quebec Bridge. The longest cantilevered span in the world when it was

built, it took three tries. It kept collapsing, but the engineers

finally got it right.

That’s why, under the governing act of this Legislature, the first

duty of the Association of Engineers and Geoscientists is protection of

the public. This requires a massive job of admissions, continuing

professional development, disciplining and even expulsion.

[10:30 a.m.]

They do a good job. B.C.’s engineering competence is recognized

all over the world.

B.C. geoscientists have also had their issues — Bre-X comes to

mind — but our geologists are globally recognized as the most competent

you will find anywhere. So let’s salute our engineers and geoscientists

for being the world leaders they are.

My university engineering student buddy Keith Pople was laid to

rest on Sunday. At church, in the guest log, opposite my name, I wrote

our UBC chant: “We are, we are, we are the engineers.”

SAFETY IN AGRICULTURE

AND RANCHING

INDUSTRY

R. Leonard: Did you know that agricultural workers had a higher injury rate

than the provincial average and double the average for serious injury?

Work-related fatalities are a real risk too, especially around farm

equipment. Farming can be a dangerous occupation for producers, workers

and their families. I’m speaking of agriculture because this week is

Canadian Agricultural Safety Week.

Consider ranching. A young worker enthused and full of that sense

of invincibility that comes with youth or the 70-year-old head of the

family ranch with so many years on the job he can do it in his sleep,

working alone out on the back forty, miles in from the last dirt road,

using farm equipment, driving tractors and other vehicles and handling

livestock.

A disproportionate number of WorkSafe B.C. claims come from

ranching. Working on a ranch or any of the nearly 30 sectors of farming

doesn’t have to be so risky. There are ways to reduce the chances of

injury and death. WorkSafe B.C. works with industry associations and

other stakeholder groups. The focus for 2018 is on working in confined

spaces, tractor safety, training for those new and young workers, use

and storage of pesticides, mushroom composting and vehicle safety. They

are on the ground with 15 prevention officers dedicated to

agriculture.

The Canadian Agricultural Safety Association and Canadian

Federation of Agriculture are highlighting seniors risk management this

year, making physical changes to the working environment, like adding

more lighting to workspaces, rollbars to tractors, practising planned

communications with the farm team and modifying the work to match their

body’s changing capacity.

These kinds of improvements help everyone. I feel better biting

into my mushroom burger knowing that those who made it possible are

working in the safest conditions possible.

Oral Questions

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

AND EMPLOYER HEALTH

TAX

A. Wilkinson: Three weeks ago today we had a budget, the first full budget from

this new government, and of course, we saw a whole series of revenue

projections in that budget. In the intervening three weeks, we’ve seen

the Premier and the Finance Minister make up variations on that budget,

on the fly, in the front of media scrums.

We have to ask at this point, given that British Columbia’s

credibility as a financial jurisdiction is on the line: does the Premier

stand by his revenue predictions on page 8 of the budget, given his

tendency and that of his Finance Minister to fiddle with them on the

fly?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the question today from the Leader of the Official

Opposition. I, of course, do stand beside the Minister of Finance and

the best budget that’s been delivered in this place in 16

years.

Although I’m not wont to refer to polls, I see that Insights West

did a survey, and 81 percent of those surveyed supported the budget, so

they’re in good company.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to hear that the Premier thinks that public opinion polls

are going to convince our creditors that they should extend us the kind

of credit we need to run this operation. He may be in for a rude

surprise when he goes to visit the bankers and they give him a little

lesson in economics.

[10:35 a.m.]

On February 28, the Premier committed that the Finance Minister

would “ensure that non-profits and the government agencies are kept

whole as we go forward.” Now we’ve learned since then that the BCTF has

come out and said there’s a $70 million hole in the budget to cover the

employers health tax for teachers. There’ll be another $70 million hole

in the budget from the university and college sector that the Minister

of Advanced Education seems to be completely indifferent to.

Page 74 of the budget provides a detailed explanation of these

projected revenues, but it says nowhere, anywhere in the document, that

there’ll be exemptions on the scale that we’re hearing about. Will the

Premier stand here today and say there will be exemptions for the

non-profit sector, universities, colleges, hospitals and teachers or

not?

Hon. J. Horgan: It is interesting — it’s, in fact, passing strange — that those on

the other side of the House would talk about doing things on the fly.

While they were fiddling, ICBC was burning in a dumpster.

After 16 years of doubling MSP premiums, we’re going to be getting

rid of MSP premiums on this side of the House. After 16 years of

downloading costs onto school boards, onto hospitals, onto just about

everyone they could get their hands on except the top 2 percent, we’re

going to turn that around.

We’re going to make sure that we’re investing in education. We’re

going to invest in public services for people. That’s why 81 percent of

those surveyed said this was a good budget, because it spoke to the

issues that matter to the people, not to the people that that member

represents.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I think we see the colours of this government coming

out.

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: They giggle, but what we just heard from the Premier is the people

I represent are somehow not legitimate British Columbians. Perhaps the

people in Vancouver–Point Grey aren’t really in the calculus of the

Premier because they’re well off and he doesn’t care about them. Perhaps

that’s the plan of this government — to create divisions within our

society by handing money to people and blaming others for the

problems.

Let’s just think about this gallery of firefighters. Are they

going to be exempt from the employers health tax? Or perhaps their

organizations, representing thousands of brave men and women keeping us

safe, will be told that they aren’t going to be exempt.

The Finance Minister has been saying that all of the necessary

information is in the budget documents. Then she turned around yesterday

and repeatedly told this House the details will come out as we go along.

We have two great big looming holes in this budget with the exemptions

to the employers health tax and the unknown status of the speculation

tax.

Will this Premier stand here today and say that the projected

revenue from the speculation tax will be $487 million, or is that

subject to change?

Hon. J. Horgan: Had the members on the other side been paying attention on budget

day — not in private, but in a room full of journalists and a room full

of other individuals — the Minister of Finance said the details will

follow with respect to a 30-point plan to address the housing crisis

that that side of the House slept through between 2014 and

Now, I appreciate that those on the other side of the House would

prefer to divide British Columbians. On this side of the House, we want

to unite them, and there’s unity on this one question — that we need to

get speculation out of the marketplace.

That’s the intention of this budget. That’s what we set out to do.

The Minister of Finance is doing exactly what she said when she tabled

the budget. We’re listening to British Columbians, and we’re going to

bring forward solutions this fall — I hope the members will be here for

that — to put them into law. That’s what we said we’re going to do.

