Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 95

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 5 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 8 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2018

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cerebrospinal fluid leak awareness

M. Stilwell

Greenhill Park freighter explosion and

memorial

S. Chandra Herbert

Lena Johnston

G. Kyllo

Graeme Roberts

L. Krog

B.C. Special Olympics Winter Games athletes

S. Bond

Canadian athletes at Paralympics in Pyeongchang

R. Kahlon

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on municipal budgets

J. Johal

Hon. C. James

S. Sullivan

Employer health tax and role of MSP Task Force

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on municipal budgets

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. James

P. Milobar

S. Cadieux

M. Hunt

M. Polak

Impact of employer health tax on health authorities

N. Letnick

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on post-secondary institutions

G. Kyllo

Hon. C. James

Budget revenue projections

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

D. Davies

T. Stone

T. Shypitka

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

R. Sultan

10:30:37, S. Bond, "women" changed to "woman"

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[10:05 a.m.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: It is my honour and a privilege, actually, to stand up here to

introduce good friends of this House and good friends of mine. Unifor B.C.

provincial and local leadership is here today, led by Gavin McGarrigle,

their B.C. area director, and Joie Warnock, western regional

director.

This union represents workers in all sectors and all walks of life.

They are, day in and day out, helping all workers to improve their quality

of life. Once again, they are here to lobby us. What else? To improve

workers’ lives on behalf of all workers in British Columbia. They are here

to lobby us to improve workers’ health and safety and improve their working

conditions.

I would ask all of you to please give them a good time. Listen. This

is how we make this province a better place — when everyone is working

together. They are here for us to change the laws, if necessary, to draft

policies. At the end of the day, we are about the people that they

represent. We are about British Columbians.

Please help me welcome all of those who are here to lobby and thank

them for doing such fantastic work to continue to improve the lives of

British Columbians.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House today Graeme

Roberts and his wife, Kathryn Amisson. Mr. Roberts is the chair of the board

of directors for the Vehicle Sales Authority of British Columbia. Mr.

Roberts will be completing his maximum terms on the board at the end of this

month. He was first appointed to the board as a director in 2009 and elected

as board chair in 2010.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Roberts for his

significant contributions to the Vehicle Sales Authority and his efforts to

promote consumer protection and professionalism in the motor vehicle sales

industry in British Columbia. On a personal note, he and I share a common

interest. That is, besides the Vancouver Whitecaps, he also supports the

world’s greatest soccer team, which is Liverpool FC.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Graeme Roberts and

Kathryn, his wife, to the House and thank them for a job well

done.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a remarkable group of young

individuals who I had the distinct pleasure of meeting last Friday in my

constituency office, a group representing Trans Tipping Point who are up

there in the gallery. They are joined by Glynne Evans, honorary grandmother

for the group, I understand, as well as their teacher, Lindsay. Would the

House please make them feel very welcome.

N. Simons: It gives me a certain degree of pleasure to introduce my friend and

constituent, the chair of the political action committee for Unifor and the

president of Local 1119. Don Rheaume is in the House, and I ask my

colleagues here to welcome him.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege to recognize Harb Kular, who is a constituent of

mine. He’s here with Unifor, but he’s also a great community advocate,

always willing to help people in our community. He’s often bringing cases to

my office to help other people. I want to recognize and welcome him to the

House here today.

Hon. C. James: It’s been a very busy couple of weeks for the best high school in my

riding. Once again, I am pleased to welcome Victoria High School to the

Legislature. Sara Reside is the teacher with 23 grade 10

students.

On behalf of the Premier, I would also like to welcome two groups who

are coming from Journey Middle School, both with teacher Liz Stannard. One

has 37 grade 6s, and the other has 15 grade 6s coming as well.

Would the House please make all of these students very

welcome.

T. Redies: Later today we have a group of grade 10 kids coming from Elgin

secondary school in South Surrey. I hope the House can make them all

welcome, and their teacher, Chris Ellett, welcome. Elgin is one of the top

schools in the province, and I’m just delighted that they’re going to be

visiting with us today.

R. Leonard: Today is the second day that I have the honour of introducing another

constituent from Courtenay-Comox: Ed Lafleur, also with Unifor, a transit

worker who works tirelessly on behalf of this community and on issues of

health and safety. It’s my pleasure to introduce him to the House. Please

make him feel welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I just want to echo the introduction by the leader of the Third Party

and introduce the six youth we have here from the Trans Tipping Point

Project, which represents 25 transgendered youth from every part of the

province, including the Island and rural and urban school

settings.

This group of remarkable young people is working with MLAs from all

parties in the House. The Minister of Children and Family Development tells

me that, having met with them last week, it was the best presentation she’s

ever had from a visiting delegation. So adults, take note.

I’m certainly looking forward to meeting with them after question

period. They’re writing a book right now on what it’s like to be a

transgendered youth, which will be released in December 2018.

As my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned, Glen Evans is here

with them, who acts as a grandma or mentor for this organization. But I’d

like to introduce the students to the House now. We have Avery Williams,

Danny Charles, Grayson Threlfall, Astrid Neilson-Miller, Alex Bradley and

John Fitzsimmons. With them are a group of adults, including Dr. Lindsay

Herriot; Rachel Calder; Mr. and Mrs. Fitzsimmons, John’s mother and father;

and Emily Bennett.

Would the House once again make this delegation, this group of young

people and their guardians, most welcome here in the House today.

B. Ma: I, too, would like to welcome our Unifor guests today and, in

particular, acknowledge Unifor 111, which represents bus drivers in Metro

Vancouver.

I’ve been travelling on public transit all my life. I remember my

grandmother handing out quarters to all of her grandchildren and shuttling

us all into the bus to head down to Chinatown together.

In fact, when I was 12 years old, I decided to take my eight-year-old

sister down to Stanley Park on the bus on our own. We stayed out way too

late and probably would have sat in the park long after dark waiting for a

bus that was no longer running had a bus driver, just finishing his shift,

not noticed us and taken us safely back to Vancouver Eastside where we

lived. I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for those who keep our

world-class public transportation system running.

Unifor 111 is led today by President Steve Sutherland and

Vice-President Harb Kular. I’d also like to acknowledge Raj Janjua, who is a

constituent of mine. Would the House please join me in thanking these bus

drivers and making them feel very welcome.

J. Rice: What do you get when a law student walks into a fish plant in Prince

Rupert in 1974? Out comes union leader Joy Thorkelson. Forty years later Joy

is a tireless advocate for the poor, for workers’ rights, for shoreworkers

and for the fishing industry in British Columbia.

[10:15 a.m.]

Joy is a Prince Rupert city councillor and sits on the library board.

She’s also instrumental in keeping the Unemployment Action Centre going in

our hometown, which is an invaluable advocacy service. She is the new

president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union–Unifor. I would

like the House to please make her feel welcome. She’s a very special

person.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to also welcome Krista Lee Munro from Unifor for being here

today. She was very active in my community of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I

know that the buses get our communities moving along, and that the infamous

No. 20…. Thank you for your leadership, Unifor.

Also in the House — I’d like to echo the welcome from the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill — is my sister-in-law, Sara Reside. Members might know

that I got married on January 18 to Cassidy Kannemeyer. His sister’s here —

she is now my sister — with her grade 10 class for social

studies.

Will the House please join me in welcoming this delegation.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to wish a very, very happy birthday to the Minister of

Housing, who is busy talking right now. It is her birthday, and I hope you

can tell her when she is more attuned to birthday time.

Happy birthday, Minister.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act,

2018, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: The Community Care and Assisted Living Act regulates the licensing

of community care facilities, both residential and child care, and the

registration of assisted-living residences.

Currently there is no ability under the act to share with the

public and post on line information about persons operating a community

care facility, including child care, without a licence, in contravention

of the statute, and assisted-living residences without a registration.

There is also inconsistency in the type and level of information posted

about licensed community care and assisted-living facilities.

The proposed legislation would amend the act to require the

posting of information on line about community care facilities and

assisted-living residences, including persons operating without a

licence or registration, in contravention of the act.

The information will have to be posted on the websites of the

health authorities with respect to community care facilities and on the

website of the Ministry of Health with respect to assisted-living

residences. This includes the following information: operator’s name,

business name, address and

summary report of inspections and

investigations.

By increasing transparency and providing the public with access to

more information, this legislation will assist families looking for care

to make informed choices, discourage persons operating in violation of

the act and better protect the health and safety of children and

vulnerable adults in care.

I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act

be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Community Care and Assisted Living 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.

BILL 8 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Bill 8 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first two months of the ’18-19

fiscal year while the House completes debate of appropriations presented

in the 2018-19 estimates.

[10:20 a.m.]