That’s what we’re going to do.

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

AND REAL ESTATE SPECULATION

TAX

S. Bond: Well, let’s take a look at page 8 of the budget. It includes

projected revenue from the so-called speculation tax of $87 million for

the current fiscal year, $200 million for each of the following two

years. The minister’s own tax information sheet confirms that British

Columbians will be captured by the tax.

To the Minister of Finance, how much will the government lose in

revenue if they don’t tax the cabins of British Columbia

families?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: It is no surprise to me that we continue to hear from the members

on the other side that they don’t support a speculation tax. They don’t

support affordability in housing for British Columbians. They ignored

the issue for 16 years, so no surprise to me that they would stand up

against a speculation tax and against affordable housing.

I want to read from just a couple of people who have brought

forward some ideas and have sent in letters. Beverly, for example, from

Kelowna says: “The speculation tax is necessary because of the zero

percent vacancy rate in B.C. If people rented out their second homes,

then that would save money and we would be able to find a place to live.

With the speculation tax, you’re looking after regular B.C. citizens who

couldn’t even dream of owning one home and can’t afford current rents in

Kelowna.”

We are supporting affordability. The details will be out on the

speculation tax. We are going to make sure that we address the housing

crisis that the other side completely ignored.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: We should be perfectly clear about what we don’t support, and that

is taxing British Columbians who’ve had cabins in their families for

generations. Let’s try it again, Minister.

Apparently, the minister doesn’t know the answer to that question,

because she keeps making up details every single day. Recently she

reassured her colleague the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan: “The tax

introduced in the budget will be tweaked.”

Again, to the Minister of Finance: will her promised tweaks impact

the revenue projections that are on page 8 of the budget she

tabled?

Hon. C. James: I will go through, again, the details for the member. I announced

on budget day a speculation tax as part of a 30-point, expansive,

comprehensive housing strategy for British Columbia. There is no

question. This is a bold move. This is a bold tax. It is a new

tax.

We are, as I said on budget day, taking the time to make sure we

implement it, taking the time to listen to British Columbians, making

sure that we implement this well. Legislation will come in the fall.

More details will come later in the spring. Stay tuned,

Member.

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

A. Olsen: We need to take strong action on tackling the housing crisis

gripping Vancouver and spreading across other parts of our province as

well. We need to protect the future of young people in our cities. We

need to target what’s really driving this crisis.

I agree with the Premier: we need to get speculation out of the

marketplace. But as we do this, the unintended consequences on the areas

that we didn’t intend to target must be minimized. I’ve heard loud and

clear that an unintended consequence of the speculation tax, as proposed

by this government, could be to hit areas like the Gulf Islands very

hard.

I’m very sympathetic to the complexity of the challenge that this

government has inherited. But the British Columbians who own vacation

homes are not speculators, and most importantly, they are not the

primary cause of the housing crisis. Applying the tools to address the

supply-and-demand aspects of the housing market on places like the Gulf

Islands is going to be very tricky.

My question is to the Minister of Finance: will the implementation

of this tax recognize the difference between Galiano, Mayne, Pender and

Saltspring Islands and places like Vancouver?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. Thank you for the support of the

speculation tax. I think it’s critical. I know that the housing plan for

the Greens actually called for a speculators tax that would “take the

form of an annual property tax surcharge targeted at absentee owners”

and “cover domestic speculators, such as residents of other provinces

who own property in B.C.”

I take the member’s point. We’ve been hearing, as I said, issues

that have come forward. We have included those. They have been on our

table as part of our implementation. We’ll be looking at all those

issues, and I appreciate the feedback from the member.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: Yes, that’s right. We did put forward a comprehensive policy that

included a flipping tax as well. I thank the minister for the answer,

and I’m glad to hear that the feedback will be taken. I welcome

it.

[10:45 a.m.]

It’s crucial that we get the implementation of this right. The

target of the speculation tax should not be the senior couple who owns a

vacation home on Mayne Island and stays there for several months of the

year. That’s been going on in the market for a very long time. The

target should be on the speculator who views our real estate as a place

to park capital and a place just for profit.

I’ve been hearing from individuals and from local governments with

concerns on the details of this tax. The government has got to be able

to create tools that recognize the diverse needs of different parts of

this province and more effectively deal with the crux of the

issue.

My question is to the Minister of Finance again. Being open to

feedback, will you take this a step further and reach out to the local

governments as you make changes to this policy, to ensure that their

voices are also being heard, and the needs of communities?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. Yes, I’ve been hearing from local

governments as well. So if there are others, I’m happy to do that

outreach. We’ve been hearing from a number of individuals, and they’ve

been providing their feedback around suggestions, around approaches. All

of that, as I said, has been on our table as part of the implementation

plan. So I appreciate it, and if there are other contacts that the

member wants to pass along, please feel free. This is our opportunity —

and details to come.

2026 FIFA WORLD CUP BID

J. Johal: Vancouver has been part of a united bid to have Canada, Mexico and

the U.S. jointly host the men’s 2026 FIFA World Cup. Can the Minister of

Tourism confirm the government has given direction that the bid be

abandoned?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. This is a hugely exciting

opportunity, obviously, with great potential benefits. But it also comes

with great potential risks. So we, as a government, are taking the time

to analyze those risks, and we will have more information

shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: In 2015, the economic benefit for B.C. alone of hosting the FIFA

Women’s World Cup was estimated to be about $118 million, all from an

initial investment of $2 million. However, the reports are that the

provincial government has pulled out of the bid for the men’s 2026 FIFA

World Cup. In fact, we have learned that the bid deadline was last

night.

Again, I ask the minister: can she confirm if the province

supports the bid, yes or no?

Hon. L. Beare: We are in close contact with the bid committee, and our team is

working closely with them. It’s extremely important that we recognize

that along with the opportunities for benefits, there’s great

opportunity for risk. We want to make sure that we protect B.C. and

protect B.C. taxpayers, and we’re taking the time to do that.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

D. Davies: The B.C. Teachers Federation is clear, very clear, that the

employer health tax will cost B.C. school boards an additional $70

million.

To the Minister of Education: is $70 million annually, to keep

school boards whole, reflected in the budget, yes or no?

Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the question. I think we’ve canvassed it well this

week, but I’m happy to answer it again. The reduction of the MSP this

year is giving savings, returned savings, to school districts in every

corner of British Columbia — 20 million additional dollars to spend on

learning resources in the classrooms of British Columbia.