Bill 8 also provides interim supply for a portion of government

financing requirements for the ’18-19 fiscal year, including one-third

of the year’s capital expenditures, loans, investments and other

financing requirements, and the full amount of the year’s disbursements

for revenue collected on behalf of, and transferred to, specific

programs and entities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 8 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CEREBROSPINAL FLUID LEAK AWARENESS

M. Stilwell: Purple is my new favourite colour. When the sun sets tonight, the

Legislature will be illuminated in purple in recognition of the Spinal

CSF Leak Foundation’s second annual Spinal CSF Leak Awareness

Week.

A cerebrospinal fluid leak is an invisible condition, often

underdiagnosed, that causes a constant, disabling headache along with

other neurological symptoms and complications. Cerebrospinal fluid, CSF,

is a fluid that bathes and supports the brain and spinal cord. When the

tough layer, called the dura mater, that holds this special fluid in and

around the brain and spinal cord has a hole or a tear, it results in

leaking of CSF fluid. More common than not, someone who has a CSF leak

doesn’t even know it, or is misdiagnosed, and they spend years with

unnecessary, debilitating pain.

This condition is treatable with proper diagnosis. The most common

symptom is headache, which is often much worse after minutes of being

upright, but sadly, many patients can be bedridden. Symptoms can also

include ringing of the ears, vision disturbances, nausea, eye pain, neck

pain, back pain, brain fog, fatigue. The list goes on.

A tear or a hole can happen to anyone at any time, although it’s

more common in women. It can be out of the blue, especially if you have

a weak or abnormal dura. Spurs along the spine can slice the dura mater.

Medical procedures like a labour epidural, a spinal tap or spinal

surgery, along with a laundry list of other types of injuries, can be

responsible for a tear. In my case, I sneezed. But I’m one of the lucky

ones. I was diagnosed and diagnosed early.

The goal of leak week is to raise awareness so that more patients

might be correctly diagnosed and treated. I hope that all members will

conversations with friends and family and by wearing their

wristbands.

Greenhill Park FREIGHTER

EXPLOSION AND

MEMORIAL

S. Chandra Herbert: Seventy-three years ago, on March 6, 1945, a merchant freighter,

the Greenhill Park , exploded on the Vancouver waterfront. It

was loading a mix of cargo that contained volatile sodium chlorate,

signal flares and overproof whiskey. Four explosions tore through the

vessel. Witnesses saw men blown 75 feet in the air. Unfortunately, six

longshoremen and two seamen were killed, and 26 other workers were

injured, including seven firemen.

The shock wave that rumbled through downtown Vancouver shattered

thousands of windows, and debris rained onto the city. Within minutes,

tugboats were on their way, as was the Vancouver fire department.

Fearing more explosions, the Greenhill Park was towed out of

the harbour under the Lions Gate Bridge and eventually beached itself

Lax shiploading, poor port management practices and a general lack

of safety measures were found to be at the root of the disaster. The

longshore workers and their unions, the International Longshoremen’s and

Warehousemen’s Union and the Canadian Seaman’s Union, called for

change.

This morning the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre and the Vancouver

Longshore Pensioners organization dedicated a new interpretive panel in

Coal Harbour along the promenade at Vancouver Convention Centre West in

my riding. It reminds us to be ever vigilant for safe working conditions

and a port that makes safe shipping and environmental practices a real

priority. The new panel is one of over 60 along the outside and inside

of the convention centre, and it’s a place for us to remember how

important workers and their contributions are to our society.

Please join me in congratulating the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre,

the Vancouver Longshore Pensioners and our Vancouver Convention Centre

for making this a priority.

[10:25 a.m.]

LENA JOHNSTON

G. Kyllo: I’m extremely proud to stand today and recognize a dynamic young

lady in my riding of Shuswap who is celebrating a very special day

today.

Ms. Lena Johnston has achieved a number of milestones that only

continue to increase in both significance and stature with each passing

year. You see, today, March 6, marks the 109th birthday of my dear

friend Lena Johnston. Yes, you heard me correctly, Members. Lena is 109

years young today, and I want to wish her a very happy birthday on

behalf of all members of the Legislature.

Lena Brooks Johnston was born on March 6, 1909 in Glen Ewan,

Saskatchewan. As the oldest of 14 children, Lena worked hard helping her

mom run the family home and had fond memories of helping her grandfather

deliver the mail by horse and wagon and occasionally helping her aunt

operate the community telephone switchboard.

Lena met and married Johnny Johnston in 1932. Being no stranger to

hard work, she soon learned how to drive a team of horses and to help

with work on the family farm. By 1937, it was time to move west in

search of milder winters, purchasing a farm in Notch Hill, a small

community just west of Salmon Arm.

Lena shared with me how they leased a rail car and loaded all of

their worldly goods — including furniture, equipment, a Bennett buggy,

four horses, a cow and a calf and crates of chickens and turkeys — and

how she and husband Johnny and four-year-old Roy rode in the boxcar

along with all their possessions. They travelled during the heat of the

summer, arriving two days later in Notch Hill to start a new life in

B.C.

Lena continued to live on the family homestead for 77 years before

moving to Arbor Lodge in Salmon Arm just five years ago. Lena’s son,

Roy, continues to live on the family farm to this day. Lena told me that

she’s happy at Arbor Lodge. “Christina and all the staff treat us well

and feed us good.”

When asked, as she is by many, “What is your secret to such a long

life?” Lena was quick to say: “Hard work.” She then mused: “Greg, the

true secret is to keep waking up every morning.”

Lena, you are truly an inspiration to us all, and I look forward

to celebrating your 110th birthday with you next year.

GRAEME ROBERTS

L. Krog: In October 2017, the New Car Dealers of British Columbia honoured

Graeme Roberts with their Lifetime Achievement Award, given out

previously to only three people: Marnie Carter, the famous Jimmy

Pattison and the late, great Tom Harris.

He was born in 1931 in Victoria, and I want to fill in a little

between those events. He completed his education in the U.K. He served

in management capacities for major automobile dealerships in Toronto and

Vancouver and is a retired automobile dealer himself, having developed

and owned two successful new-car dealerships, Toyota and Honda

Nanaimo.

He is the former mayor of Nanaimo, and he served seven years as

the chair of the B.C. Public Service Commission. He was a charter member

of the board of directors of B.C. Ferry Corporation, past president of

the B.C. Motor Dealers Association, past district governor at Gyro

International, 20 years as a member of the board of directors of Jimmy

Pattison’s Air B.C., subsequently Air Canada Jazz. He served for a

number of years as the lay bench with the Law Society of British

Columbia. Is everyone getting the picture here?

He currently serves as chair of the board of the Motor Vehicle

Sales Authority of B.C. and, recently, vice-chair of the Victoria

Airport Authority. Since 1988, he’s been a dedicated and enthusiastic

supporter of amateur sports in British Columbia. In this role, he has

attended 38 communities — 60 games throughout the province — that have

hosted the B.C. Summer and Winter Games, Northern Games, Seniors Games

and B.C. Games for the Disabled. For his efforts, time and commitment,

he was named as the honorary member of the board of directors of the

B.C. Games Society.

Pleasantly settled now in beautiful Brentwood Bay with his

exceptional artist wife, Kathryn Amisson, he demonstrates to all of us

what it is to be an incredibly devoted, community-minded person —

successful in business, successful in his private life, successful in

his public life.

You can’t sing For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow in this

place, but he is a jolly good fellow. He is, as I have titled these

remarks, a gentleman of the old school and citizen extraordinaire. Let

us raise our hands to Graeme Roberts of British Columbia, who is here

with us today.

B.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS

WINTER GAMES

ATHLETES

S. Bond: I was honoured to be invited to attend the Special Olympics region

8 snowshoeing qualifiers on February 25 at the Otway Nordic Ski Centre

in Prince George. This event represents one more step in the process of

qualifications for the 2019 Special Olympics Winter Games that will be

held next year in greater Vernon.

[10:30 a.m.]

What a day it was. The weather, while chilly, was a perfect sunny

winter Sunday. We are so grateful for the team at Otway, who helped set

up and host the competition.

Dozens of athletes from across region 8 participated in a variety

of distances. These included the 100-, 200- and 1,600-metre and 5K

races. Picture this: incredible athletes wearing snowshoes and running

as fast as they can for up to five kilometres. It was impressive and

inspiring.

One of the athletes who competed was Tegan Raines. Tegan is a

Special Olympian who competes not only in snowshoeing but also in

basketball and rhythmic gymnastics. She is a strong, independent and

determined young woman. I was so proud of her efforts, and Bill and I

very were excited to cheer her on. She had some excellent outcomes that

demonstrated that her hard work and practice paid off. I’m also very

proud that Tegan works in our constituency office and is an important

part of our team.

What impressed us most that afternoon was the way that athletes

cheered for one another and genuinely celebrated the accomplishments of

each person that competed. One athlete told me: “Winning is nice, but

what really matters is that we cheer for each other.”