That is on top of a record investment of 240 million new operating

dollars in the budget this year. Since the last full budget under that

government and our first full budget under this government, there is a

$550 million difference of new investment in classrooms in every part of

British Columbia. It’s a record budget of putting new investment in our

kids, in our future as a province, and it comes with a record investment

in school construction as well — the highest school capital budget in

B.C. history. Those are the facts of the budget.

[10:50 a.m.]

We are working with our school district partners on the transition

to the employer health tax. The numbers are coming in, from the B.C.

association of school board officials, which show that there may not be

any difference at all from the current regime to the new tax.

What we won’t apologize for is public policy to get rid of the

most regressive flat tax that any jurisdiction could imagine. We won’t

apologize for that. We’re getting rid of it. We’re putting money into

the pockets of moms and dads who take their kids to school every day,

because it’s good for the economy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: You’re right. We did canvass this quite a bit this week, but the

thing is, we never got an answer. We never got any direction on where

the government is going to go with this tax.

School boards are struggling to find what’s going to happen. Even

Patti Bacchus is calling on the Education Minister to act

quickly.

School boards are expecting the Premier to keep his promise that

they will be kept whole. Is the minister planning an exemption or a

refund to keep the school boards whole?

Hon. R. Fleming: I have to keep in mind that the group across the way that are

asking questions about the K-to-12 education system are the same group

that fought for 16 years to keep resources out of the classrooms. They

fought in the courts against teachers. They fought against support

staff. They downloaded hundreds of millions of dollars of costs onto

school boards and told them to go and figure out how they would pay for

it. They paid for it with cuts.

We’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the school

system. That’s why we have the lowest teacher-per-pupil ratio in the

province’s history right now. That’s why we have record sums of money in

the education system in British Columbia. We’re proud of that. That’s

part of Budget 2018, and the member just doesn’t seem to get

it.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON HEALTH

AUTHORITIES

M. Bernier: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost Interior Health an extra

$3.3 million annually. The Provincial Health Authority, the Vancouver

Island Health Authority, Vancouver Coastal, Fraser Health and Northern

Health all face similar challenges — higher, ongoing, additional new

taxes.

To the Minister of Finance, and I assume this research was done:

what is the total additional cost of the employer health tax for these

health authorities?

Hon. C. James: I would remind the member, as we talked about with education, that

there’s a 50 percent saving of MSP premiums in this year, as of January

1. There will be elimination of MSP premiums in 2020, and there are huge

investments in health care that are in this budget, including support

for families when it comes to PharmaCare, reducing costs for families

who can’t afford medication, including support for seniors.

We are ensuring that we are getting rid of a regressive tax. We

are bringing in the resources to invest in health care, which supports

not only the health authorities but supports all British Columbians who

need health care in our province.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: I’ll remind the minister of her own words: that they were

replacing, not eliminating, MSP with a new tax. This is a higher

tax.

I’ll take it from the minister’s last response that she’s either

unable or unwilling to actually answer my question on how many millions

and millions of dollars this is going to cost the health authorities.

I’ll also remind the minister that the Premier said that they would be

“kept whole.”

With that commitment, to the minister, is she planning on an

exemption or a refund to keep health authorities whole?

Hon. C. James: We are going to continue to invest in health care in British

Columbia and supporting seniors and supporting families by eliminating

the MSP premiums.

[10:55 a.m.]

I want to remind the member with a few quotes from individuals who

have written in to us. Reema from Pitt Meadows, for example, wrote to

say that her family is working hard to get ahead. By eliminating the

unfair MSP premiums, they’re going to save money for their son’s

education. Diane from West Vancouver, 70 years old, says that MSP

premiums are going to make all the difference in her life to be able to

afford her prescription medications. Lucia from downtown Vancouver, 28

years old, working full-time. She’ll save $900 a year. She says: “The

MSP cuts make life more affordable for me, and anytime I save money, it

goes towards paying my rent.”

We are eliminating the MSP premiums. We are bringing in an

employers health tax. We have a year’s transition to continue

discussions with groups and organizations in our province, and we will

make sure that affordability is there for families.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON POST-SECONDARY

INSTITUTIONS

M. Lee: The employer health tax on the University of British Columbia will

be an estimated $23 million next year, plus MSP. This is just one of the

more than three dozen post-secondary institutions throughout our

province that face a significantly larger tax bill as a result of

replacing the MSP with a new, higher NDP tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: what is the total

estimated additional cost of the employer health tax for all of the

post-secondary institutions in British Columbia?

Hon. C. James: As I said to the previous questioner, we are implementing the

employers health tax January 1, 2019. We have given a year’s transition

so that we can make sure that the implementation is done well. We’ll be

having discussions — as we are with school boards, as we are with health

authorities, we will with post-secondary institutions.

I can tell you that the students and others who attend those

post-secondary institutions are thrilled at seeing MSP eliminated,

thrilled at getting rid of a regressive tax. I can also assure the

member that when you look at the investments we are putting into

post-secondary education to ensure that students, former children in

care, can get to school, expanding opportunities for engineering in our

universities and colleges…. Those are exactly the investments British

Columbians have been asking for, and those are the ones we’re going to

deliver on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: Well, I continue to get the impression that there has been no

assessment as to what the total impact on post-secondary institutions

will be for the employer health tax. Students don’t pay the MSP.

Students pay tuition. There are questions, serious questions, that need

to be asked about what the impact will be of this new tax for

post-secondary institutions and our students.

The Premier has committed that organizations will be kept whole.

Is the minister planning an exemption or a refund to keep the

post-secondary sector whole?

Hon. C. James: Well, coming from that side of the House that doubled tuition

during the 16 years that they were in — and now you care? Now you say

you care? I’m sorry, but now it’s too late. It’s too late. You proved by

doubling tuition that you didn’t care about students, and students know

that.

I want to read a quote from John from Maple Ridge. With the

hundreds of dollars he’s saving thanks to the elimination of MSP

premiums, he is going to help his daughter pay for school. That’s

exactly what we want to support.

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

AND EMPLOYER HEALTH

TAX

T. Redies: Three-year revenue projections for both the employer health tax

and the so-called speculation tax mean nothing when the Minister of

Finance will only give details as we go along. The minister either has

no idea or is refusing to come clean on what it will cost to keep

non-profits and public agencies whole, as the Premier promised. How can

the minister possibly stand in this House and state that her revenue

projections are still accurate?