Thank you to the coaches, volunteers, parents, guardians,

caregivers and friends who support these very special athletes. I was

thrilled to be able to present many ribbons and celebrate outstanding

efforts, but I was most moved by the spirit of comradery and team that

highlighted the entire day.

Thank you, region 8. You are all winners in my mind.

CANADIAN ATHLETES AT

PARALYMPICS IN

PYEONGCHANG

R. Kahlon: In two days from now, our Canadian athletes will be representing

Canada at the Paralympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Canada is

sending a record 55 athletes to the games. The team will be led by chef

de mission Todd Nicholson, a three-time Paralympic medallist in para–ice

hockey. In addition, 16 coaches and 26 sports staff will be joining the

athletes.

B.C. athletes include: in para-alpine, Braden Luscombe from

Duncan, Mel Pemble from Victoria, Molly Jepsen from West Vancouver; in

para–ice hockey, James Gemmell from Quesnel; in para-Nordic, Ethan Hess

from Pemberton, Natalie Wilkie from Salmon Arm, Emily Young from North

Vancouver; in wheelchair curling, Ina Forrest from Armstrong; in

para-snowboarding, Curt Minard from Vernon.

I recently read an

article about Curt. I was so moved by his story

and his perspective. On September 13, 2008, Curt was involved in an

electrical accident while working in Invermere, B.C., and as a result,

he lost his left hand at the wrist. He severely hurt his right hand and

sustained many other life-threatening injuries.

After 12 major surgeries, Curt had to undergo extensive

rehabilitation therapy and learn how to use his prosthetic hand. In

2012, he decided to take sport to another level. He says: “That’s where

I decided to beat disability, to beat the stigma that I had about myself

that I couldn’t achieve anything.”

I hope everyone takes some time out to watch Curt overcome such

adversity and to cheer on all our Olympic athletes.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

J. Johal: There’s no doubt all British Columbians will pay for the new

employer health tax. The NDP is not eliminating the MSP. They’re just

replacing it with an even bigger tax. The new tax burden on

municipalities will mean higher property taxes across the province. For

the residents of Richmond, the estimated tax bill is over $2½

million.

Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs think it’s fair to force

residents of Richmond and across the province to pay higher property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: Perhaps the member was looking at the record on that side of the

House where they doubled MSP premiums for businesses and for individuals

in British Columbia.

I will say again that, in fact, we have reduced MSP premiums by 50

percent as of January this year. That will be a savings to businesses,

to individuals, to groups and to organizations of $1.3 billion. And MSP

premiums will be eliminated January 1, 2020.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

[10:35 a.m.]

J. Johal: The Premier told British Columbians during the election campaign

that the only taxes he would increase were contained in the NDP

platform. But an unexpected $2.5 million is what the new tax will cost

the residents of Richmond to replace the MSP.

Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will all British

Columbians have to pay more in property taxes as a result of this broken

promise?

Hon. C. James: I think the member, conveniently, is leaving out the fact that in

eliminating MSP premiums, we are eliminating $5 billion in taxes. That

is a cut in British Columbia for families and businesses.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.

J. Johal: We’ve been asking about the impacts of the employer health tax on

family-owned businesses, charities and school boards for the last couple

of weeks. The Finance Minister and the Premier have not given us any

specifics in regards to this tax. Instead, the minister trots out the

same tired lines or laughs or brushes off questions.

The question to the minister, again: will every British Columbian

pay more in property taxes because of this new NDP tax, yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: I know it’s hard for the members on the other side to listen to

the facts, but I’ll repeat them again. We are going to eliminate MSP

premiums January 1, 2020. There are savings of 50 percent this January

that will be a $1.3 billion savings for businesses, for municipalities,

for school districts and for individuals. That’s a savings that they are

going to see. We are bringing in an employers health tax that 85 percent

of small businesses will not pay.

S. Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister

has surely analyzed the impact of the employer health tax on the city of

Vancouver.

My question is: how much more will homeowners in Vancouver have to

pay in property tax as a result of the employer health tax?

Hon. C. James: I will say to the member again that I’m certain those

municipalities are also taking a look at the savings of eliminating MSP

premiums by January 1, 2020. I’m sure they’ll be taking that into

account.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: To that non-answer, let me see if I can help the minister. This

year the city of Vancouver is paying $2.5 million in MSP premiums. The

cost of the health tax for 2020 will be $13.1 million net of MSP premium

savings.

My question again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: what is

her answer to my constituents who will have to pay higher property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: I would remind the member that, in fact, the citizens of Vancouver

will benefit by $900 per year as individuals and $1,800 per year by the

elimination of MSP premiums.

I would also remind the member that one of the biggest issues

facing families in Vancouver is the issue of affordable housing. We have

brought forward a 30-point plan. We are investing in housing in a way

that has not occurred in this province for the last 16 years, and that

will certainly help the people who live in the city of

Vancouver.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AND

ROLE OF MSP TASK

FORCE

A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance why her government

forged ahead with the employers health tax without waiting just a few

more weeks for the final report to come in from her MSP Task Force. In

response, the minister assured us that she took the task force interim

report into account when making her decision.

Okay. Let’s take a look and see what the task force actually said

in this interim report. They said this. “We are leaning towards a

combination of a personal income tax surcharge, a small payroll tax” and

additional ideas as the best way to replace the revenue. Instead, this

government went in the exact opposite direction, putting the entire

burden on employers through this payroll tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Given that the

expert task force recommended against exactly what you’ve chosen to do

with the employers health tax, how do you justify this

decision?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for his

question.

We did receive the interim report. We felt it was important to

move ahead on the elimination of medical service premiums on behalf of

British Columbians. Leaving the regressive tax in place did not make

sense, and we were able to manage it in this budget.

We had increased personal income tax for the top 2 percent of

income earners in September’s budget. I’m not sure what the member is

asking, whether he’s committed to increasing personal income taxes. But

we felt that because we’d already made the decision around the top 2

percent of income earners, this was a balanced approach.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, to enlighten the minister, what I’m asking is: why do you

have a task force to do something if you’re not going to listen to what

they’re doing and actually make decisions before they’ve done what they

said they’re going to do?

In fact, the MSP Task Force had more to say. On the payroll tax,

which is the direction this government has chosen to go, they said this:

“A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a

time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.” This

concern about business competitiveness is precisely why the task force

was leaning towards a combination of measures to make up the revenues,

not just by a payroll tax. They specifically stated this: “We feel that

it is important that revenue be replaced by a combination of measures in

order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.”

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Did the minister

either (

a) read the MSP Task Force interim report but choose to ignore

its key recommendations or (

b) render her decision to implement the

employers health tax prior to the interim report actually being

available? It has to be one. Is it (

a) or (b)?

Hon. C. James: As I already said to the member, we received the interim report.

We are ultimately accountable as government. It is our job to receive

the report, make a decision based on the information that was there. We

received the interim report. We made our decision. We believe it’s a

balanced approach, as I said.

The member may have a difference of opinion. The member may be

interested in looking at personal income tax, and that’s the member’s

prerogative. We made a decision as government.

I would also remind the member that if we are looking at

competitiveness when it comes to businesses here in British Columbia,

two of the key issues that businesses have been calling for action on,

over and over again, are the issue of child care and the issue of

housing. We moved on both of those to address competitiveness and

recruitment and retention of employees in British Columbia.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON MUNICIPAL

BUDGETS

J. Isaacs: The NDP employer health tax means a net increase of $600,000 per

year for the city of Coquitlam to replace the MSP. In 2019, the city

will pay both MSP and the employer health tax, which will cost the city

an additional $1.1 million.

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain why the residents of

Coquitlam will have to pay more in property taxes to replace the

MSP?

Hon. C. James: I would just remind the member again that they will be saving in

this year because of a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums. That’s a

saving for municipalities. That’s a saving for individuals. They will be

saving the MSP costs in 2020 as well.

Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Isaacs: This new tax was unexpected and never mentioned by the NDP during

the election. In fact, the Premier claimed that there would be no

surprise tax increases. But to cover the cost of the new employer health

tax, the city of Coquitlam will need to increase property

taxes.

Why are Coquitlam residents being made to pay higher property

taxes for this broken promise?

Hon. C. James: I will remind the member that the citizens of Coquitlam will be

saving in MSP costs — $900 as individuals and $1,800 a year as families.

That’s a huge cost. That is a huge affordability savings for those

families. Those are dollars that will be circulated in our economy, that

will be spent in small businesses and that will support continued growth

in British Columbia.

[10:45 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I think it’s apparent what the Minister of Finance got the

Municipal Affairs Minister for a birthday present today — the ability

not to have to answer a question.

Once the MSP premiums are fully replaced in 2020, the NDP payroll

tax will leave the city of Kamloops with an annual net tax increase of

$700,000 a year, a cost the city will be forced to pass on to property

owners through increased property taxes.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: do you think forcing higher

property taxes on Kamloops to replace the MSP is fair, yes or

no?