Hon. C. James: Again, let’s remind everyone in this House. The province knows

this; families know this, because they’ve already starting seeing the

benefit, as of January 1, when they see their savings: that eliminating

the MSP will save hard-working British Columbians $2.6 billion a

year.

[11:00 a.m.]

As other provinces have done, we are bringing in an employers

health tax. This is the lowest employers health tax rate in the country.

We will ensure we provide support for health care and other programs and

services that families rely on, and families will have money in their

pocket that they haven’t seen in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: School boards, health authorities, charities and universities all

face a significant, ongoing gap between the previous MSP and the new NDP

employer health tax. That’s a fact. The minister promises that details

will be discussed at a later date, and the Premier claims everyone will

be kept whole.

This bogus budget doesn’t add up. How can British Columbians trust

the minister’s numbers?

Hon. C. James: Well, we are the last province in the country that still has MSP

premiums — the last province in the country. Yes, in our budget, we’ve

decided we are taking a bold step. We are getting rid of MSP premiums

and supporting families with savings. Yes, we are bringing in, as other

provinces have done, an employers health tax. We have the lowest rate in

this country. It will bring in the resources needed.

I would ask the member across the way. I would ask all the members

on the other side: are you suggesting that we leave MSP premiums in

place? I know that’s what your government did. I know that’s what the

other side did — double them. Perhaps that’s the solution the other side

would like to propose — that we leave MSP premiums in place or cut child

care or support programs?

We’re investing in people, we’re investing in affordability, and

we’re going to continue to do that.

AIR AMBULANCE FEE FOR

WILDFIRE

EVACUEE

D. Barnett: Last week I asked the Minister of Health about my 90-year-old

constituent Rudolf Dunst, who wrote to the minister last year. Mr. Dunst

was air-lifted to Vancouver for emergency heart surgery following his

evacuation from the wildfires last summer and has since been billed

$20,000 for the flight. On March 1, the minister said he would be

reviewing it with Mr. Dunst and his family. But my constituent still has

no answer.

The question is simple. Will the minister pay Mr. Dunst’s

bill?

Hon. A. Dix: The member is an experienced member in this House and knows that

the details of health cases are not a subject for debate in the

Legislature. We take these issues seriously.

The one thing I would say is this, and the members opposite know

this. Nothing has changed with respect to reimbursement of ambulance

services in a long time. The policies that she is questioning in the

House were in place for 16 years under the previous government and for

years before that under other governments.

What we’re doing — what I’m doing, because I’ve committed to doing

this for the member and because there are circumstances in this matter —

is reviewing the case to see whether there is a possibility to make a

change to allow us to deal with the concerns of Mr. Dunst. But I’m not

going to debate that here in the Legislature.

I think this is serious matter. It’s a serious matter for the

family, a serious matter for the region and a serious matter for the

member. If we are going to, in fact, find exceptions to rules, they have

to be done in a coherent way. With a generous heart, yes, but in a

coherent way, if we’re going to change practice that was in place the

entire time that the other side was government in this House and before

that, as well, in previous governments. That’s why we’re taking the

matter seriously, and that’s what the review intends.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

T. Wat: I would like to present a petition from the businesses and merchants

from Pacific Plaza in my riding of Richmond North Centre to the Premier and

to this House urging this government to follow through on their election

commitment to build a new acute tower in Richmond.

[11:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on committee stage of Bill 2, and

in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Education, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of

Environment.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

section 74 (continued) .

Hon. C. James: I’ll just introduce the staff I have with me this morning: Richard

Purnell, acting director of tax policy; Jordan Goss, executive director

of the consumer tax programs branch, revenue division; and Duncan

Jillings, director of property tax as well.

We have some of the responses from yesterday, some of the

information that I said we’d try and get. If it’s reasonable for the

member, we could start there with some of the information. Then I know

the member had asked, as well, that we just reiterate, from

section 72

on, the specifics of the luxury vehicle tax.

If it’s reasonable for the members, I’ll start with the

information that was asked for yesterday.

S. Bond: I think, if it works for the minister, we’d rather see that

information in writing. There’s no point in taking a lot of House time

to go through all those items, so we’re happy to have it presented to

us. However, we do want to work through the clarification that we feel

is necessary.

[11:10 a.m.]

With the indulgence of the Chair, it does cover a number of

sections, because the minister has, in various sections, outlined the

tax brackets, both current and future, for luxury vehicles, passenger

vehicles. At no time did she reference 12 percent,

whereas the document

in front of us actually talks about 12 percent.

So if we could start with those sections, clarify the 12 percent,

and then receive the information that we asked for in writing, that

would be most helpful.

Hon. C. James: I’ll do the overview, because it applies to all sections. Then, if

the members want us to go through individual sections and double-check

on individual sections, happy to do that. We did raise the 12 percent in

different sections, but I understand we had a lot of sections to go

through yesterday, so happy to provide that clarification.

For the members, the 12 percent applies to private sales and gifts

where they are private. So they don’t come through a dealership. That’s

12 percent. It’s the current rate. That’s not changing.

On dealership sales, leases or gifts — if they come through a

dealer — 7 percent for passenger vehicles valued at less than $55,000; 8

percent for passenger vehicles valued at $55,000 or more, but less than

$56,000; 9 percent for passenger vehicles valued at $56,000 or more, but

less than $57,000; and 10 percent for passenger vehicles valued at

$57,000 or more. Those are the existing.

The new rates apply to vehicles valued at $125,000 or more, and

apply to both vehicles acquired privately and to vehicles acquired from

dealerships. Those rates, again, are 15 percent for passenger vehicles

valued at $125,000 or more, but less than $150,000, and 20 percent for

passenger vehicles valued at $150,000 or more.

S. Bond: We appreciate that clarification. I know my co-critic will have a

further question on

section 74.

I just want the opportunity, though, to also confirm, because it’s

important, that that tax revenue — the taxes generated from the

increases to passenger vehicles that have been outlined for

us….

I’m wondering. I’m sure the minister will want to confirm that

these taxes will be going into general revenue, I’m assuming. That would

obviously help to offset things like a bid for the FIFA World Cup, as an

example. That might be one of the examples, or perhaps that’s a moot

point at this point in time. Perhaps the minister could clarify where

this money is going.

Hon. C. James: The member is correct, general revenue.

T. Redies: Back to

section 74, I’m still confused as to why it says vehicles

less than $125,000 will be charged 12 percent tax. It seems to me that

there’s something missing there, if you were trying to ensure that

vehicles under $57,000 were not going to be taxed at an additional

amount.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is not a new provision. This is an existing provision: “12%

of the fair market value of the passenger vehicle on the entry date…if

the fair market value is less than $125 000….” This relates, as I

mentioned before, to private sales.

The

section below is related to dealer sales. That’s the

difference between the two. The top is related to private sales, and as

I mentioned earlier around the 12 percent, that’s there. The list below

is for dealer sales.

T. Redies: I’m sure you can appreciate, Minister, that this is very

confusing. And if it is private sales versus another category, I would

think that it should be spelled out better in the language in this

document. I think it is very confusing, certainly from my

perspective.

I guess one of the other questions I wanted to ask is: what are

you basing the attribution of value to the tax? Is it based on the

original purchase price, the fair market value? And what happens when

vehicles arrive in B.C.?

Hon. C. James: This

section talks about gifts. It talks about the date of entry,

so fair market value would be…. That’s the use, its fair market value.

Fair market value would be what you get on an open market on the date of

entry of the vehicle. So if it’s a ten-year-old vehicle, it would be

what the fair market value would be for that ten-year-old vehicle on the

date of entry, when it came in.

T. Redies: Would that be established by the black book value? Is that how it

would be established?

Hon. C. James: We use gold book in British Columbia, apparently — black book, but

similar and exactly the same kind of process — and takes into account

the value, the wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.

Section 74 approved.

section 75.

S. Bond: I just want to highlight and support the comments made by my

colleague. You know, these sections are very confusing. There is

language that I think, over time, we need to sort out. I can imagine if

we’ve spent a lot of time trying to sort this out…. I can’t imagine the

average British Columbian will be spending a lot of time doing

that.

Perhaps in the interest of time and getting on to the next

sections…. In

section 75, the reference is to leased vehicles, vehicles

that are leased outside of British Columbia. I’m assuming the minister

can just confirm that the details provided regarding the 10, 15 and 20

percent in terms of the current tax brackets and the new ones are

identical to what she has reflected in other sections.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct, Member.

Sections 75 to 78 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 79 pass?

Interjection.

section 79.

S. Bond: Thanks to the enthusiasm of the Minister of Health. It was a nice

try, but no, there are some questions on

section 79.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I know. You were most helpful to your colleague.

This is where we were starting to talk about the on-line

accommodation platform. I’m assuming this is linked to the government’s

initiative around looking at things like Airbnb and collecting taxes and

using that, the revenue there, to support a housing strategy. Could the

minister tell me the purpose behind enabling an operator of an on-line

accommodation platform to apply to register as a collector? Is there no

automatic requirement for them to do so? If the minister could explain

the expectations of those on-line operators.

Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. This continues on…. There are a few

sections, as the member knows, related to on-line accommodation

platforms. Currently the Provincial Sales Tax Act cannot require

businesses that are located outside Canada to register to collect tax,

except under very specific conditions — for example, the inventory of

the business is held in British Columbia. That would be a specific

condition where we could require someone….

What this change does is it provides the legislative authority for

businesses located outside of Canada to voluntarily collect the tax. So

the requirement now…. As I said, within the tax act, we can’t require

them to do that. This gives us the legislative authority for businesses

located outside of Canada to voluntarily register — which is what Airbnb

has done, for example — which is why this change is coming

forward.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In light of the

direction that the government has decided to take here, can the minister

articulate for us exactly how this process, obviously being enabled

here, changes the circumstances for a person who has a condo that they

are going to offer for use? Can the minister walk through what changes

for the person who decides to use their accommodation as part of an

on-line accommodation process?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll refer to the general principle of why we’re bringing in these

sections because this actually doesn’t apply to this section. It applies

to a piece of the next section.

I think the member has asked: what’s the big picture, and what

does this do? These amendments, these changes, will allow taxes to be

collected from on-line accommodation providers. If you’re an individual,

personally, and you’ve got your house and you’re renting it out…. You’re

renting on an on-line accommodation platform. This would enable an

organization like Airbnb — I use them because it’s the most common for

people, but there are number of other organizations — to collect those

taxes on your behalf and remit them to government.

Rather than each individual provider having to do that, this

provides and enables the opportunity for the provider to come to us and

say: “We will sign an agreement. We will collect and remit the tax on

behalf of the individuals who use our on-line platform to be able to

advertise.” So for the individual, it doesn’t change. It, in fact,

provides more ease by having an on-line provider collect that tax and

submit it to government.

S. Bond: When we look at the remittance to government…. I think the

government has stated that the revenue will be part of a housing

affordability measure. The minister knows how I feel. When our

government was in her shoes…. We believe that there needs to be

accountability and transparency. Can the minister outline for me what

level of accountability or reporting will be completed and made

public?

This is a brand-new area of taxation, a new revenue source for the

government. It is going to be linked, apparently, to housing

affordability. From our perspective, it’s important British Columbians

know how much is being collected and what the government will do with

that. Can the minister assure British Columbians today that there will

be some level of transparency?

Hon. C. James: The member knows…. In the budget, we’ve listed the proposed

revenue or the amount that we believe will come in. It’s on page 65 of

the budget, for those who are listening who want to take a look, and $60

million is what we’ve predicted at this point. A portion of that will go

to the province, to general revenue. Then a portion, the hotel tax or

the MRDT, goes….

As the member knows, for those communities that partake in that

program, they get the actual revenue from the MRDT. The on-line

accommodation providers will be paying both the PST as well as the MRDT.

The MRDT will go to those municipalities. As the numbers come in, we’ll

be including those in the budget as the tax expands.

[11:30 a.m.]

We do have to be careful about making sure that if it’s one

provider, for example, you couldn’t provide the tax information because

it would identify the taxpayer, which you can’t do. But we expect that

we will have other on-line providers come on board. We’ll have that

information, and as I said, the information is there in the budget. It

adjusts as the actuals come in each year.

S. Bond: With all due respect to the minister, yes, reading a budget book

is one thing, but when a government initiates a new program that is

looking at collecting taxes and is, in essence, targeting them to a

particular program that has been one of the key platform issues of this

government….

Certainly as MLAs, we all hear about the issue of housing

affordability. Perhaps the minister could provide me with a more

specific answer that outlines how the revenue will…. Yes, there are

portions of it…. I know the minister will know there are also concerns,

especially in the tourism industry, about the MRDT now being used for

affordable housing options. That is a huge concern in an industry which

generates billions of dollars of revenue and jobs in the

province.