Hon. C. James: What’s fair is making sure we’re getting rid of the most

regressive tax left in this country here in British Columbia. What is

fair is bringing in an employers health tax that is the lowest employers

health tax rate in this country, compared to other provinces. What is

fair is ensuring that small businesses are protected. If they have a

payroll below $500,000, they do not pay the employers health

tax.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: I’d like to make this really clear for the minister, because

100,000 people in Kamloops realize what this means. As a result of the

employer health tax, the city of Kamloops will be stuck with an

additional $700,000 tax burden every single year — $700,000 more than

what the city currently pays for MSP, every year. This is a forced tax

increase and another broken NDP promise.

Why do Kamloopsians have to pay higher property taxes as a result

of this broken NDP promise?

Hon. C. James: Perhaps the member hasn’t taken a look at the additional

investments that are in the budget that will benefit people in Kamloops

and people around this province.

Let’s take a look at that: $1 billion over three years to support

a universal child care system in British Columbia; a 30-point plan for

housing — a comprehensive housing plan that will close loopholes and

fight real estate speculation, that brings in support for affordable

housing units around this province, including the Kamloops area; and

$548 million over three years to improve seniors care. I could go on and

on and on.

S. Cadieux: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost the city of Surrey an

additional $3.3 million annually to replace, not eliminate, the MSP. So

$3.3 million has to be downloaded on to families through increased

property taxes.

Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs please explain to the

residents of Surrey why they should pay the NDP’s new tax grab through

higher property taxes?

Hon. C. James: I’m certain the people in Surrey were cheering when we removed

tolls off the bridge. I’m certain the most recent announcement about the

replacement of the Pattullo Bridge was also a success when it comes to

the city of Surrey.

We are eliminating the MSP. We are bringing in an employers health

tax. We are protecting health care and investing in health care and

other programs and supports for the citizens of Surrey and the rest of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Well, this new tax comes despite the Premier’s statement that the

only taxes he would increase were in the NDP platform. In 2019, the

NDP’s double-dipping of both MSP and the health tax will cost Surrey

families $4.7 million.

Why do people in Surrey have to pay higher property taxes because

the government couldn’t keep a promise?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: The people in Surrey, the municipality of Surrey and the

businesses of Surrey that have been paying MSP are saving 50 percent in

2018-2019. They will be saving all of MSP costs in 2020. Businesses,

again, who make a payroll of under $500,000 will not be paying the

employers health tax.

M. Hunt: The NDP’s employer health tax will cost the city of Maple Ridge an

extra $700,000 annually. The MSP is actually being replaced with a new,

higher tax. I’m sorry. It is not a wash.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is it fair that the

residents of Maple Ridge will have to pay higher property taxes to

replace the MSP?

Hon. C. James: What was not fair to the residents of Maple Ridge was having no

child care program in British Columbia. What was not fair to the members

in the community of Maple Ridge was the lack of support for education in

this province by the other side. We are going to continue to make

investments that make a difference for the people in British Columbia,

as we have done in this budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: The issue here is property taxes, and the employer health tax

means higher property taxes in Maple Ridge. The NDP never told British

Columbians that they would be forcing municipalities to increase

property taxes, and the two NDP members for Maple Ridge have been

totally silent on these facts.

Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, should the residents

of Maple Ridge have to pay higher property taxes to replace this broken

promise?

Hon. C. James: I’m sure the municipalities, as the school districts are, are

taking a look at the 50 percent savings that they have this year for not

paying MSP to determine what they will be doing with those

resources.

As we are implementing this in 2019, we are continuing our

conversations with school districts and with municipalities. As I said,

we are ensuring that families will be able to have huge savings when it

comes to 2020 and the elimination of MSP.

M. Polak: Next year the city of Langley is going to pay an additional

$236,000 in the employer health tax. This will be on top of the $55,000

the city is already paying in MSP premiums.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is it fair to force Langley

families to have to replace the MSP with their higher property

taxes?

Hon. C. James: Again, I will remind the member that Langley families will be

benefiting from Budget 2018. Langley families will be seeing support in

the reduction of MSP premiums that happened January 1 by 50 percent.

That’s a support for Langley families.

I certainly know that…. I’m sure the member has noticed the

support for education for Langley families that came in the 2018 budget.

We will continue those investments. We will continue to support families

in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: The net increase to the city of Langley is an additional $236,000.

That is despite the fact that the Premier promised that the only taxes

he planned to raise were those that were contained in the NDP

platform.

The question is simple. Should Langley families have to bear the

property tax brunt of this government not being able to keep its

promise?

Hon. C. James: Once again, we are bringing in an employer health tax, the lowest

employer health tax rate in this country when you take a look at the

other provinces that have implemented this. We are the last province

left with a regressive MSP tax, and we are getting rid of it, unlike the

other side, who in fact doubled it over the time period — doubled it for

school districts, doubled it for municipalities. We, in fact, are going

to eliminate the MSP tax as of January 1, 2020.

[10:55 a.m.]

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON HEALTH

AUTHORITIES

N. Letnick: It’s not just family businesses, school boards and non-profits

impacted by the new NDP employer health tax. Interior Health expects a

$3.3 million shortfall, ongoing, after 2020.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Is there $3.3 million in

his budget for Interior Health’s annual shortfall, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: As I’ve said, our discussions are going on with school districts,

municipalities and health authorities about the transition. We set the

implementation date a year away to ensure a smooth transition for all

employers. We are continuing to have those conversations, and I am again

reminding the member that health authorities as well as other

organizations will be saving with the elimination of the MSP premiums.

They will be saving 50 percent this year, and in two years — complete

elimination.

Mr. Speaker: Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.

N. Letnick: I understand that the savings for one year is occurring. However,

the $3.3 million shortfall is an ongoing shortfall year after year after

year.

My question is quite simple, and it’s to the Minister of Health.

Is there money in the budget to make up this $3.3 million annual

shortfall?

Hon. C. James: I’m happy to continue to get up to answer questions in this

Legislature. I am happy to talk about Budget ’18, a budget that makes a

difference for people in British Columbia, and I can continue to respond

with questions that come forward.

I would be very proud to talk about all of the investments we are

making in the area of health care which, again, will support seniors and

families and low-income individuals — PharmaCare support, seniors

support, home care support. The list is endless. We are providing more

resources to health authorities to support health care in British

Columbia.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON POST-SECONDARY

INSTITUTIONS

G. Kyllo: The impact of the new NDP employer health tax on Okanagan College

is estimated to be approximately $889,000.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: is there

$889,000 in your budget to cover the shortfall for Okanagan College, yes

or no?

Hon. C. James: I haven’t had a chance to talk about the investments we’re making

in post-secondary, so I thank the member for that opportunity. I thank

the member for the opportunity to talk about the fact that year after

year, as I sat on the Finance Committee in opposition, one of the

requests that came forward was to provide support for universities and

colleges to build affordable housing for students. The other side, when

they were government, refused to allow that.

In this Budget 2018, we’re allowing affordable housing to be built

by universities and colleges. And that’s not to mention the investments

we are making in increasing engineering spaces across this province to

ensure that employers have the support they need, as well as investments

we are making for former youth in care to be able to attend universities

and college tuition-free — a smart investment, a caring investment and

an investment I’m very proud of.

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

A. Wilkinson: After a series of dubious budgets, this Legislature passed, in

2001, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This provided that

our government must function under generally accepted accounting

principles, now called international financial reporting

standards.

Revenue projections are generally taken to be reliable in our

budgets because they’re produced by finance officials underneath IFRS.

Those are provided to the Finance Minister, who provides the credibility

for those numbers to financial markets.

[11:00 a.m.]

This is critically important for British Columbia’s credibility,

and it’s one of the reasons why both the Attorney General and the

Finance Minister face a higher level of scrutiny in the answering of

questions in this chamber.

Over the past two weeks, it’s been rather disturbing to see the

Finance Minister dismiss, evade and completely ignore questions on

fundamental issues in her ministry. If we look at page 18 of the budget,

the 2018 total this fiscal year for MSP premiums and the employer health

tax is $1.824 billion. The 2019 total is $2.883 billion. This is an

increase — a clear increase, irrefutable — of $1.059 billion.

To the Finance Minister, is that correct?

Hon. C. James: I find it incredible, coming from the Leader of the Opposition —

when we take a look at the challenges that we are stuck with when it

comes to ICBC — that the member across the way, the Leader of the

Opposition, would talk about ensuring that there was transparency. What

transparency was there when the prediction of an amount of money at ICBC

ended up with a $1.3 billion hole that we are stuck with in our

budget?

The Leader of the Opposition quotes the numbers from the budget.

There is complete transparency. Those numbers are in the budget. We are

ensuring that resources are coming in to protect health care, to

eliminate MSP premiums and to support the people of this

province.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Credibility takes a long time to build and is easily

destroyed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, quiet is good when someone has the floor.

A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Finance signed off on the financial statements at

the end of the second quarter, in November of this year, which

certified, according to her, according to the Finance Minister, a $300

million deficit at ICBC. Now we find a Finance Minister who’s not

willing to acknowledge — to the world’s financial markets, to the

businesses in British Columbia, to the people who are watching her

behaviour — that she’s actually increasing the cost of MSP premiums and

the employers health tax by $1.059 billion in the next fiscal

year.

Will the minister tell this House the truth about what’s happening

with these premiums, or will she continue to evade and ignore and

completely dismiss legitimate questions? People are watching outside

this House; it is not just theatre.

Hon. C. James: Well, yes, people are watching outside of this House. People are

watching, and I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition would

stand up with excuses to try and justify what happened at ICBC. There is

no justification for what happened at ICBC — other than the fact that

the other side, when they were government, completely ignored the issues

and didn’t take on the challenge of fixing it. Now we are going to fix

it on behalf of the taxpayers in British Columbia.

On the issue of the budget and credibility, I would say to the

member across, to the Leader of the Opposition, that he is reading from

the very budget documents that we tabled in this House, which provide

all of the information that taxpayers and citizens in British Columbia

need to know. We have put them first in this budget, and we will

continue to do that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry

of Transportation. In Committee A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of

Solicitor General.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $890,092,000

(continued) .

Hon. C. Trevena: Before we start, if I might just introduce again the staff who are

here to support this morning. I have my deputy minister, Grant Main;

Nancy Bain, the assistant deputy minister for finance and management

services; Kevin Richter, assistant deputy minister for highways; Paula

Cousins, deputy director for the southern Interior; and Norm Parkes,

executive director of the ministry.

With that, I look forward to the questions from members

opposite.

D. Davies: A question to the minister. We kind of touched on it a little bit

yesterday — my colleague Peace River South — talking rural roads. Of

course, up in the entire northeast, there are many, many rural

roads.

A lot of these roads in the region, of course built back in the

days, were designed around much lighter vehicles than we’re seeing now

in the northeast, ranging from just larger vehicles that are hauling

grain, much more oil and gas activity, logging activity, and so forth. A

number of these roads over the last few years — especially last year,

where we had some really strange spring thaw, excessive amounts of snow

— completely deteriorated. There are a number of those up

there.

[11:10 a.m.]

My question is to ask for a commitment from the ministry to give a

bump for some long-term funding for rural roads in my region, in the

northeast, Peace River North, to look at getting these roads back up to

where school buses can continue to go down and pick up children. We had

experiences where school buses couldn’t even go down the roads to pick

up school children, or where emergency vehicles can’t access farming

areas.

Is there a commitment, or can we get a commitment, to looking at

some of the rural road problems?

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. As we were talking about yesterday,

the issue of rural roads is obviously a huge concern. A major part of

the province relies on rural roads, and these roads were built under

very different circumstances for very different volumes of traffic, as

well as very different weights of the commercial and industrial

vehicles.

Again, I use my own experience. In my own constituency, we have a

network of off-highway logging roads that were designed to take the

industrial traffic, and now they’re hammering our roads because they’re

on pavement.

It’s a huge issue, and it does make it feel unsafe. That’s why we

are committed to investing in our rural roads across the province. There

is a significant amount of money going into the budget this year for our

rural roads and our side roads. We’ve got an on line, year and year,

$110 million. That is a significant increase, and our budget, overall,

has increased significantly for the ministry.

As I say, when I took over as minister, I did voice this as one of

my real concerns. Living in a rural community, representing a rural

community, I’m very aware of the needs and the pressures that industry

is putting on our infrastructure that wasn’t there before.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

A final question that I have. Fort St. John is located on the

Alaska Highway, part of the Highway 97 network. From the district of

Taylor through to Fort Nelson, there’s one rest area that has toilets.

Of course, there’s an incredible amount of traffic on that highway, it

being the main artery up to Alaska, up to Yukon.

It’s something that I hear all the time from people using that

highway, that there are no opportunities to pull over to rest and to use

facilities. Now, I get that there’s a relationship between the province

and the federal government, as part of the highway is under federal

jurisdiction. But like I say, travelling 400 kilometres between Fort St.

John and Fort Nelson…. To have just one rest area, 45 or 50 minutes out

of Fort St. John, is not very good. I’m wondering if there’s a plan, in

the very near future, with this ministry to reach out, partner with the

federal government and come up with a plan to look at these

facilities.

Just a bit of a plug here. I believe the North Peace Economic

Development Commission, which is now part of the regional district, has

done a study. I believe your office might have it. It’s called the Gotta

Go project. I would encourage you…. There are some good recommendations

there. The one thing that stood out to me was that there’s not another

highway in the system in the province that has these huge gaps without

facilities. I’m just getting back to the question of if there’s a plan

to work with our federal partners and come up with a plan.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I recognize the need for rest areas. It’s something that,

as the opposition critic, I would raise regularly in estimates — about

the need to have better rest areas on our highways. Both for individuals

driving and for commercial vehicles driving the highways, it really is

important.

We do have a copy of Gotta Go, a great name, and we’ll obviously

be looking at that. We’re regularly in touch with our federal

counterparts about how we can work together. This will be on the list of

things that we’ll be talking about. I understand that we have the one at

Mile 80. Is that the one that you’re talking about, which is there?

They’re heated, with flush toilets, which is good. But that’s our last

one further north, as I say.

We have built one just at the south end of Taylor Hill, between

Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. That gets us up, as you say, into the

federal area. We’ll happily talk with our federal counterparts about

what we can do, because it’s good for individuals travelling. It’s good

for commerce. It’s obviously good for tourism to make sure that people

have places where they can safely pull over, get a rest, get a

coffee.

I mean, you look at what our neighbours to the south can do with

rest areas. You can do terrific things if you are thoughtful about them.

Thank you very much to the member for raising this. I’ll follow up on

it.

T. Stone: I am pleased to jump in at this point just to ask a few questions

of the Minister of Transportation. I will take the opportunity, as well,

to acknowledge all of the great staff that are wrapped around her. I had

the pleasure of working with them for 4½ years. So you know you’re very

well served, Minister.

I would like to ask a couple of questions — again, just for some

clarification in the opposition here — with respect to road maintenance.

I think we all can acknowledge that we’ve had a pretty tough winter. It

has been worse in some areas of the province versus others, but

certainly, on high mountain passes and in a lot of the Interior and the

north, we’ve experienced some pretty severe winter driving conditions.

As is par for the course in most British Columbia winters, there is

always a lot of concern expressed, rightfully so, by the residents of

Interior and northern communities, as well as local officials, law

enforcement, first responders, and so forth.

[11:20 a.m.]

Now, with respect to keeping our roads safe, obviously, there’s

the whole infrastructure side of the equation and continuing to make

safety enhancements, but good, reliable road maintenance is also very,

very important. I believe there are 14 companies serving the 28 service

areas. I think the budget, overall, is relatively stable for road

maintenance across the province.

Back in 2017, our former government initiated a process with the

road builders and the BCGEU in preparation for a tendering of contracts

relating to road maintenance. As I’m sure the minister knows, this was

precipitated upon the expiry of most of these contracts, which expire

this coming September, September of 2018. It was made pretty clear to me

as the former minister that we needed to get on with that tendering

process, at least a year in advance, so as to ensure the sharpest

pencils possible and the best value for taxpayers’ money.

Part of the arrangement that was arrived at a year ago was a very

collaborative solution, I believe, wherein the road builders, the BCGEU

and the Ministry of Transportation had come together. In exchange for

keeping labour succession in the contracts moving forward, there would

be about $180 million worth of savings that would be generated, every

penny of which would be put back into enhanced road maintenance

standards for all numbered highways and secondary highways around the

province. That, I thought, was a good solution.

I’ve got just a couple of questions on this. The first one would

be this. I’m wondering if the minister could provide the House with an

update as to where exactly the province is at. Where is the ministry at

with respect to the remaining service areas, recognizing the East

Kootenay service area was tendered a while back? They’re a bit of an

outlier in the overall mix. But with respect to all of the other service

areas, where exactly are we in the tendering process?

Related to that, in light of the fact that it would seem that

we’re somewhat behind in the tendering timelines — maybe she could

clarify if we are or we aren’t — is it still the ministry’s expectation

that $180 million or so of savings will be realized through the renewal

of these contracts, to be then reinvested back into heightened, improved

levels of road maintenance around the province?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for the question and for acknowledging

we’ve got a fantastic team here. I’m sure that the member, when he was

in this chair, found that the number one issue that kept coming back and

back was highway maintenance, winter maintenance and what’s

happening.