There will be further discussion about that as we work our way

through estimates and through other ministries, but the point here is

simply this. New tax tied to key platform commitments this government

has made — I think British Columbians deserve to know what portion of

that tax is being attached to a housing affordability strategy more

specifically.

Is the minister prepared to consider…? A line in the budget is one

thing, and we spend days and months debating that, but British

Columbians deserve to know where that tax is going and how it’s linked

to affordability and a strategy that’s been very high-profile for this

government.

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member’s questions, and I appreciate the

direction that she would choose, but I think it’s pretty clear if people

take a look at the general revenue of this province, where the

priorities are. We’ve been very clear about that in the budget. We are

accountable each and every day as members, as part of government, for

the dollars and the choices that we make, and a budget is clearly about

making those choices. A budget very clearly is about taking the general

revenue that comes in.

This revenue at $16 million is obviously a very small portion of

the housing budget. The member just needs to look at the particulars

that we have spent on the housing file over the next number of years to

know that.

So yes, we will be accountable. We will be accountable for

ensuring that tax dollars, whether they are coming from this route, from

on-line accommodation providers, from taxpayers in our province, from

businesses or individuals…. That is our job. That’s our job each and

every day — to make sure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and we

are held accountable for that.

S. Bond: Well, thank you, Minister. I will take that as a no — that there

isn’t going to be a specific, articulated and transparent process for

British Columbians. Yes, there is a budget book, and yes, the minister

is responsible — and her government — for those numbers. But it seems a

pretty small thing to be asking.

When the government is creating a new tax, a new system in British

Columbia, and has made a very public statement about the transfer and

use of a portion of that revenue for a housing affordability strategy,

one would think it would actually be good news and a very important way

to be able to say: “Here’s the revenue that was generated. This portion

is being used for this. And by the way, this is how it links to our

housing affordability strategy.”

I won’t belabour the point. Obviously, our preference, as it was

with the carbon tax, is to lay out for British Columbians what’s

collected and how it’s going to be utilized.

Section 79 approved.

section 80.

[11:35 a.m.]

S. Bond: Again,

section 80 is related to the on-line accommodation

platform. I would very much appreciate it if the minister could outline

for me…. When it talks about the changes that are being made, it

suggests that it “prohibits the sale or provision of accommodation

through an on-line accommodation platform unless the vendor is

registered or not required to be registered.” Can the minister outline

for us who would not be required to register?

Hon. C. James: Sorry, I was going back to make sure we were looking at the

existing language or the new language. I think the member, if I’ve got

it right, was looking at where vendors don’t need to register when

they’re selling exempt accommodation. The example that’s in the

regulation would be tents. If they’re selling accommodation in tents,

that’s part of the regulation, currently, that exempts them from having

to register.

S. Bond: Perhaps we can have a bit more clarity there. Currently, the

minister will be working on regulations that will look at exemptions for

certain types of on-line accommodation. The example that she’s provided

is tents. There are some very sophisticated operations that use…. We

might call them a tent, but they’re not. It’s called glamping. There’s a

variety of other things.

Will there be discussion with the industry, with others, about

who’s going to be exempt from this? What would be the rationale for

exempting particular types of accommodation?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just to give a little bit of history around the regulations,

because I think the member is quite right: the version of camping has

changed over the years. This is a historic list. When the PST was

brought back in, the historic list just continued on — which were the

regulations. That’s why it included tents. It also included

accommodation that was less than $30 a night. That was included as part

of the regulations.

I think the second part of the member’s question was: are we going

to have a consultation around the changes that will be made in the

regulation with these changes? Yes, we will.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that explanation. Yes, things

certainly have changed. I was thinking, and the name finally came to me:

yurts. I mean, that is a very lucrative industry in British Columbia,

and we have some outstanding tourism operators and others who look at

that in a very different way today. I’m wondering if the minister could

define for me or give me the definition of what a “retail sale” means in

the context of this section.

Hon. C. James: A retail sale would be a sale to the end customer, of a room

versus, for example, a hotel that might sell a block of rooms —

conventions, those kinds of things. So a retail sale would be the sale

to the end customer — for a room, for a period of time.

S. Bond: Just one last question on this section. Would this impact listings

that are made on websites like Craigslist, Kijiji, VRBO — to name

several? So maybe a bit about the scope and who this is going to

impact.

Hon. C. James: I think the member listed most of the groups and organizations

that would be covered. The key is the exchange of money. So if there is

an exchange of money through the on-line platform, then they are

captured. If they’re simply doing a listing service and there’s no

charge, then they wouldn’t be captured. So the key really is the

exchange of money through the on-line platform.

Section 80 approved.

section 81.

Interjections.

[11:45 a.m.]

T. Redies: Trying to move us along, are you?

I believe

section 81 is retroactively removing the director’s

authority to exempt collectors who sell or lease tangible personal

property or provide telecommunication services on certain

passenger-carrying commercial vessels. Can the minister speak to why

this is being done? What is the expected impact or intent of this

particular measure?

Hon. C. James: This is basically administrative simplification. It’s really what

we’re talking about here. Currently the director has the discretion

around the taxes that are paid — international waters, etc., with cruise

ships. Instead of the discretion being with the director, we’re putting

it into regulation. That’s basically what this change does.

T. Redies: Does the ministry expect additional tax will be collected as a

result of that? What would be that additional tax? Also, could you

explain why it’s being made retroactive?

Hon. C. James: This is similar to what we’ve seen in a couple of different

housekeeping, so to speak, pieces or clarification pieces. The reason

it’s retroactive is that it goes back to the reimplementation of the

PST, when that occurred. It’s retroactive back to April 1, 2013, just to

clarify the current practice. This will not make any change. It will not

bring in more tax or not more tax. It just moves the discretion from the

director to regulation.

T. Redies: Thank you for that. It’s just a bit curious, because you’re

basically taking away the ability of the tax collector to make an

exemption. You must be doing that on the expectation that they’re making

exemptions today and that potentially that is costing tax revenue to the

government. Or am I mistaken?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This really is an issue that is current practice. It’s very

difficult right now to collect the tax because of international waters.

When does the tax get collected — when the cruise ship is moving through

waters? When is the right time to be able to collect it and

not?