Let me assure the member that the $180 million is being

reinvested. One of the things that I did say when I came in, as well as

rural roads and what’s happening with our rural roads, was what’s

happening with our maintenance. I think it’s the issue that we all — as

elected representatives of our constituencies, particularly those of us

who represent rural areas — hear very loud and clear from our

constituents, that we need to be investing in maintenance.

Just to respond to the member’s specific questions. We are on

track for doing the renewals within the time frame that was scheduled by

the previous government. Three RFPs are out now. They are actually for

my own area, the middle and north Island. So those areas are out now, as

well as Buckley Lake area. They close in mid-March and will be awarded

later this spring. There are five RFQs out, which should be back by the

end of the March.

The bulk will be completed on schedule. The only outlying ones,

because of historical agreements, are service 11 — they’re back in 2024,

I believe — and McBride, which is back in 2022, I think it is. The rest

are all as scheduled.

T. Stone: The second question would be this, really quickly. I’m wondering

if she could confirm that labour succession is indeed still included in

each contract moving forward.

Secondly, the certification process with the BCGEU locals. Has

that been completed? Are those ratifications on track to take place

across all service areas?

Thirdly, is the road maintenance contract still a ten-year deal

with an option for a five-year renewal? And then, the collective

agreements. Are they still eight-year contracts with a renewal for seven

years?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, succession is there. The ratified agreements are coming. The

ratification is following the same process as the contract renewal, so

it’s the same timeline that we have there. And, yes, the time frame is

the same, with a ten-year with a five-year option and agreement with the

union, an eight-year collective agreement. That’s all as is.

T. Stone: My final question just relates to the enhanced road maintenance

standards themselves that we’re all hopeful will be realized as a result

of the savings that are provided for in these contracts on a go-forward

basis. I’m pleased to hear the minister, in her previous answer, confirm

that the savings are still in that range of about $180 million over the

life of the contract and that it is still the government’s intention to

devote every penny of those savings into enhanced maintenance

standards.

For the record, I just want to read out the standards, as I

understand they would change. If the minister can confirm that it is

still the ministry’s intention to adhere to these higher

standards.

First is a standard with respect to achieving bare pavement sooner

after a weather event when minus 9 degrees Celsius or warmer. The

current specification…. Actually, there’s no specific temperature to

achieve bare pavement. That only happens after the end of the last

measurable snowfall. The response time currently on class A highways is

two days. Class B highways is three days. Class C highways is seven

days.

The proposed new specification, as I understand it, would be 24

hours for class A highways, which would a significant improvement, I

think highly, highly noticeable by motorists, which would be good. Class

B highways would go from three days to 36 hours. Class C highways would

go from seven days to 48 hours. That’s the first specification change as

I understood it.

The second change would be to improve the management of compact

snow below minus 9 degrees Celsius. At the moment, the current

specification states that when compact exists, “the contractor must

remedy unsafe conditions including but not limited to roughness and

slippery surfaces.” A bit vague there.

The new classification provides for very specific performance time

frames to manage compact. I won’t read them all into the record, but as

one example, for class A highways, within 48 hours, we’d have to

“maintain thickness of the compact surface no greater than 40

millimetres.” That’s a pretty significant improvement over the current

standard.

“Potholes in compact, averaging more than one per 25 metres of

road, exceeding 30 millimetres depth” on class A highways — that would

be a requirement within 24 hours. “Rutting in compact in excess of 25

millimetres” would be a 72-hour requirement for class A highways.

“Removal of compact when temperature is minus 9 degrees Celsius and

warming” on class A highways would be a 24-hour requirement. There are

very similar requirements specified in the new specifications for class

B, C, D and E highways as well. I won’t read those into the

record.

The third standard change would be to reduce winter abrasive size.

The member represents a rural area of the province, so this is good news

for her constituents too, as well as mine. The size of the aggregate, or

the abrasive, would be reduced from a maximum size of 12.5 millimetres

to a maximum size of 9.5 millimetres. Hopefully, she can confirm that’s

still the intended change in that specification.

With respect to the improvement of highway patrols, there would be

some very significant change there that would be, I’m fairly confident,

highly noticeable. In terms of the winter response times on a class A

highway for winter patrols during snowfall, we’d go from a four-hour

requirement to a 90-minute requirement during a weather event in all

travelled lanes and a three-hour requirement during a weather event in

all other lanes.

Again that’s on class A highways. There are similar tightened

specs for class B, C, D and E highways. I think this would be one that

would be noticeable to motorists as well, particularly the introduction

of a requirement that doesn’t exist right now in relation to snow

patrols and snow removal in those second lands other than the lane

furthest on the right.

[11:35 a.m.]

Could the minister confirm that the specs as I’ve just mapped them

out here, which I understood to be the new requirements that we were

going to be able to implement across our numbered highways in this

province as a result of the $180 million savings…? Could the minister

confirm that these specifications are accurate?

Maybe, as part of her response, her officials, through her, could

advise me and the official opposition if there are any changes to the

specifications from those which were being contemplated a year ago. I

would appreciate understanding what those change specifications look

like as well.

Hon. C. Trevena: The information that the member read from his document is

available on the public website. I will read it. For anybody else who is

watching and wants to check highway maintenance standards, it’s

www.gov.bc.ca/highwaymaintenancerenewal. It’s under the draft

maintenance specifications. They are the ones that we’re working

towards. They will be there when we’re looking at the

renewal.

One of the things I have said to staff…. As I mentioned, my first

response is that the issue of highway maintenance is the one that keeps

coming back and coming back, both as a representative of a constituency

as well as, obviously, a minister. We want to make sure that the work is

being done.

There will be increased oversight from the ministry to make sure

that the maintenance does happen, that people aren’t facing the problems

that have been faced this year. I think that we need to do everything

possible to ensure that the maintenance contractors are fulfilling the

maintenance contract. I mean, we all know the maintenance contractors….

As I say, I know the ones who live…. It’s my neighbours, and they go out

and do a good job of work. We need to make sure that they are being

directed well and that the work they’re doing is what we are requesting

to make our highways safe.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for allowing some time here. I want to

continue on with highway maintenance here for a bit and more specific to

my area. Thank you to the staff that’s in tow right now. I respect and

look forward to some of the answers here.

[11:40 a.m.]

Highway maintenance is important all over B.C., as we all know,

but when it comes to winter maintenance, Kootenay East presents some of

the most dangerous and challenging conditions you could probably get

anywhere. In my riding alone, there are eight different weather zones

that challenge not only the contractor but confuse travellers as

well.

This winter we’ve had numerous fatalities, unfortunately. Some of

these have been attributed to poor driving conditions. Now, I’ve heard

that some of the standards may be changing, but unfortunately, region 11

has already done their tendering, and we’re not going to be changing

until 2024. I’ll get to that in a second.

Specific to Kootenay East, can the minister tell me how satisfied

she is with the operations in that area? Or maybe everything is fine, or

maybe standards need to be increased there as well. Just an overview on,

basically, the Mainroad contractor in Kootenay East.

Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. I know that this is a

concern for him, and I look forward to meeting with him separately,

later this week, to discuss this further.

We’ve heard a lot of complaints, obviously, about what has been

happening in his neck of the woods, in service area 11. I know that

ministry staff are diligent in following up, if there are complaints, to

see what the complaints are, to see where the problems are, to work with

the contractor and to monitor the contractor.

Again, I know that we are…. As we say, it’s winter, and we live in

B.C. We live in Canada. But it’s been a particularly bad winter, which

has added to some of the problems. I’m not going to diminish the

people’s concerns, but it really has added to some of the

problems.

I’ve also asked staff to look at other things that can be done

that will alleviate…. We’ve got the service contract working at the

moment. We’re doing more monitoring, but what other things we can do, we

can do. So we’re looking at everything. Whether we’re looking at speed

limits, whether we’re looking at better training for people for chaining

up, whether we’re looking at information about, really, how you can be

driving and should be driving in poor weather…. I think this goes across

the province. There are still people who think: “It may be snowing, but

I can still drive as I want.”

[11:45 a.m.]

I think we’ve got to look at everything. I’ve asked staff to look

at some specific areas. But we are really monitoring as much as we can,

following up with the contractor to ensure that there is the best

service provided, because public safety and the condition of our roads

is something that, obviously, we’re all very concerned about.

T. Shypitka: Specifically to the Mainroad contract, I never really heard a

clear answer on whether what the ministry is providing is oversight to

that contract — if the minister is actually satisfied with the

performance of the contractor, through the ministry’s

oversight.

Hon. C. Trevena: The contractors…. When we do have issues, when it’s brought to our

attention, they’re very responsive. We are, as they say,

monitoring.

I think that both for the member’s maintenance area, area 11, or

right across the province, we’re striving for the best. We’re always

striving for improvement. There can always be improvement. I think that

this winter has shown that there really needs to be improvement. There

needs to be improvement both in that member’s service area and all the

ones that we’re going out to tender.

We’re keeping a very close eye on everywhere that I’m hearing

about and everywhere across the province because road maintenance, the

work of the contractors and road safety are essential. We’ve got to

ensure that the people of B.C. know that when they get on the highways —

yes, you have to be aware of the weather conditions, and you have to

drive accordingly — we are doing everything, and we’re making sure that

our service providers are doing everything, that can be done. So I’d say

we’re always striving for better.

T. Shypitka: I never really heard an answer, again. What I’ll do is, because

we’re running out of time for myself….

The ministry has given Mainroad, our contractor, about a 93 to 95

percent performance rating, saying that 93 to 95 percent of the time

they’re meeting or exceeding the contract, which, in my opinion, sounds

pretty good. Now, that would be hotly contested in my area, given the

fatalities and what we’ve seen this winter.

I’ve heard the minister just say that oversight needs to be

improved. I think that was her actual quote: “needs to be improved.”

Does that mean the standards are not high enough? If they need to be

improved, then that means the contractor might not be doing the work

that the oversight is trying to put on them. So is there a problem in

oversight?

Has the minister ever addressed the issue of oversight being

flawed? Would the minister accept or be responsive to an independent

auditor coming in and checking on the oversight that the ministry

provides?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are working, always…. When I say oversight, our ministry staff

are on the roads a lot. They are watching what is happening. They’re

making sure that what is happening is working up to specifications and,

wherever possible, beyond.

We have a system of…. I’ve just called it oversight, but we have a

system of auditing throughout the province where ministry staff and

others come into different areas to look at what’s been happening.

There’s a discussion with stakeholders. I’m sure that the member, as the

MLA for the region, has been contacted by the ministry to put his

thoughts to how the contract is working there.

It is, I think, a pretty good system in place at the moment. You

can look around the province to get people moving around so you’re not

getting people who are vested in the area. You’re getting that

independence to check that.

As I say, it’s something that is important to me. I’ll continue to

work, and continue to work with the member opposite, to find out the

problems that his constituents are facing. We’re sitting down later this

week to have that discussion on how we can best work together to ensure

that his constituents are getting served and get what they feel they

need and what we can provide as a ministry.

[11:50 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m going to shift the attention in a little different direction

here. In a recent letter, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development highlighted your ministry as

having some role, responsibility, in the management of salmon and

steelhead.

I’m just wondering if you could explain what role your ministry

plays and what funding there is allocated to this. Your ministry came up

as being identified as one of the six ministries managing and having a

responsibility in this aspect.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just working out exactly the different areas that we work

because we do quite a lot. We’re very conscious these days of the

environmental impact of the ministry. Obviously, we’re involved in major

projects that are going to have an environmental impact, so this is

something that we’re very concerned about. But there’s both the large

and the small scale that the ministry works on. When we are doing a

project, we are obviously consulting widely and building environmental

safeguards. Whether it is moving a snake habitat or doing something

else, there are major things that the ministry will do.

When we’re talking about salmon and steelhead, I think that would

come under our environmental enhancement section, where we have a budget

of $2.6 million. That’s for things like where you may have had a culvert

in the past that has worn down that the fish can’t get through it. We

replace that to make sure the fish can get through it. We’re looking at

building fish ladders and working in every way that we can to ensure

that our infrastructure both protects and enhances the

environment.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering — the recent COSEWIC decision to put the

steelhead on the endangered species list. I know that there are several

pieces of important highway infrastructure within the Thompson and

Fraser rivers and also in Chilcotin. Do you see that this endangered

species listing will have any impact on your budgets or how you make

decisions in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in the

future?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Whenever there are changes, we obviously work to ensure that we

are working within changes and to accommodate the change as necessary,

because we are, as I say, very aware of environmental issues. I’m happy

if the member would like to have a separate conversation about this. I

think it came as a bit of a surprise to my staff, right at the end of

the morning. I’m happy to have a separate conversation with the member

about that.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.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 A), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m looking forward to the afternoon’s debates. I move that the

House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $755,457,000

(continued) .

M. Morris: We’ve had a few great hours in here going through many of the

different layers within the ministry. The last one I want to touch on

before I make some final comments is just with respect to consumer

protection.

I know there was some legislation that we had introduced when we

were in government concerning interest rates around consumer loans. I’m

just wondering how that went and whether there’s been a rigorous

follow-up audit process in place to ensure that these loan companies

haven’t found some way to circumvent the legislation that was put in

place and if we’ve seen a reduction in the number of consumer loans in

comparison to what we had before or an increase.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re one of the jurisdictions that requires all the information

on the loans to be provided to the regulator. That work is currently

underway. They’re not yet finished for the last calendar year, but when

it is, then it will be out and provided and available.

In terms of the rate, we have noticed that there has been a

decline from $23 per $100 borrowed to $17 per $100 borrowed. We are

monitoring. They are inspected on a regular basis. We continue to

monitor the industry. As you just identified in your question, when new

regulations are put in place, this does seem to be an industry that is

particularly adept at trying to find new ways to get around those

regulations.

It’s something that my ministry does take as a priority in the

consumer protection branch. We’re watching and monitoring what’s going

on, and we’ll make changes, as needed.

M. Morris: Just a follow-up to the minister on that. Have there been any

complaints? Have there been any issues that have surfaced to indicate

that these payday loan companies or agencies are trying to navigate

around the legislation? Do we know that yet?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. There have been some complaints on some practices that have

come up. The regulator has taken action on them, in particular as it

relates to insurance padding. So that is being dealt with.

We’re also watching what happens in other provinces. When we start

to see new angles starting to emerge, then we watch them here in B.C. to

see if we need to either look at changing our regulations or if it may

be necessary for a legislative change. It is something that we monitor

and watch and deal with on an ongoing basis.

[11:15 a.m.]

M. Morris: Good to hear. Just like any person, I guess, or agency or

government, when there’s a source of revenue that decreases, you have to

look on the other side. Where are you going to increase that? Sometimes

it could be a little nefarious. I’m glad there’s some monitoring going

on with respect to that.

The other aspect of that was the participation of the financial

institutions in providing loans for the types of clientele that are

often using these payday loan services. If we could get right away from

that and have financial institutions have some kind of a product

available for these…. Could I get, maybe, an update on the steps that

the ministry might be taking and how far along we are with trying to

encourage that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a good question. We encourage the banks and the

credit unions to try and provide products to do exactly what you’re

saying. They don’t really do that, though, in terms of…. They don’t

provide payday loans. They are looking at some short-term kinds of

financial products. Vancity is one of them.

One of the challenges that we face is that when you talk to and do

surveys of the people who go to and use the payday loan companies, they

say they’re nicer than the banks and the credit unions. It’s basically

because at the bank and the credit union, they want information. They

want to know…. They base a lot of decisions on credit scores.

Whereas

the payday loan companies don’t base their decision on that. It’s

basically, “You have a paycheque; we want your paycheque,” in essence.

That’s one of the challenges.

One of the things the ministry is doing is to try and increase,

and educate consumers around financial literacy, around loans and the

costs of loans and what’s really happening. It is a challenge, and it’s

something that, if we can find a way to work with banks and credit

unions to try and address that or improve it, we certainly would be

wanting to do. But it is not something that’s going to be solved in the

short term.

M. Morris: One of the concerns we had when we were looking at the legislation

and lowering the interest rates allowed to be charged was the impact of

individuals that…. I guess, the loss of revenue that the companies

relied on to compensate for those who didn’t pay, at the end of the day.

I know that some of the other jurisdictions were looking at higher

interest rates and the costs associated with that.

Have we seen any feedback or do we have any feedback from the

payday loan companies, whether this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions,

about the impact that the lowering of the interest rate has had on the

amount of, I guess, foreclosures, or whatever you want to look at, for

those kinds of loans?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. That is an issue that we’re concerned about. So when we

brought in the interest rate changes here in B.C., we did look at what

happened in other jurisdictions. For example, in Alberta, what they

noticed is that when they lowered it down significantly, you saw people

making payday loans exit the payday loan and instead go to other kinds

of products — instalment loans, for example — or other ways of getting

around the existing legislation. In a way, that was kind of

self-defeating. So what we did in B.C. was we tried to find that balance

between the rates that were being charged and lowering it enough so that

you weren’t going to see that.

We continue to watch what’s happening in terms of: are those

product models starting to shift so that they can go outside of the

regulatory framework? If they are, then we are in a position where we

are able to deal with those changes that may be required to rein those

practices in, either by regulation or, if necessary, by

legislation.

M. Morris: Probably just one last question on this as well. “Default” was the

term that I meant to use before. Do we know what the percentage of

defaults is on payday loans in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The data we have is for 2016. The 2017 isn’t ready yet. But in

terms of what were defaulted on, it was 15 percent. For loans that were

written off, it was 4 percent.