That discretion is there now through the director. That’s current

practice. The discretion will continue to be there in regulation as

well, because of the difficulty of collecting the tax, because of the

crossing international waters issue. This will create no change in

practice from what’s currently there, because the practical nature of

being able to collect that tax is very difficult. That’s why the

discretion is built in.

T. Redies: I’m sure the minister must think I’m sweating the small stuff

here. But you’re taking away an exemption. So you’re removing the

ability of the tax collector. At least, that’s the way it reads to

me.

Hon. C. James: Perhaps I didn’t make this clear. The discretion will still be

there. It will simply be in regulation now rather than the director

having the discretion. So the discretion is still there. The exemption

is still there. It will just move from the director having that

exemption to the regulation having the exemption listed.

Section 81 approved.

section 82.

S. Bond: Just a quick question. This is about attending a location outside

of British Columbia. We’ve had a number of sections like this

previously, basically to check compliance. Related to this

section 82,

where would we be going to check compliance? And how has it been

determined that that would be necessary?

Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. We’ve had a number of different

sections that have referred to this piece around the ability for the

province to recover costs associated with out-of-province audits. There

are numerous businesses across the country that have obligations to pay

PST to British Columbia, so we are required, often, to do the audits

outside the province. This allows the province to recover our costs

associated with doing those out-of-province audits.

As with the other sections, the ability for businesses to waive

that fee and to not have to pay that fee is to simply bring their books

to British Columbia. That solves the problem, and that means that we

don’t have any out-of-cover costs. But many businesses are located

outside the province. They would rather we came to them. This is a cost

recovery piece.

Sections 82 to 84 inclusive approved.

section 85.

T. Redies: This section, per the note, provides that a fee imposed must not

be varied or disallowed by a court because of specific deficiencies in

process. Why is this being done? And is it typical practice that the

government would disallow a court ruling?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, we’ve had this discussion in a number of acts. It is

consistent. It is consistent in the act and consistent across acts

around assessments and penalties. It’s standard language. It does not

prevent, though, someone from going to court and having it overturned

because of due process or administrative…. Due process, I think, is the

best way to describe it. That still remains for individuals, but this is

standard language around it.

I think we talked, in the previous section, about one additional

day that gets added on by mistake. It prevents that entire fee or

penalty from being waived because of that one administrative change, but

it still allows someone to go to court, address the due process that may

have caused some difficulties and have something overturned.

T. Redies: I understand that this is, perhaps, standard language, but I guess

I’m still trying to understand how this is a fair process to entities or

individuals that are being taxed if, basically, because of a deficiency

in the government’s process, they’re still going to be held accountable

for paying the fee. While I respect that they can take the government to

court, it just seems the onus is on them, not the government, to

actually make sure that their processes are accurate and

fair.

I guess the second question I have, with respect to this, is: if

the government is basically protected from making mistakes, how do you

ensure that the government bureaucracy improves its practices over time

if they can always be, I guess, protected by this particular

regulation?

Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I will be happy to come back to the member right

after lunch.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $6,302,620,000

(continued) .

D. Davies: I believe that when we left off yesterday’s chat we had just gone

into the school tax, talking about impacts. I don’t recall if I did…. I

never made a note of this — if I’d actually asked about the school tax

going up. I’ll ask it again, just in case.

School tax is going up, but the majority of increases are going to

be coming after the municipal elections, when the big increase comes.

I’m just wondering if there was a reason for this, or if the minister

thinks it’s fair to saddle newly elected school boards with the job of

implementing this massive tax hike on the school tax.

Hon. R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify with the critic if he’s

talking about the employer health tax or another tax.

[11:15 a.m.]

D. Davies: The school tax on properties — property assessments and

such.

Hon. R. Fleming: I will give this answer to the member and instruct him, I think,

to reserve his question for the Minister of Finance.

Tax revenue, including the school property tax, goes into general

revenue. It’s levied by the province. It’s not administered or collected

by school districts, per se. It’s not tied in any way — that revenue —

to funding to the Ministry of Education.

D. Davies: All right. Just out of curiosity, then — and understanding the

question being pointed to the Finance Minister regarding the school tax

and the increase of, I believe, 0.2 percent this year, 2 percent next

year: were there any discussions with the Ministry of Education to the

Minister of Finance and vice versa regarding why the sudden

increase?

Again, looking at a 2 percent tax increase on property assessments

next year, as an increase, is quite substantial. I’m just wondering if

there were any discussions between the Finance Minister and the Minister

of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, same answer. This is a tax that is a provincial tax. It has

nothing to do with the Ministry of Education. The revenue is not tied in

any way to education funding in our school districts or other parts of

the school sector.

I would ask him to refine his question and maybe put it to the

Minister of Finance.

D. Davies: All right. Feed B.C. procurement costs, I’m just curious. Moving

forward with that program, has the ministry been in contact with the

Ministry of Agriculture regarding increased procurement for local

products in schools?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, a couple of things, I would say in response to his

question. First of all, local school districts are responsible for local

procurement. I expect that the Ministry of Agriculture will have some

guidelines, some suggestions and some procurement options for school

districts. Having said that, there are an awful lot of school districts

in British Columbia that are well on their way to providing more and

more locally grown food in their districts, in their lunch and breakfast

programs, some of which are funded by the Ministry of Education through

the CommunityLINK program, for example.

There are a lot of farm-to-school partnerships in different

districts. Delta is one that would be an example of a district that has

done a really good job of reaping all the educational benefits as well

as the local economic benefits of not stocking their schools with junk

food or foreign-sourced food products but being able to promote healthy

eating, teaching kids about the local food chain and what responsible

land stewardship looks like, and getting out and visiting a farm where

they may have not been able to have that opportunity.

There’s lots of good stuff in the Feed B.C. initiative. Also, it

dovetails very nicely with the direction that most districts have taken

in recent years. But again I would say to the member that local

procurement decisions like this remain local decisions.

D. Davies: Just a quick follow-up. You kind of alluded a little bit to where

the funding was going to come from. But is the program mainly funded by

the Ministry of Agriculture or through the Ministry of

Education?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, there’s no specific line item in the Ministry of Education.

This is a Ministry of Agriculture program. What I can say is that there

is a series of food programs in every school district, some of which are

funded by the Ministry of Education through CommunityLINK funding,

although districts have a high degree of autonomy over what they use

those funds for. Really, the instructions there are to spend them on

vulnerable student populations, so they have different priorities in

different local districts.

Look, as I said, I think school districts have done different

things with their local procurement decisions on how they provide food.