M. Morris: The concern that I’ve had for years about that industry…. I think

it does serve a purpose, and I think it does provide a legitimate,

genuine service for their clientele. But there are also people that

probably, because of default or whatever reason they might have…. I

think there’s still a black market out there somewhere with respect to

loansharking and other avenues for people to get their money. So I think

we need to be aware of that in order to make this as attractive as

possible.

This is where I think the private sector can step up to the plate

as well, some of the financial institutions. I know Central 1…. Some of

the credit unions were looking at a concept, and I really hope they keep

pursuing that, with the aid of government, to find a solution

there.

I don’t have any more questions, per se, for this, but I want to

make a couple of general comments and statements with respect to the

overall budget and services provided by the ministry. There are some

things on the horizon, some threats on the horizon that we face in

British Columbia with regards to policing and police services,

security.

The ones that we have before us right now…. The fact that we have

244.5 hard vacancies on the provincial policing line with a number of

overworked detachments in the province where their caseloads are

extremely high. We have a significant underfunding of federal policing

right across this province, not only with the commitment that the

federal government has made, but the underfunding and the lack of

recognition of the responsibilities of the federal government when it

comes to their fiduciary responsibilities and First Nations. That’s an

issue that this ministry, I think, really has to push on.

The other aspect of that is the soft vacancies that we have that

affect the day-to-day operations in the detachments with sick leave,

maternity, paternity. There’s a number of different reasons why those

vacancies are there, in addition to the attrition rate. On top of that,

we have the abysmal performance in fulfilling the federal policing

responsibilities. And a lot of those things end up being done piecemeal

by provincial resources or municipal resources. So there are some

impacts there.

[11:25 a.m.]

Municipal policing, which is the bulk of policing in British

Columbia. There are 64 separate RCMP municipal contracts with the

federal government and the province that also maintain vacancies and

have a great deal of difficulty in keeping up with the demands for

resources within their units. There’s the specialized, provincially

funded CFSEU, emergency response team units. What I’m getting

to….

Here we have the RCMP reaching a critical crossroads not only when

it comes to their nimbleness in meeting the resource demands, but

there’s pressure on the RCMP to unionize. The RCMP’s payroll is

significantly less per capita than probably every other independent

force in British Columbia, but many right across Canada. I think that’s

something that’s on the horizon that we should be very wary of. It’s

going to have a significant impact on municipal policing budgets, on the

provincial policing line and all of the other specialized units that we

have in the province here.

That could happen overnight. I think there’s a perfect storm

brewing out there. There needs to be a lot of work done in that

direction. On top of that is our government’s own pressure that they’re

putting on here now with the employers health tax that is looming in the

background and is going to be impacting payroll budgets for provincial

policing, for municipal policing, for federal policing to a significant

degree, in the millions and millions of dollars.

If there is no adequate increase in resources to accommodate for

those pressures — and believe me, I know from experience — we have to

start taking it from within the operating budgets of the various police

departments. The area I looked after was roughly 80 percent of the

province. It had a significant provincial budget. There were 12

municipal contracts within my area of responsibility. When the costs

went up and there was no increase in the budgets, police cars had to be

parked, airplanes stayed on the ground, the boats stayed tied up at the

harbour, and a lot of the investigations were triaged. Some of them we

couldn’t get to because of that.

I think we have coming on to us here…. With all of the factors

that I’ve just described, I think we’ve got a perfect storm brewing for

some headaches for the minister a year or so down the road, perhaps. It

might extend a little bit longer than that. But I think some very

aggressive steps need to be taken immediately in order to prepare for

those very costly things that are on the horizon.

The same applies with Corrections. It’s a pretty substantial

payroll for B.C. Corrections as well. The recruiting efforts, some of

the vacancies they have, services within our remote areas of the

province, bringing in restorative justice…. There are a number of

factors here that are going to have financial impacts on existing

budgets as we see them today.

I’m going to be monitoring it very closely. I’m going to be

watching the level of service that we have, particularly in rural B.C.

As I said, the provincial cap is 2,602 FTEs, under the provincial

agreement with the federal government. We’ve got 244.5 vacancies that

are unfunded that we could be using desperately in rural British

Columbia — places like Vanderhoof, places like Williams Lake provincial,

places like Smithers provincial and probably just about every other

provincial detachment we have in the province here, including our First

Nations. I do hope the minister has a look at that.

I’ll just close by saying I do appreciate the hard work that

everybody within your ministry…. All the staff, the deputy minister and

all the assistant deputy ministers and directors and whatnot they have

in there — great staff. I appreciated working when I was over in your

chair. I know they’re working hard and diligently behind the scenes. But

you’ve got this enormous beast rolling down the way, and these clouds

are looming there. There’s a lot of work that needs to be

done.

[11:30 a.m.]

R. Sultan: On a rather impromptu basis, I’m here to support my colleague, the

distinguished member from Prince George. Listening to the line of

questioning, it prompted in my mind a question pertaining to a rather

unusual advisory, I suppose it could be called, that was distributed

perhaps two months ago, concerning the definition of “politically

exposed persons” or PEP. You and I are both PEPs under that definition,

because we are perhaps in a position to influence the disposition of

significant sums of money.

This advisory was issued by FINTRAC, the federal agency concerned

with tracking suspicious transactions. I suppose that is their mandate.

They went to some effort to define the scope of the obligations that

they felt politically exposed persons such as myself and yourself have.

It was not confined to me and you but to our families, our spouses, our

parents, our children, people we worked with closely day to day.

Astonishingly for a federal advisory, it also said that I would also

have to count my mistress, which I thought was an unusual insertion. I

beg to say I haven’t got one — at the moment, at least.

Humour aside, the obligation to be aware of suspicions that might

possibly be dubious in origin or disposition was imposed on all of us.

It did not spell out to whom we should report our suspicions except

somebody superior to us. It sort of left it at that. It was a rather

open-ended, blanket obligation they imposed on all politically exposed

persons in Canada.

I suspect you saw that same memorandum. If so, what was your

reaction to it, and what has the government done to implement

it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I would say is: that is what we have a Conflict of Interest

Commissioner for, whose job it is to interpret the acts which we operate

under in terms of the disclosure that’s required on assets. Spouses, for

example, are required to list assets. That’s the legislation that

governs us in British Columbia.

I’m happy to also take up with Finance if there’s a legal issue

from this memorandum from FINTRAC, because it would strike me that a

change like that would have to be something that is legislated as

opposed to just a memorandum coming out from a federal agency. But we

will find out, and we will get back to the member.

R. Sultan: I look forward with great interest to your

interpretation of this

memorandum.

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, Minister, I will now call Vote

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hang on. I was just going to say a few remarks before

I….

The Chair: Please proceed, Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First off, I want to thank my staff for all the amazing work that

they have done in supporting me. I want to thank my colleague across the

way from Prince George–Mackenzie. I know he’s very knowledgable on these

issues. He has a great particular interest, especially when it comes to

policing in rural British Columbia. I appreciate the questions and him

raising those issues because I do think that they are

important.

I share his concern about policing in rural British Columbia. I

share his concern, particularly when it comes to First Nations and the

shortage that we have and the failure of the federal government to live

up to its funding commitment. It is something I want him to know that we

are and will continue to push on — that issue.

[11:35 a.m.]

There are challenges facing us in terms of not just law

enforcement as a whole but also in corrections in the province. Issues

of recruitment and retention are important. We are working on those

issues because we want to ensure that we’ve got the best people, who are

doing amazing work in very difficult circumstances.

There’s a lot in this ministry. When you ask people what the

Solicitor General is responsible for and when you start to tell them,

they’re like: “Wow.” There are a lot of components to this

ministry.

On top of that, we have the cannabis file. It takes up a lot of

time and a lot of the ministry’s resources, but it’s a challenge I know,

with my staff, we are more than capable of meeting. I think, over the

coming year, we will have that framework in place. We will continue to

push on the policing front to get additional resources.

As I said, I am particularly concerned about rural B.C.​

because, too often, the focus is on the Lower Mainland, which is

important. It’s not just one community, for example, when it comes to

organized crime. It is as much a provincial issue as it is a regional

issue, as opposed to a problem faced by any one city alone.

The reality, I think it’s fair to say, is that too often rural

B.C. does get forgotten in the media. That’s not a criticism of the

media. That’s just the reality. I want you to know that we haven’t

forgotten, and that’s very much part of our thinking in terms of the

policies and the initiatives that we undertake.

We are looking at doing some additional work in consumer

protection, for example, emergency management B.C., building on the

lessons of last year. Hopefully, this year we will not see the same

situations we saw last year, but we won’t know until the

summer.

I want to thank the member for his questioning and the other

members of the House who have asked questions.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $755,457,000 — approved.

Vote 39: Emergency Program Act, $14,728,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 39 and

the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:38 a.m.

Unmatched Element [correctionsList]

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