We’ve got some amazing examples of schools that are doing really well,

where they not only buy local products, but they are teaching high

school students in formal apprenticeship programs to become Red

Seal–certified chefs. We have a number of schools like that in different

districts around the province, and there’s interest in creating even

more opportunities like that.

[11:25 a.m.]

We have the resort and hospitality industry working with school

districts to provide those kinds of opportunities, and while training,

they’re serving out very affordable, nutritious meals for students in

those districts.

D. Davies: I’m just looking at the program. Of course, the idea of the

program, I think, is pretty good. Some school districts will be facing

some unique challenges regarding location and the ability to grow

certain foods.

We’ve debated, almost to death, the employers health tax and how

school boards are going to be facing challenges moving forward. Looking

at school districts, moving forward within this program, being directed

to take on local food procurement, will districts be responsible for

doing any of this funding for getting local food procurement?

Hon. R. Fleming: Just a couple of things. This is a question that probably would

have been better asked at the Ministry of Agriculture estimates. I would

say that to the member.

Feed B.C. is a directive to have more locally grown produce in our

school system. It comes at an exciting time, because the capacity in the

school system is very high to be able to do that. We’ve got a number of

schools — I’d probably not be exaggerating to say hundreds in British

Columbia right now — with their own on-site vegetable-growing beds and

doing production on site.

We’ve got staff costs and school costs that are already covered to

be able to run local programs in schools. We’ve got local school

districts running their own local procurement practices, which have made

the shift away from junk food — for example, of foreign, imported food

products to locally sourced B.C.-grown material. There has been no

reported cost increase from that. Districts are finding their way.

They’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do and because, of

course, this food has an economic story to it and a land stewardship

lesson that is instructive to students.

In terms of Feed B.C. right now, it’s coming at a time when the

school districts are already doing much of that, and they’ll explore how

they can fit with that Ministry of Agriculture directive even further. I

would say that if there does come an interest in buying significant

quantities and significant volumes of B.C. food, there is a central

procurement consortium, B.C. Education Marketplace, that could

potentially play a role, down the road, to coordinating that, but so

far, no districts have expressed any interest in that.

[11:30 a.m.]

I think they’re really excited about the idea of having more B.C.

products in their schools, expanding the opportunities for kids to learn

about how land is used in B.C. and what healthy eating is all

about.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Moving on, there is, in the estimates book, a

$10 million cut to transfers to other partners in the budget. Can the

minister explain the funding cut and assure us that this cut is not to

our public library funding?

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, there have been no reductions in any ministry

programs in the budget. So I’ll ask him to bear with me, just with an

explanation of how there has been a shift of money into different

subcategories in the budget. As part of Budget 2018, the ministry

reallocated the next-generation network program from the transfers to

other partners — it’s a $22 million program — to the public schools

subvote.

The reallocation was made to accurately reflect the funding

provided for public school administration. We shifted that, and to

correct a funding misalignment that occurred in 2016, where the previous

government cut $12 million from the AFG — the annual facilities grant

program — from operating to capital, we’ve put that back into transfers

to other partners. So $22 million was taken out and $12 million added

back in, for a net change of $10 million. I hope that answers the

member’s question.

D. Davies: Well, I’m not sure if it does. Going through the line items, it’s

very clear. “Transfers to other partners” is down from $86 million to

$76 million.

[11:35 a.m.]

Under the description, it directly correlates that to, “This

subvote provides funding to support K-to-12 education,” public

libraries, early learning and other.... Official languages. To me, it’s

very clear, in the Estimates book on page 69, if you want to

look it up, that this is indeed a cut. I’m not sure where the whole

explanation comes that it’s an adjustment — again, looking backwards to

the previous government. I’d like clarification, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say this. The $22 million for the next-generation network,

in that line item, was deemed not to be in the appropriate place. So

it’s been transferred into the “Public schools” column in the budget. To

all the other programs that he has referenced, there have been no cuts

to any of those programs in the budget.

D. Davies: I’m just wondering if there was a reason that the grade 10

satisfaction rates have been dropped as part of the performance metrics

strategies plan.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’d ask the member just for some clarification around the grade 10

survey question that he’s just asked — if he’s asking about it

disappearing as a publicly reported survey or if the survey itself is no

longer in operation.

D. Davies: As part of the performance metric that’s used for overall review,

there were grade 10 satisfaction rates from the survey, as part of that

metric. They don’t seem to be in this, moving forward. I’m just

wondering if there was a reason why it was removed, or not.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The student satisfaction survey, as it was referred to, is now

called the student learning survey. It’s administered at grades 4, 7, 10

and 12, so there still is a grade 10 survey. This is used to monitor a

number of things around student experience.

It’s much more comprehensive than what we used to ask students, in

terms of the questions posed to them and the answers that they complete,

which are then analyzed and used as data. It asks about the student

experience, their confidence in the relevance of their education to give

them the ability to pursue post-secondary education, for example, and

just the relevance of their school experience overall.

In the future, this is going to be much more widely used. All 60

districts are using it right now, but it will be part of the open data

program of government. Tremendous potential to see what students think

about their schools and, I think, drive performance improvements in the

60 districts. Essentially, the districts will be ranked by the students

they serve. I think the expansion of the survey is something that’s

going to help improve accountability and focus school resources on

improving the student learning experience.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I’m going to let my colleague ask one very quick question, and

we’ll probably have to come back for just a short little time after

lunch today. I’ve got a few more questions. With that being said, I’ll

turn it over to my colleague, Kootenay East.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister and the team for taking a quick couple

of calls, more on a localized issue here. School district 5, where I’m

from, has lots of priorities in education. The top

part is always

centred around health and safety of the staff and the students, of

course.

The number one priority for school district 5 for many, many years

has been the replacement of Mount Baker Secondary. The school is largely

in disrepair. It’s approaching 70 years old right now, and there’s some

significant overcrowding. Speaking to safety, quality of education and

overcrowding — things that the minister and our side of the House

certainly support eliminating — the question to the minister, I guess,

would be: is he aware of the priorities set by school district No.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say to the member that indeed the ministry is aware of it.

I know that this project has been district 5’s top priority for at least

ten years. We’ve been around for six months. We’re familiar with that

being their number one priority now, as it has been for over a decade.

We expect that when we get a revised five-year capital plan from

district 5 in June, it will still remain their number one

priority.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I move that we recess until the afternoon sitting

of the House.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

The Chair: Even better. Thank you, Minister.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada