Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 214

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Jean Muir and women in business

C. Oakes

Community social services workers

M. Elmore

Dementia

J. Isaacs

Alzheimer Society of B.C.

A. Kang

Patrick Michell and Kanaka Bar Indian Band clean energy project

J. Tegart

Social workers

N. Simons

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

Oral Questions

Speculation and vacancy tax exemptions for cabins

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

J. Thornthwaite

Environmental assessment of Trans Mountain pipeline and protection of Salish Sea

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Government response to speculation and vacancy tax concerns of local officials

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

Speculation and vacancy tax in Belcarra

J. Johal

Hon. C. James

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Beare

M. Stilwell

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply

Funds granted for public service

Hon. C. James

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Hon. C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Throness

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: On behalf of all members of the House, I think many of us are going to

be joining representatives of the Alzheimer Society today over the

lunch-hour. I wanted to introduce some of our guests here in the

gallery.

[10:05 a.m.]

Maria Howard is the indefatigable CEO of the Alzheimer Society. Juan

Rendon, Barbara Lindsay, Cathryn France, Dawn Wedman, Heather Cowie,

Jennifer Stewart, Lauren Weisler and Laura Frisby all work for the Alzheimer

Society or are board members. They’re here with some of the most important

people that gladden their communities every day — advocates and volunteers

with the society. Lynn Jackson; Mark Demers; Jim Mann; and Patrick Tham —

who, I believe, is from Vancouver-Kensington; and Ellen Allen are all

here.

I know we’re all going to enjoy meeting with all of these people over

the lunch-hour, and I want everyone in the House to make them welcome

today.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce these folks who are

here in the House. They provide services that are very near and dear to my

heart, because I used to do that in my former life.

Here from northern child development centres are Kerri Bassett from

the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre in Smithers, Fiona Delorme from

the Terrace Child Development Centre, Marianne Hemmy from the Kitimat Child

Development Centre, Darrell Roze from the Prince George child development

centre, Lynn Mathieson from Quesnel and District Child Development Centre

and Tana Millner from the Child Development Centre Society of Fort St. John

and District. With them is Margaret Warcup, who is a consultant for the

northern CDCs. She’s also a really excellent member of our Provincial Child

Care Council.

I was hoping to meet with them today, but I’m going to be doing

estimates and won’t be able to, so they’re meeting with my staff. I’m really

looking forward to hearing what their issues are and, hopefully, meeting

with them very briefly. Would everybody please join me in making them very

welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure this morning to introduce a

neighbour and a friend from the Columbia Valley, John Rouse. He’s a big

community volunteer. Whether it’s at the chamber or you name it, that man is

involved in it. Would the House please make John feel welcome here

today.

I. Paton: Well, arguably, the finest fire department in British Columbia is the

Delta fire department, Local 1763, and three of my good buddies are here

today. They may be in the House, or they may be still at the Bard and

Banker; I’m not sure. Mike McMillan, Ben Lewis, Jamie McGarva and Carson

Isfeld are here today. They do a great job for us, keeping everybody safe

and protected in my municipality of Delta. Make them feel

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the correct pronunciation for Delta fire service is Abbotsford

fire service.

Hon. R. Fleming: The correction is also that the Saanich and Victoria firefighters

associations are, indeed, the province’s finest.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce an old friend and a wonderful

teacher in school district 61 who is here today, Mr. Brian Bradley. He’s got

a group of students with him from Victoria High School, western Canada’s

oldest secondary school, an award-winning school with many innovative

programs. One thing that is very impressive about Victoria High School is

that they have the highest ratio of successful scholarship applications by

any students in the district. It’s a testament to great teachers like Mr.

Bradley and others in that school. I would ask the House to make him and all

of these students welcome here today.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to acknowledge all of the organizers for the Leading

Influence MLA Prayer Breakfast, where 37 MLAs attended this morning. There

was a dynamic speaker, Scott Hagen, who blessed all of the MLAs for their

service. I’d like to acknowledge how impactful this morning was for me and

all of my MLA colleagues in these chambers. Would the House please welcome

our delegation.

M. Bernier: I have a feeling there’s going to be a lot of arm wrestling amongst

MLAs later, on who’s got the best fire hall in the province. I think I can

take the member from Delta South, on that one too. It’s obviously an honour

for me. I don’t get to rise in the House very often to recognize people who

make the long trek from the Peace country, specifically Dawson Creek, down

to the House here to visit.

[10:10 a.m.]

I want to thank the firefighters from my communities in Peace River

South for the amazing dedication that they have to our citizens. I wanted

today to recognize, specifically, Marcel Capelle, Brad St. Germain and Rob

Huttema, who took the long trek down here to support their colleagues, meet

with members of the House and enjoy a couple of days here in Victoria with

all of us. Please make them welcome here to Victoria.

Hon. D. Eby: I know I’m looking forward to that arm-wrestling

competition.

The members of this House will know the priority that we place on

Indigenous justice and our partnership with the Aboriginal Justice Council.

Well, there are two members of the public service who are leading the work

on the public service side that are here joining us today. The executive

director of the Indigenous justice strategy, Colleen Spier, is here, as well

as our manager of the Indigenous justice strategy, Beverley Salkus. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s an honour today to introduce six students from the University of

Victoria and Royal Roads University who are working on files like species at

risk, the state of environmental reporting, climate risk management and

executive operations. They’re on placement with the ministry currently.

Their names are Lydia Lobbezoo, Erin Franz, Yashar Ghajar, Jasmine Taulu,

Julie Galloway and Jill Westby. Joining them are ministry staff, some of

whom are supervising these placements: Celine Davis, Meg Sullivan, Kate

Craig, Kira Stevenson, Dominique Sigg, Elena Merritt, Andy Teucher and

Rebecca Westley. Would the members please join me in making all of them

very, very welcome.

J. Isaacs: I would also like to echo the Minister of Health’s comments in

welcoming a very special group to the Legislature here this morning. The

Alzheimer Society, the board members and all the volunteers, are incredible

advocates and passionately care for our individuals and families who are

facing Alzheimer’s and dementia care diagnoses.

I look forward to the annual dementia luncheon today at the

Legislature and hearing the Voices in Motion choir and ask that my

colleagues join me in thanking the Alzheimer Society for all the work they

do and welcoming them here today.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a couple of our local

firefighters. From Local 2143, we have Chris Austin joining us today, Aaron

Tjepkema and Stephen Beard. As we’re on the “Who’s got the best fire

department,” I just want to do a little throw-out to Stephen Beard. He owns

Fort St. John’s first craft brewery, so that’s got to count for something to

make it a good fire department.

I also want to introduce and recognize Tana Millner, who is down from

Fort St. John with the Child Development Centre. I’m looking forward to

meeting with her and her colleagues today.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Anastasia Lapatina. She’s up in

the gallery right now. She’s a grade 12 student at Brentwood College in Mill

Bay, and she’s here to shadow me today. I’ve been invited to speak in her

teacher Mark Wismer’s class a couple of times, and both times that I was

there, Anastasia stood out as incredibly engaged, interested. She came

prepared with amazing questions and insights. It’s a real delight to have

her here today. Would the House please make her feel most

welcome.

B. Ma: I’m looking very much forward to meeting firefighters from the North

Shore this afternoon. We have Tyler Lentsch and Jeremy Brodtrick from the

city of North Vancouver firefighters and Ryan Stewart, Mark Dear and Trevor

Edmonds from the district of North Vancouver firefighters who will be

joining us in the precinct. Would the members please join me making them

feel very welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the new mayor of West Kelowna,

who’s in the precinct today with his wife, Laurel Milsom. Gord and Laurel

have travelled down here for the Fallen Firefighter Memorial yesterday for

the loss of one of West Kelowna’s finest firefighters, Capt. Troy Russell,

and his family being celebrated. I know that his colleagues are in the

precinct, as well, today — Trevor Bredin, Nathan Pike and others that I’m

going to be meeting with later on this morning.

More importantly, Mayor Milsom is here on his first visit to talk

about well-balanced change, which was his campaign theme. I think that

really we should talk about…. “Landslide Milsom” is really the term that we

should be using, because Gord topped the polls and was swept in with three

new councillors in the city of West Kelowna, who are really looking to how

to change the discussions with government.

[10:15 a.m.]

We had an excellent meeting with the Minister of Health yesterday, and

we look forward to meeting with Minister Robinson and Minister Farnworth on

two other pressing matters here in the precinct.

Please welcome Mayor Milsom, his wife, Laurel, and the firefighters

from West Kelowna.

B. D’Eith: I’m sure we were all extremely moved yesterday by the memorial service

that the firefighters put on. When those bagpipes started up, I think there

wasn’t a dry eye in the entire backlot. It was an amazing

tribute.

I’d like to welcome today to the precinct some Maple Ridge

firefighters and others firefighters: Chris McKee, Adam Seward, Jordan

Delmonico and Craig Davis. Will the House please make them very

welcome.

T. Shypitka: Well, it appears I’m going last here. I’ll set the record straight on

who has the greatest firefighters local. That is 1253 and 2827 in Kootenay

East.

It gives me great honour to introduce some friends of mine from

Kootenay East that are here in the gallery today. One of the 15 fallen

firefighters that were so respectfully recognized yesterday here outside the

Legislature has direct ties to my riding. Today the widow of Don King, Ms.

Trudy King, is here, supported by her son, Todd King. Along with them are

the members of the great firefighters Local 1253: Greg Green, Paul Relkoff,

Dan MacKinnon, Murray Robert­son and, from the Fernie Local 2827, Brett

Uphill. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Isaacs: I’d also like to welcome a mayor from close to the Tri-Cities but a

next-door riding: the mayor of Belcarra, Neil Belenkie. Please make him feel

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JEAN MUIR AND WOMEN IN BUSINESS

C. Oakes: This Friday, March 8, marks International Women’s Day. The theme

for this year is “Balance for better.” But it is more than just a day of

recognizing gender equality. It is a campaign every day to act on

achieving balance — balance in our boardrooms, in elected office and

especially in the small business sector.

Many successful, hard-working entrepreneurs are, in fact, women —

entrepreneurs like Jean Muir. Jean is a World War II veteran and has

been a businesswoman all her life, all the while raising seven children.

She is a proud grandmother, a great-grandmother. In fact, from the

comments I received from the community, Jean has been a mom to so many

people in our community. Jean is deeply loved.

Jean has run a number of businesses in Quesnel, including the

Casbar Drive-In, the Carib theatre and went on to open up Jean’s lunch

bar and later Jean’s Catering. Even in her 90s, Jean continues to run a

successful home-based business. She is an amazing Avon

representative.

Jean is one of those incredible community pioneers who always

gives back, whether it’s championing our local youth or fundraising for

cancer or palliative care. So many community members have shared such

lovely stories of the impact that Jean makes in our community. I’d like

to share one.

Pam Devereux shared this with me — that Jean is a rock star. She

always goes above and beyond. She doesn’t have an off switch. In fact,

she is still doing the Women’s Fall Challenge 5k.

Jean embodies entrepreneurship. She works hard. She is tenacious.

She never gives up. She provides an excellent product. She excels at

customer service and in treating employees like family. When we invest

in women, when we invest in entrepreneurs, we build stronger

communities.

[10:20 a.m.]

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS

M. Elmore: I rise today to talk about the important work done every day in

B.C. by community social services workers. The month of March has been

proclaimed as Community Social Services Awareness Month to recognize the

supports and services that these dedicated workers provide to build

safe, healthy and caring communities.

Community social services workers provide services to some of the

most vulnerable people in our province. They support women, children,

youth and families, including persons with developmental disabilities

and special needs. They also serve families and women in transition

housing and those who access sexual assault centres and immigration

services.

These workers provide critical supports in our communities,

helping end violence, working on the front lines of the fentanyl crisis

and reaching out to those who experience homelessness. They provide

services that improve the quality of life in our communities and make

life better for the people in British Columbia.

Community social services workers have been an important voice in

the work to develop B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy. They share

their unique and complex experiences, along with their important

thoughts on how to better support vulnerable people in B.C.

Through the poverty reduction strategy consultations, I’ve met

some of the most compassionate and committed workers who’ve made an

incredible impact in the lives of people in our province. As community

builders and advocates, I know that community social services workers

will continue to amplify the voices of those who too often go

unheard.

I would like to invite all members to join me and all British

Columbians in recognizing March as Community Social Services Awareness

Month.

DEMENTIA

J. Isaacs: Imagine working hard all your life, spending your working years in

the trades as a carpenter, a painter or maybe even a bricklayer. Whether

working on the job or around the house, you love to work with your

hands. Perhaps you were an accountant, a school teacher or worked in the

non-profit sector.

Regardless of the career path taken, you are driven to serve

people. As a family person, you saw your children take their first

steps, a first job, a significant other and perhaps saw them experience

the joy of being a new parent. Despite the aches and pains that come

with aging, it’s a good time in your life, and there is much to look

forward to. But you notice things are changing.

Peter noticed that things were changing for him. His memory was

suffering. He was misplacing items and forgetting how to do familiar

tasks. At the age of only 53, Peter’s symptoms were attributed to too

much stress and the possibility that he could be depressed. Peter was

tested and eventually diagnosed with young-onset dementia.

When Bill was diagnosed at age 78, his biggest fear was losing his

independence and no longer being able to drive.

A dementia diagnosis is an earth-shattering event. It impacts

memory, language use, judgment, and there can be changes in behaviour

and personality. The stigma of this disease often isolates patients, and

many people feel lost or like the rug has been swept out from underneath

them.

Since 1978, the Canadian Alzheimer Society has been dedicated to

providing help through services like First Link, where patients receive

support, referrals to local health care providers, community services

and opportunities to meet people who are also coming to terms with their

new lives.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the society, the

boards and volunteers for their significant contributions that support

families facing Alzheimer’s and dementia diagnoses.

ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C.

A. Kang: It gives me great pleasure to speak about Alzheimer Society of

B.C. and the wonderful work that they are doing to create a

dementia-friendly province.

In B.C., there are an estimated 70,000 people who are diagnosed

with dementia. Dementia doesn’t just affect the person who is diagnosed

with the debilitating disease but, even more so, his or her family

members.

The Alzheimer Society provides support, information and education

to family members, friends and also the community. Unfortunately, stigma

is still a major issue for people living with dementia, trying to live

their lives with dignity in the face of disease that, over time,

relentlessly and progressively destroys the brain.

Alzheimer’s disease is not a joking matter. Yet jokes about having

Alzheimer’s have become commonplace. Forget a few things and you have a

name for forgetfulness — Alzheimer’s.

[10:25 a.m.]

Maybe we joke about Alzheimer’s because we know enough to fear

losing our minds. So please, when you forget where you put your keys or

where you last left your reading glasses, feel free to joke about your

fuzzy memory, your busy brain or even the fact that you might be tired

or showing signs of age. But please don’t turn that into Alzheimer’s.

Alzheimer’s is not a joking matter.

Support for people and families affected by Alzheimer’s is

important, and that is why the Ministry of Health is working together in

partnership with Alzheimer Society of B.C. to provide a resourceful

program called First Link to provide for people affected with

Alzheimer’s and people affected by dementia. First Link health line is

available in 83 communities throughout the province to help create

awareness of dementia.

I would like to invite everyone to participate in the IG Wealth

Management Walk for Alzheimer’s on Sunday, May 5, in various communities

across B.C. Together we can build a more dementia-friendly

province.

PATRICK MICHELL AND KANAKA BAR

INDIAN BAND CLEAN ENERGY

PROJECT

J. Tegart: I’m so proud to rise today to congratulate one of my constituents,

Chief Patrick Michell of the Kanaka Bar Indian Band, for being honoured

with Clean Energy B.C.’s Lifetime Achievement Award. The award is well

deserved, as Chief Patrick has worked hard to provide power as well as

economic opportunities for his community through an independent power

project near Lytton.

In the past 36 years, the band has partnered with Innergex

Renewable Energy to develop the Kwoiek Creek hydroelectric project,

which generates electricity without using a dam by diverting 7.2

kilometres of river water through a powerhouse on First Nations

land.

The project is 50 percent owned by the band and offers tremendous

benefits to the community. Not only do they enjoy a reliable source of

power but also long-term employment opportunities, tax revenue and 14

percent annual return on investment, among other benefits. Approximately

40 percent of workers during construction came from First Nations

communities, with more young people graduating, developing skills in

trades and supporting their families through good-paying

jobs.

It’s worth noting that the clean power industry in B.C. has

attracted more than $8.6 billion in investment and established valuable

partnerships with local communities and First Nations. Projects like

this one and numerous others show the value of clean tech companies

partnering with local communities and First Nations.

I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating Chief

Patrick Michell for the leadership he has shown for the benefit of his

community.

SOCIAL WORKERS

N. Simons: I’m pleased to be able to stand here today and talk about Social

Worker Week, which is next week when we’re not here. It’s an opportunity

today to thank social workers for everything that they do in

circumstances that would challenge many of us, giving hope to people who

have lost theirs, giving voice to people who have none and advocating

for people who may have nobody on their side.

Social workers work in hospitals to help people in their grief or

through major changes in their lives. They work in the community living

sector, supporting individuals to live fully in their communities. They

counsel those who are struggling to find their way through complex

circumstances, be it in custody settings, educational institutions or in

long-term-care facilities.

I know that in this place we often hear reference to “the hardest

job in public service,” or we hear people say they’d never want to be a

social worker, especially in child protection. But what we don’t hear,

in this place or other places in our province, is the wonderful stories

of success, of achievement, of connections social workers have made that

have resulted in lives lived better.

There are rarely headlines that read “Victim of Crime Recovers

Quickly” or “Social Worker Lessens Grief” or “Child Ends up Okay.” We

usually hear when things go wrong, and in those cases, it’s almost

always about working conditions, complexity of caseloads, individuals

acting unpredictably and, of course, poverty and government

austerity.

[10:30 a.m.]

Nothing is more satisfying to social workers than hearing one of

their kids, as we call them, say they were glad that you were in their

life, when they tell you their relationship with their mom or dad is

good now or when they say they’re going to be better parents than their

own were — and they say it without a tinge of anger, regret or

judgment.

Social workers are key members of our community. They don’t sing

their own praises. They are at their best when those around them are

not. So thank you to social workers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment

Act, 2019. This bill proposes a series of amendments to the Civil

Forfeiture Act to enhance the civil forfeiture office’s ability to

target the tools of the drug trade and gang violence and to trace,

preserve and forfeit the proceeds of crime.

The bill proposes a collection of rebuttable evidentiary

presumptions which will apply in situations commonly associated with

drug trafficking and organized crime. These presumptions will make the

forfeiture process more efficient and cost-effective while maintaining

the fairness of the process under the supervision of the B.C. Supreme

Court. As a result of these efficiencies, it is anticipated that more

funds will be available to fund community crime prevention initiatives

across the province.

The bill also establishes new tools for the civil forfeiture

office to employ in its efforts to trace, preserve and forfeit the

proceeds of crime. These tools will be of great assistance in ensuring

profits from drug trafficking and money laundering are captured and

reinvested in crime prevention projects in B.C.

Overall, this bill aims to make British Columbians safer by

strengthening our ability to forfeit the tools and profits of organized

crime and drug trafficking.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019, 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.

Oral Questions

SPECULATION AND VACANCY TAX

EXEMPTIONS FOR

CABINS

A. Wilkinson: Walter Mechler is a 93-year-old retired engineer. He’s with us

here today. In 1972, he purchased land on the outskirts of the village

of Belcarra. Over time, he designed and built a cabin on a rocky

outcrop. He built the cabin himself. Due to his wife’s health in recent

years, Walter hasn’t been able to live there all summer anymore, but he

does get there regularly with his children, his grandchildren and his

great-grandchildren.

This isn’t a vacant property. Walter is certainly not a

speculator, and the property can’t be rented.

The question goes to the Minister of Housing. Walter is here

today. Can she answer him directly? Why does she

consider him a speculator?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, and as I’ve answered before in this House, I

can’t comment on specific tax cases. That’s information that needs to be

provided through the tax department.

Certainly, when we take a look at the speculation tax, as we know

in this House, 99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the

speculation tax. As we know again, in this House, there’s a reason we’re

dealing with the speculation and vacancy tax. We’re dealing with it

because that side left us with a housing crisis right here in British

Columbia.

The member will know we know there are specific circumstances.

That’s why there are exemptions in place and a whole number of reasons.

There are exemptions, as well, for people who have cabins or people who

have summer homes. They get a $400,000 exemption if they’re British

Columbians, which will help individuals as well.

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

supplemental.

[10:35 a.m.]

A. Wilkinson: That answer was just as vacuous as this help line that Walter was

asked to call. We’re hearing regular stories of people spending two

hours on the speculation tax help line and getting no answers because

the staff simply don’t know the rules, so they leave people in a

void.

Nancy Strain is here. She has a family cabin in Belcarra built by

her father in 1963. It’s uninsulated. It cannot be rented. Nancy has no

intention of selling this family cabin that has been in her family for

generations now. It was passed on to her by her father. Most

importantly, Nancy is a widow. She is on a fixed income of $22,000 a

year — period. She has now been given a speculation tax bill of $5,000 a

year. The obvious question is: is this the speculator the minister is

after? Is this the demon who refuses to rent out her property? Is this

the target of this tax? When Nancy phones the help line, she gets

nothing in the way of answers.

Can this minister explain — preferably the Housing Minister, since

it’s nearby to her riding…? Can somebody on the government side explain

why Nancy is obliged to spend a quarter of her income to pay a tax that

has nothing to do with speculation, nothing to do with her property and

that she finds oppressive?

Hon. C. James: I think the member of the opposition made it clear what he thinks

about people who are struggling in British Columbia in his comments last

week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it will be good if the gallery can hear the

response.

Hon. C. James: There’s an entire generation of young people who have been left

without the opportunity to be able to buy a home or think of having a

second home.

We have put in place exemptions — again, a $400,000 exemption for

individual homes. I think it’s important to take a look: the property

values in Belcarra jumped in 2016 to 2017, just in one year alone, by a

47 percent increase in the value of homes.

We will have the opportunity again, as individuals come forward

with their questions, to take a look at the list of exemptions and

provide that support.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, these answers are reminiscent of the second and third calls

to the speculation tax dial-in number that was provided and that is

utterly useless. It has led fleets of seniors into the unknown,

wondering whether they’re going to be exempted or not because they can’t

get an answer from this minister. Here in the House, these people have

journeyed here from the Mainland, and what they get is political cheap

shots rather than answers from this minister.

On March 26 of 2018, the Finance Minister said: “People in smaller

communities, those with cottages…will not pay this tax.” Well,

apparently she’s had a change of heart, because in the gallery here we

have Walter; we have Nancy; we have Charline Robson and Sy Rogers. Each

of these people owns a family cabin, each is being accused of being a

speculator, and none of them can get answers from the minister’s

hotline.

These are not speculators; these are seniors. These are people on

fixed incomes. These are people who are looking for answers from this

minister. This minister broke her promise to exempt cottages of this

sort and has denied them any kind of answer to their queries.

The question goes directly to the Finance Minister. The Housing

Minister didn’t want anything to do with this, so she has passed the hot

potato to the Finance Minister. What is this government doing, taxing

these seniors on these cabins which cannot be rented under any

circumstances?

Hon. C. James: I’ll say again that people in British Columbia who own a second

home do have the opportunity to get a $400,000 credit on the value of

their home. That’s to ensure that truly rural cabins are exempt. They

won’t be paying when they’re looking at $400,000. We know, again, that

99 percent of British Columbians will not pay the tax.

[10:40 a.m.]

I do want to take issue with the member’s comments about the

hard-working staff who are on the lines taking in the calls. The vast

majority of individuals have put in their spec tax forms and vacancy

forms through electronic means. For those who have phoned in, they’ve

been doing an incredible job. The staff are working very

hard.

The MLAs also know that in fact, we’ve been doing calls, again,

through our office and supporting MLAs as well. We have the opportunity

to deal with individual calls for individuals who have

concerns.

J. Thornthwaite: Barbara Howard was a truly incredible British Columbian. She was

both the first black female athlete to compete for Canada on the world

stage and the first visible minority to be hired as an educator with the

Vancouver school board. A remarkable pioneer, Barbara was inducted into

the Burnaby, British Columbian and Canadian sports halls of

fame.

Barbara passed away two years ago and left her small Belcarra

cabin as a legacy to her extended family. Her niece Charline is retired

with a limited, fixed income, and she can’t afford to pay this uncaring

minister’s punitive tax. Charline is here right now.

Can the minister tell her why she wants to punish her with this

tax?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the opportunity. Again, when we take a look at the

speculation and vacancy tax, there’s a reason that this tax is coming

into place, Member. There’s a reason, because people in British Columbia

can’t afford to live and work in the same community. There are

individuals who have been living in their cars. There are seniors who

have not been able to find places to live. So yes, we are looking at

making sure we try and address the housing crisis.

We will look at individual circumstances. That’s why we put a list

of exemptions in place to be able to address those circumstances.

Individual British Columbians receive the $400,000 credits on the first

amount of the value of their house that they don’t have to pay the

speculation tax on, to ensure that we exempt those truly rural

cabins.

That’s the reason that this tax is in place. It’s because of the

housing crisis and the need to address that for British

Columbians.

J. Thornthwaite: This is what Charline wrote: “Our family spent many years at the

cabin thanks to Barbara’s hard work and caring. I am now retired, a

senior and cannot think how I will be able to afford this tax. I’m not

an investment owner. I do not want to sell. I only want to continue the

legacy that my aunt left our family.”

A question to the minister: why has this uncaring minister denied

an exemption for Charline and the other residents of

Belcarra?

Hon. C. James: Again, as the members know, I’m not going to give individual tax

advice in the Legislature. That’s not appropriate. If individuals don’t

feel they’ve had their questions answered, we have an opportunity to be

able to answer those questions. I am more than happy to ensure that we

get the officials to be able to answer those questions that the

individuals may have.

Are we going to continue, as a government, to address the crisis

that was left? Yes, we are. Do we have a big job ahead of us? Yes, we

do, considering the mess that was left after 16 years by the other

side.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND PROTECTION OF SALISH SEA

A. Olsen: Today I wear this forget-me-not in memory of my late grandmother

Phyllis Snobelen.

This weekend I was on Pender Island. On the sunniest weekend so

far, about 100 Pender Islanders gathered to discuss the National Energy

Board approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

The game changer in this reconsideration hearing is the NEB

finally admitting that the pipeline project will result in significant

adverse impacts on the orcas and their cultural relationship with

Indigenous people, increased greenhouse gas emissions and the potential

threat of a diluted bitumen spill in the Salish Sea.

[10:45 a.m.]

I have constituents on all sides of this issue. The NEB’s hearing,

frankly, has let us all down. This is about trust in government — trust

that government is putting the public interest in safe communities,

healthy environments and robust economics first. As the Environment

Minister rightly pointed out, the NEB did not add any binding conditions

to their approval, making their conditions almost meaningless. The B.C.

government has opposed this development and has promised to use every

tool available to halt its progress.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. What further steps is his government going to take to protect

B.C.’s coast?

Hon. G. Heyman: I thank the member for the question. I know the member, the

member’s party, our caucus and thousands of British Columbians share a

deep concern about the potential impacts of a diluted bitumen spill,

whether it’s on land or whether it’s from tankers in the ocean, and

remain opposed to this project. We share that view.

We share the view of the member’s constituents who have concern.

That’s why, hon. Speaker, we have continued consistently to oppose this

project, to say it’s bad for British Columbia. That’s why we made

submissions to the National Energy Board hearings that focused on the

complete inadequacy of the proponent, and now the federal government as

proponent, to demonstrate that they had either the capacity or the plans

to respond effectively to a diluted bitumen spill.

We made a presentation to the National Energy Board and said that

the project should be rejected for that reason, as well as other reasons

that the member has raised. We will continue to do everything we can to

ensure that British Columbians’ interests, the environment, the coast

and tens of thousands of jobs are protected.

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

A. Olsen: As the representative of Saanich North and the Islands, I

represent the geographical heart of the Salish Sea. It’s a vibrant,

culturally diverse, environmentally sensitive and economic powerhouse in

our region. The most dangerous part of the marine shipping route in the

Salish Sea is the 90-degree turn at Boundary Pass in Haro Strait. The

result is that my riding, Pender Island, all of the southern Gulf

Islands and the Saanich Peninsula are the most vulnerable to an oil

spill.

This NEB reconsideration hearing, frankly, was a sham from the

beginning. The Prime Minister said, before this new review had even

started, that “the pipeline will be built.” He had already decided the

outcome.

B.C. needs to be in control of our own environmental assessment

that is objective and evidence-based. It’s time to pull out of the

equivalency agreement that we signed on to.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment and

Climate Change Strategy. Will his government stand up for our coast?

Will his government pull out of the equivalency agreement and conduct

our own environmental assessment of the Trans Mountain

pipeline?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member for the question and for pointing

out some of the great difficulties that British Columbians have with

seeing the recent review by the National Energy Board as being

transparent, as being responsive to the very real concerns of British

Columbians.

I share the member’s frustration. I share the frustration of the

member’s constituents. But the fact remains that the Federal Court of

Appeal asked the National Energy Board and the federal government to do

additional studies. It did not strike down either the B.C. environmental

assessment certificate that was granted under the previous government or

parts of the existing National Energy Board certificate that were

granted.

Therefore, that certificate stands, with its conditions. What we

have done…. And I should point out that the equivalency agreement is

essentially moot, because it only applies to future National Energy

Board reviews, of which there will be none. But we have introduced

regulations to ensure that we can protect B.C.’s environment from an oil

spill — recovery plans, response plans. We have other regulations that

we’re about to announce.

[10:50 a.m.]

We have taken a reference case to the B.C. Court of Appeal to

ensure, and to assure British Columbians, that we are exercising every

inch of our jurisdiction to protect jobs, the coast and the environment,

unlike the members opposite.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

SPECULATION AND VACANCY TAX

CONCERNS

OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

S. Bond: Well, we know this: the speculation tax has been a mess since day

one. The minister knows it, and she should fix it.

It’s bad enough that the concerns of seniors in Belcarra are

falling on deaf ears, but the government continues to ignore mayors as

well. We know that members on the government side of the House are

hearing about this issue, and what have they said? Nothing. Not one

peep. Their own MLA, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, in fact warned

the mayor to be careful about his comments, or there could be

consequences.

This is what Mayor Neil Belenkie says — not my words, but the

mayor’s words: “My message to the government is that this tax is hitting

people who aren’t speculators, and they can’t afford this devastating

tax. But they refuse to listen and threaten to punish my community if I

continue to raise concerns.”

The mayor is here in the gallery today. Will the Finance Minister

take this opportunity to stand up and apologize for the treatment of the

mayor and finally listen to his concerns?

Hon. C. James: I had the opportunity to meet with the mayor on Friday at the

Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce. We had a conversation. This issue did

not come up from the mayor.

I have to tell you that the mayor and the MLA for the area have

raised their issues. We will have an opportunity, built into the

legislation, to meet with all the mayors of all the communities, for

them to bring forward their issues. I expect the mayor of Belcarra will

bring forward his issues, as the other mayors will as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I think it’s cold comfort to mayors across British Columbia

who have stood and expressed their concerns to this Finance Minister,

all on deaf ears. According to Mayor Belenkie, the member for Port

Moody–Coquitlam told him that he was risking the support his community

currently receives from the province. He went on to threaten that the

community’s relationship with the province would become much more

difficult if Belcarra continued to protest.

Intimidation of locally elected officials is completely

unacceptable. It’s time for this minister to stand up and apologize for

her colleague’s appalling treatment of the mayor and the residents of

Belcarra.

Hon. C. James: I’ve had the opportunity to speak to the mayors. I’ve had the

opportunity to speak to the mayor of Belcarra as well, on Friday. We had

the opportunity for him to present information. He knows that we will

have an opportunity when we come together with the mayors in a formal

meeting that will give them the opportunity to present their

pieces.

I have to tell the other side and tell this member and the Leader

of the Opposition and everyone on the other side that this government is

going to continue to stand up for people who can’t afford housing in

British Columbia, and we will not apologize for that.

We have a crisis in this province, a crisis that is impacting

individuals and families and seniors and businesses that can’t recruit

and retain employees in the best employment record in British Columbia,

across the country, because they can’t afford housing.

Are we going to move on our 30-point plan? Yes, we are. We’re

going to do everything we can to support families…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: …and individuals and seniors who can’t afford housing in our

province.

I am sure there are people, as well, in Belcarra who have

struggled because of the skyrocketing speculation going on in the

province, that have seen a 47 percent increase in housing. That doesn’t

help people who need to work and live in Belcarra either. That’s why

we’re moving on our 30-point plan.

[10:55 a.m.]

T. Stone: Well, nice try at deflection, Minister. You have the power to act

to address the issues that these seniors, four of whom are here today,

are facing. Clearly, you’re opting not to address their

situations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: This isn’t the first time that the NDP government has been caught

threatening mayors. It’s not the first time. Here’s what Langford’s

mayor, Stew Young, had to say: “As a matter of fact, I got threatened. I

talked to the minister’s senior aide, Rob Gillezeau, and he said, ‘If

you put those letters on your council agenda, you will never get out of

the speculation tax.’” That’s from the mayor of Langford, in the

Premier’s own riding.

When will the minister tell her staff, when will she tell her

fellow MLAs, when will she tell her fellow ministers to stop threatening

mayors with retaliation when these mayors are simply standing up,

showing guts, standing up for their communities, standing up for the

citizens in their communities against this phony speculation

tax?

Hon. C. James: In fact, the mayor of Langford did raise those issues. The issue

was investigated. The two civil servants who were in that meeting

attended it and said there were no inappropriate comments made, so in

fact, that issue was looked at.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: It is very clear. We know from the 16 years of the other side’s

record. We know from the reality of the housing crisis that this side

would get rid of any measures to deal with affordable housing in British

Columbia, because they showed them they didn’t care over the last 16

years.

We are going to continue to do everything we can to bring in

affordable housing in British Columbia, to address supply and demand.

We’re starting to see some cautious but positive signs when we take a

look at affordable housing. We have more work to do, because you can’t

undo 16 years in less than two years, but we are going to continue our

work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: I think we’ve hit a new low in this House. The Minister of Finance

has basically just called out the mayors, suggesting that they aren’t

telling the truth. We have two of those mayors in the House here today —

the mayor of West Kelowna and the mayor of Belcarra — and this minister

has just suggested that they’re not telling the truth. Well, shame on

you, Madam Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

T. Stone: The mayor of Langford was told in front of witnesses that his

community would be included in the speculation tax if he continued to

speak out publicly against it. And what did Stew Young, the mayor of

Langford, do? He continued to do what he felt was the right thing, and

he has continued to speak out against it. Then Langford found itself

included in the speculation tax.

Now, mayors have the right. The mayors of this province have the

right to speak out on behalf of their communities, and they should be

able to do so without fear of retaliation from the provincial

government.

For NDP MLAs and political staff to threaten the mayors and to say

to the mayors and the people they represent that they’re going to be

punished for speaking out against an unfair tax — well, that’s

unacceptable, it’s unfair, and it’s vindictive.

[11:00 a.m.]

My question to the minister is this. When will the minister,

again, tell her staff, tell her MLA colleagues, tell her fellow cabinet

ministers to back off on the threats of intimidation towards mayors, and

when will this minister show some competence, some compassion and some

common sense towards British Columbians who have been unfairly targeted

by this phony speculation tax, like the four seniors who are here

today?

Hon. C. James: The mayors can speak out and have continued to speak out, Member,

and I have continued to listen to the issues as recently as

Friday.

Now, I understand from the other side that they’re not interested

in hearing about people who are struggling to find housing. They’re not

interested in hearing from people who spent 16 years trying to find

housing in British Columbia. We are going to continue that

work.

Are there opportunities for a deduction, for a credit for

individuals who have cabins, truly rural cabins? Yes, $400,000 for those

individuals. And there’s a long list of exemptions, because we recognize

there are people who have unique circumstances. That’s why the

speculation and vacancy tax has the deductions that are here. That’s why

it has exemptions.

If anyone wants further questions, we have more opportunities to

be able to answer those questions.

SPECULATION AND VACANCY TAX

BELCARRA

J. Johal: Now we know why mayors are being threatened by NDP political

thugs. They don’t want the public to know about this story whatsoever.

The residents of Belcarra are unfairly caught in the net of

this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: It fits. It fits.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

J. Johal: The residents of Belcarra have been unfairly caught in the net of

this half-baked NDP speculation tax. Families who have had cabins for

decades are facing stress and anxiety, and this minister doesn’t even

care. Seniors like Walter, Nancy, Sy and Charline are on fixed incomes,

and they’re clearly not speculators. They’ve sadly had to come here on

their own today, because they are not getting proper representation from

their local MLA.

Question to the Finance Minister: will Belcarra be exempted from

the tax, and secondly, will the Finance Minister agree to meet the

residents of Belcarra today?

Hon. C. James: There is the opportunity for mayors to be able to bring forward

the unique circumstances in their community. I had an opportunity to

meet with the mayor on Friday, who raised those concerns. They have the

opportunity, just as all the other mayors do, to sit down. It’s written

into the legislation. They’ll be able to bring forward their unique

circumstances.

The other piece we’ll have by that point is data that the other

side didn’t bother collecting, because they didn’t want to look at the

speculation tax. We will have the information, we will bring it forward,

and the mayors will have a chance to put their case forward.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued debate on the supplementary

estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, and in the Douglas Fir

Room, Committee A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

[11:05 a.m. - 11:10 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On Vote 41(S): ministry operations, $5,000,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Members, the committee has to resume. Those members who don’t

have business in the House, please leave the House.

D. Clovechok: I seek leave of the House to sit in this chair and, with my

co-critic, ask questions from this chair and not my own.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Beare: Good morning, and welcome to the members opposite.

Before I begin taking your questions, I want to offer

clarification to a few of the questions that were posed by the members

opposite yesterday.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum asked what the base budget was

for RMI in 2018-19, and I replied the budget was $10.5 million. As a

point of clarification, I offer that the funding provided for the RMI

program has been $10.5 million on an annual basis. There is no base

funding for the RMI in the budget for 2018-19. That funding totaled

$5.25 million as approved access to contingencies. Beginning in 2019-20,

the approved base budget for RMI is $13 million. I look forward to

discussing that with you further in the 2019-20 estimates

debates.

In addition, we ended the evening with the member for West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky regarding when payments were made for the RMI in

fiscal 2017-18 and in 2018-19. I offer the members the following. The

funding allocation for 2017-18 was $15.75 million.

This was expensed in the fiscal year from contingencies in two

payments, $10.5 million in October ’17 for the 2017 calendar year RMI

program and $5.25 million in March 2018 towards the 2018 calendar year

RMI program. These two payments were made under the old formula

calculation. The last payment in March of 2018 was accelerated payments

for these communities. This was something we heard from the communities

that was very important. It’s still for the calendar year of

The funding allocation for 2018-19 was $5.25 million. This was

expended in the fiscal year from the contingencies in July 2018 to the

14 municipalities. This was the final payment for the 2018 RMI program.

This payment has had the benefit of being calculated based on the new

formula.

[11:15 a.m.]

In

summary, for the 2017 program, RMI was funded $10.5 million,

expensed in fiscal 2017-18. In 2018, it was funded $10.5 million and

$5.25 million accelerated and funded from 2017-18 contingencies and

$5.25 million funded out of 2018-19 contingencies. The next RMI payment

will be from fiscal 2019-20 base budget of $13 million, and we expect to

make that first new payment by July 2019.

I would also like to provide a table to the members that

summarized the payment for 2017-18 and 2018-19 to assist with clarity. I

thank the members, and I look forward to further questions on

RMI.

D. Clovechok: We’re just going to take a minute to have a look at

this.

M. Stilwell: Can communities expect to have accelerated payments in the

future?

Hon. L. Beare: The RMI program has now been put into the base budget in the

ministry, so no longer will the communities have to deal with these

short-term extensions — one year here, three months there — that were

given under the old regime and the old formula. It is now in the base

budget. We are committed to providing funding on a regularly scheduled

basis. The first payment that will go in the new year here is July

M. Stilwell: Just to be clear, no longer will any payments be received in

March. It will always be a continually ongoing basis of being

distributed in June.

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, that is our plan.

M. Stilwell: Yesterday we learned from the minister that the $5 million that we

are here for with the supplemental estimates, the additional funding

that she is seeking and requesting in this budget…. That, just so we’re

clear, is extra money that’s already been spent through her budget. As

the member mentioned yesterday in her remarks, the money has been

allocated already and spent.

We are typically here requesting the forgiveness of the spending,

not permission of the spending. The minister claims that her ministry is

on budget. But the mere fact that we’re here asking for the $5 million,

I would suggest, offers a different story.

[11:20 a.m.]

What I’m trying to understand is if she claimed, yesterday, that

she consulted and she listened and she received valuable input from the

communities that are impacted by RMI, then why wasn’t this $5 million in

the original budget? How could this have been an unforeseen budget

expense if this is a program that has been going on for 14 years, since

2006? Should that not have been predictable?

Hon. L. Beare: With respect to the member, that is simply not correct. I did

answer this yesterday. I’m happy to restate my answer.

The ministry has not overspent its budget. All of the ministry’s

expenditures and commitments are accounted for under the existing base

budget and contingencies.

Supplementary estimates do not mean the government is running out

of money or that the ministries are not carefully monitoring their

budgets. Supplementary estimates are an established budgetary tool that

reflects a strong provincial economy and disciplined budgeting and

expenditures practice by government. It’s important to note and

celebrate that supplementary estimates are only possible as government

has retired the operating debt in the current fiscal year.

D. Clovechok: If you could just help us understand this a little bit better. You

said yesterday that you’ve eliminated the operational debt, which means

you can do these things.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

D. Clovechok: Through the Chair, yep. Sorry.

Through you, Chair, to the minister, the minister said that the

budget is balanced. Yet we still don’t understand why this money wasn’t

budgeted in the original budget if everything is on track. We don’t

really understand that. If she could help us with that, it would be

appreciated.

Hon. L. Beare: The supplementary estimates allow government to access current

fiscal year surpluses, and that is the result of a strong economy and

prudent fiscal planning. So we are able to reallocate contingencies to a

broad range of programs and services that the people of British Columbia

need. My ministry has approved access to contingencies for $5.25 million

for RMI.

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: Today I would ask the House to welcome two classes from Arden

Elementary School, from my constituency. Last week they invited me and

welcomed me to their classroom. I got to talk about this House and how we

work with a war of words, not a war of swords. I hope they were excited to

come today.

I would like to say thank you to the teachers — Ms. May, Mr. Atkinson

and Ms. Colville — and any others who helped make it happen for them to

experience this very live event.

[11:25 a.m.]

If I may very quickly just run through the names, just like the Clerk

does when we do our votes, we’ve got Audrey, Brody, Chase, Cody, Daphne,

Ellie, Emma, Grady E., Grady W., Joey, Kalin, Kayla, Kloie-Jean, Lexie,

Madelyn, Merrissa, Mia, Molly, Nash, Noelia, Owen, Rylen, Teagan, Tenesea,

Keigan, Riley B., Eva, Sadie, Olivia, Izzy, Linken, Aidan, Seth, Cohen with

a C, Kohen with a K, Saige, Laura, Hailee, Morgan, Seela, Noah, Peyton,

Nova, Jasper, Tayton, Cate, Carson, Lily, Kyla, Ryleigh.

Thank you so very much for giving me the opportunity to welcome them,

and I hope that all of you will join me.

Debate Continued

M. Stilwell: The minister commented in her response, just before the

introduction, that it was the strong economy and the fact that the

government was able to pay off the operational debt that has enabled her

ministry to be able to do the things that they have done. I appreciate

that, because, really, she’s giving credit to the previous government

for the work that they did to create that strong economy, to put us on

the pathway to eliminating that operating debt. I extend my gratitude

for acknowledging the hard work that was done when we handed over a very

significant surplus to the government to enable them to do some of the

things they want.

It still doesn’t make it clear how the RMI program that has been

around for 14 years…. Knowing that it was something that she heard from

communities…. There were apparently some consultations that went on. She

listened. She gained valuable knowledge from those

consultations.

How is it that it wasn’t put into her prior budget and we are now

here today? Is it because there’s this surplus, that rainy-day surplus,

that she’s overspending in her budget and can’t live within her means,

within her ministry budget?

Hon. L. Beare: I would like to extend my welcome to the students as well. Thank

you for joining us today. Hopefully, you’re finding this very

interesting.

To the members, I will remind them that the RMI program has never

been in base budget. It has always been accessed through contingencies.

It has never been in base budget. It will now be in base budget in

2019-20, and I look forward to discussing that in the upcoming

estimates.

M. Stilwell: That’s actually not answering the question that I had, whether

it’s in base budget or not. My question was: how is it not anticipated,

after you heard from consultations, after you heard from the

communities, that this is what they wanted and what they needed? How did

you not see it or have the preconceived notion that it would be

something that you wanted in your budget, that you wanted to make the

decision to put it in your base budget? How come we are here today

putting it in now?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Just for clarification from the member: is she seeking to ask why

the program wasn’t put into base earlier?

M. Stilwell: No. That’s not my question. My question is: why did you not

foresee that this was something you…? When was the decision made? On the

consultation with the communities, when you heard all the valuable

knowledge and gained the insight from them to make the decision, how

come this wasn’t a foreseen circumstance — that you wanted to put it

into your budget?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, we did foresee it, and that’s why we accessed approved

contingencies for $5.2 million for the program. That was part of

government’s overall fiscal plan.

D. Clovechok: Just so that we understand and we’re clear, you knew that it was

coming, or you knew that the plan was there, but you didn’t have the

foresight to put it into your budget when you created your budget last

time. So therefore, you spent it without actually budgeting for it. Is

that what we’re understanding?

Hon. L. Beare: That’s simply not correct. I have answered this question, and I

will reanswer it. The ministry has not overspent its budget. All of the

ministry expenditures and commitments are accounted for under the

existing base budget and contingencies.

Supplementary estimates don’t mean that the government is running

out of money or that ministries are not carefully managing and

monitoring their budgets. Supplementary estimates is an established

budgetary procedural tool that reflects a strong provincial economy and

is a disciplined budgeting and expenditures practice by

government.

It’s important to note and celebrate that supplementary estimates

are only possible as government has retired the operating debt in the

current and fiscal year. With the elimination of the operating debt in

the second quarter of last year, we’re able to table these supplementary

estimates and reinvest into the people of British Columbia.

D. Clovechok: To the minister, I appreciate her answer. I guess one has to think

that…. We understand that we gave you two billion reasons why you had

extra money to level this.

Let me ask you this question. Whether you’re in a business

situation or you’re in government, budgets are budgets. On a quarterly

basis, in business, you’ll ask your CFO for a quarterly statement, based

upon if there’s going to be overspending or slippage or anything like

that.

My question to you is…. It’s easier to come to us for $5 million

extra, which I’m happy to see is going to the RMI communities —

thrilled, actually — but the process is what is befuddling a little bit.

So if you could help us understand.

Before the minister came looking for extra dollars which have

already been spent, did you, in your ministry, spend some time looking

for slippages or efficiencies so that you didn’t have to come? What were

they? I know that there’s always slippage in budgets — always. So we

want to know if you looked for those slippages, looked for those

efficiencies. Did you find them? And why weren’t those efficiencies

employed to that $5 million ask?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is on budget, as I have

said, with access to contingencies. Tourism, Arts and Culture does not

have a surplus in their budget.

The Chair: Member, just a caution. When the question is asked, instead of

saying “you,” just say: “Minister, through the Chair.”

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Chair, for that reminder. It’s greatly appreciated. It

shows I’m still a bit of a rookie when it comes to this, and I’m okay

with that.

Through you, Chair, to the minister, that’s not really the

question that I asked. I asked if there were any slippages inside of the

ministry’s budget, and if so, were those slippages looked at as a

potential for offsetting some of this $5 million? And what were the

efficiencies associated with that budget? That’s the question that I

asked.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: So the question was: do I scrutinize my budget before coming here?

Yes, of course we do. I receive a monthly expenditure report from my

EFO, and we report quarterly to Treasury Board. Tourism, Arts and

Culture does not have any discretionary funds in the budget for anything

that is not committed.

D. Clovechok: Just to be clear, then, in your budget this year, there were no

slippages inside that budget that could have produced an efficiency that

could have been applied to this $5 million. That’s the question I’m

asking. I’m still looking for an answer on that.

Hon. L. Beare: That is correct.

M. Stilwell: What criteria did you use, or was used, to account for the

overspending in the budget to go towards RMI and not to other priorities

in the ministry — areas such as sport, for instance, which obviously is

always in need of extra funding?

Hon. L. Beare: Again, that is simply not correct. This is not overspending. I

will repeat my answer again for the members, but this has been answered

a number of times now in this House.

No, the ministry has not overspent its budget. All of the

ministry’s expenditures and commitments are accounted for under the

existing base budget and contingencies. Supplementary estimates do not

mean the government is running out of money or that ministries are not

carefully monitoring their budgets.

Supplementary estimates are an established budgetary tool that

reflects a strong provincial economy and a disciplined budgeting and

expenditures practice by government. It’s important to note and

celebrate that supplementary estimates are only possible as government

has retired the operating debt in the current fiscal year. We believe

that the people of British Columbia should benefit from this strength

and this opportunity.

M. Stilwell: I thank the minister for reading from her script and again

acknowledging the operational debt being eliminated, thanks to the hard

work of the previous government. But the question was actually: what

criteria did you use to put extra money into RMI and not other

priorities within your ministry?

Hon. L. Beare: This is not extra money. What we have chosen to do is keep the

program whole at $10.5 million.

D. Clovechok: Noting that the hour is getting close to lunch, I think we’ll wrap

this up for now. We certainly appreciate the minister and her staff.

Thank you very much for your time and your efforts. We’ll leave that as

such and look forward to the estimates that are upcoming.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to thank the members opposite for their questions today.

Earlier when we started — yesterday afternoon — we talked about the

great work that the resort communities are able to do with RMI, as part

of the opening statement.

Projects like new mountain biking trails in Kimberley are making

beaches accessible for everyone. Tofino to the Lighthouse Trail in

Ucluelet. Our government has shown that you don’t have to choose between

a strong economy or supporting people. You can do both, and that’s why

we’re here today.

I thank the members opposite very much for their questions, and I

do look forward to the estimates upcoming soon.

The Chair: Members, the question is Vote 41(S).

Vote 41(S): ministry operations, $5,000,000 — approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion

of the supplementary estimates of 2018-19 for the Ministry of Tourism,

Arts and Culture, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM

COMMITTEE OF

SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on

February 28; and on March 4 and 5 be now received, taken as read and

agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 375.1 million dollars towards

defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019. This sum is in addition to

that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of Supply Act,

2018-2019 .]

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019

(SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES)

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary

Estimates).

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 6 be introduced and read a first time

now.

The supply bill is introduced to authorize additional funding for

the operation of government programs for the ’18-19 fiscal year. The

House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of

resolution from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the

supplementary estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there

be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary

funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the

public service for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

While it’s the usual practice of this House to proceed with all

three stages of the supply bill this day, by agreement between the

Opposition House Leader and our House Leader, we will proceed with first

reading today.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates), 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.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m looking forward to seeing all of you this afternoon, and 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 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra

Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $2,064,727,000.

The Chair: Minister, did you have an opening statement?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the territories of the

Lekwungen-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, on

whose land we do our work. I just want to start by saying how honoured I

am to be the Minister of Children and Family Development. I’m working

with an amazing team of over 5,000 staff who dedicate themselves each

and every day to children and families right across British

Columbia.

I want to give a special thanks to my executive team for leading

that charge: Allison Bond, my deputy minister; Christine Massey, my ADM

of early years and inclusion; Teresa Dobmeier, ADM of service delivery;

Carolyn Kamper, ADM of strategic priorities; Cheryl May, ADM of policy

and legislation; Philip Twyford, ADM of finance and corporate services;

and Cory Heavener, provincial director of child welfare.

Their dedication, their passion, determination and innovative

visions are what I think help to bring about significant changes in this

ministry. It’s a vital shift in the way we do our business so it better

serves our children, youth and families for many years to

come.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague, Katrina Chen, Minister of

State for Child Care.

The Chair: Of course, hon. Minister, we don’t use names in this

place.

Hon. K. Conroy: Sorry, right. We’re in the little House.

I’d like to also recognize the Minister of State for Child Care

for her passion and for her inspiration in the work she does every day

with the child care system right across our province.

[11:15 a.m.]

She’s doing amazing things to ensure that we move forward on our

ten-year plan of introducing a universal child care system. I’m just so

thrilled that we are working together, because I know it’s creating a

better future for British Columbians.

My mandate letter from the Premier is very clear. It’s to improve

child protection services, to reduce the disproportionate number of

Indigenous kids in care, to work to implement the recommendations from

Grand Chief Ed John’s report, to provide better supports to keep

Indigenous youth in their homes and communities and to help youth aging

out of care successfully transition to adulthood.

I believe we are making great progress. We’re actually seeing the

lowest number of children and youth in care in the last 25 years and the

lowest number of Indigenous kids in care since 2014.

Expanded government supports are helping to increase the rate of

family preservation for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous families.

After receiving supports, almost 90 percent of children in need of

protection are able to continue to live safely with their families. But

even so, there is still an overrepresentation of Indigenous children in

care in B.C., and we all know that that’s unacceptable and needs to

change.

For those children who can’t safely live with their parents, we

still need skilled, loving caregivers. Our caregivers have been waiting

far too long for the pay increase they deserved. It was a really proud

moment for me when we raised the monthly rates paid to foster and other

caregivers and parents receiving post-adoption assistance.

Maybe most importantly, we raised the rate for caregivers on the

extended family program by 75 percent. For the first time, that brought

the rates paid to aunties, uncles, grandparents caring for family

members in line with what foster parents make. It’s one way we’re able

to keep children, especially Indigenous children, connected to their

communities, their extended families and their cultures.

Also, by focusing on prevention, collaboration and jurisdiction,

the ministry is working to shift the culture and practice to keep

Indigenous children out of care, safe with their families, safe within

their communities and their cultures.

We are implementing Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations. Through

legislative changes, Indigenous communities are finally getting more

involved in child welfare decisions. We’ve entered into separate

agreements with the federal government and the Cowichan Tribes, the

Wet’suwet’en Nation and the Secwepemc Nation. These agreements commit us

to work together to see the nations exercise their jurisdiction over

child and family services. The ministry is engaging with a number of

other First Nations, including the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and the

Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

The ministry is also engaging with former youth in care to

identify ways to better support the transition to adulthood. Through a

variety of government programs and partnerships, the province offers

resources that help young people from care with additional life skills,

education and financial supports. We’re making programs such as

agreements with young adults more inclusive, with greater flexibility to

ensure that youth have access to the right supports that they need when

they’re required.

Last year our ministry enhanced the agreements with young adults

program, increasing the monthly amount by $250 as well as providing that

much-needed financial support year-round, right up to the age of 27. Our

government also eliminated the tuition fees for youth from care. The

provincial tuition waiver program now provides free tuition for eligible

former youth in care in all of B.C.’s 25 public post-secondary

institutions.

The minister of state and I have spoken quite in detail about the

strides the government is taking in bringing universal child care to our

province. I’m convinced that the member opposite will be able to ask all

kinds of questions about our child care program, but I just want to say

how exciting it is for me, personally.

After what I think have been years of neglect for this incredibly

important sector, we are moving forward to bring universal child care to

our province. It’s a great story, and I’m looking forward to sharing the

numbers with the member opposite on how well this program is

doing.

I know there’s a lot of work that we had to do when I became

minister. I know that we’re doing much to deal with already

much-neglected services under the previous government. I wanted to say

that when we added in $6.3 million to significantly cut wait-lists for

respite services and increased the annual funding, that was a huge issue

for children and especially the parents of children with special

needs.

[11:20 a.m.]

We know, as I said, there’s more work to do. I’m excited to

continue this work to make life better for children, youth and their

families right across B.C. I’m looking forward to the questions from the

member opposite as well as his colleagues. So we’re happy to take

questions.

L. Throness: I want to follow up by thanking the ministers for their service. I

know it’s a lot of hard work to do what they’re mandated to do by the

voters. I want them to know that in my critique, I do not wish to play

political gotcha. It is my desire to make child care and children and

families better. So where I see gaps, I want to call them out, but that

will be the intent of my questions.

I have about three hours with the MCFD minister, and I thought I

would ask a few broad philosophical questions to begin and then talk

about the core of her mandate, which is children in care, being

contracted agencies, foster care and adoption. I have a number of

miscellaneous questions.

About 1:30, I thought, after lunch, some other MLAs would come and

ask questions. Then I think at about three o’clock, 2:30, there will be

officials available for the Columbia River treaty questions. If I’m

wrong, please tell me.

Hon. K. Conroy: All things Columbia will be dealt with at the end of estimates, so

they’re not planning to be here until the member opposite has finished

both Children and Families and Child Care.

L. Throness: Can I ask if that’s tomorrow, then, that they’ll be

available?

Hon. K. Conroy: I think that’s somewhat up to the member opposite to determine,

but it’s our hope that it will be tomorrow afternoon.

L. Throness: All right. We’ll make it work. After that, it would be Minister of

State for Child Care that we will talk about.

I want to begin with a question about fathers. The First Call:

B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition puts out a report on child

poverty every year, and the latest report said that one in five

children, or about 172,000 children, were living in poverty in 2016.

Half of these families are lone-parent families, and 82 percent of

lone-parent families were female-led. That works out to about 71,000

children, which is a lot of children. But only 11 percent of children in

lone-parent families led by a male were in poverty. So there’s a huge

difference there.

There are two solutions to that, both legitimate public policy

approaches. One is to equalize the income of female-led households.

There is another solution to that, and there are many social benefits

and financial benefits to healthy spousal relationships. I’m not talking

about defending abusive relationships or anything like that, but I would

point out that preserving and strengthening families, whole families, as

a preventative measure is government policy.

I’m wondering if the minister has given any thought to

strengthening families specifically by strengthening fathers and

fatherhood, which has the potential to lift dozens of thousands of

children out of poverty and do a lot of other great social things as

well. I have a few questions in that regard.

My first specific question in that regard would be: does the

ministry offer counselling to couples struggling in their

relationship?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Obviously the goal for the ministry is to keep families together.

That’s something that we’ve been working on, and I think that’s shown by

the fact that 90 percent of the times that the ministry is involved with

families, 90 percent of the times, those children are able to stay with

their families because of the supports provided to the

families.

These supports are based on what the families need. Some families

need different supports than others. But I think the key to this is to

say that the ministry’s goal is to ensure that families stay together.

It’s not about apprehending children. It’s about keeping families

together and ensuring that the families get those supports.

Again, the fact that 90 percent of those families stay together

after intervention with the ministry, I think, shows the ministry is

providing those supports that families need.

L. Throness: The minister has avoided my direct question. Am I to understand

that the ministry does not offer counselling to couples who struggle in

their relationship?

Hon. K. Conroy: The services could obviously include counselling, but it’s very

dependent on what the families need. So if a family needs that kind of

support, that’s where the ministry would be looking. It’s based on what

the individual families need.

L. Throness: Does the ministry offer programs specifically targeted at fathers

— such as anger management courses, courses on parenting, how to cope

with the struggles of family life — encouraging fathers to love their

partners and provide for their children?

Hon. K. Conroy: The services that the member is referring to…. We actually have

contractors right across the province who provide those

services.

L. Throness: Would the minister consider a social marketing campaign to

reinforce the importance and role of fatherhood and to teach that a

father’s commitment to his family is something that this government and

society highly values?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s an interesting suggestion from the member. I think there

are lots of opportunities for public education in this area, and we’ll

take that one under advisement.

L. Throness: One more suggestion for the minister. By law, the government must

present a poverty reduction plan by March 31 of this year. Would the

minister speak with her counterpart, the Minister of Social Development

and Poverty Reduction, about the possibility of including something like

this in his plan?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We work very closely together, the Minister of Poverty Reduction

and myself, and will continue to work together to ensure that we’re

providing the services that children and families need in this province

to ensure that they are not living in poverty.

L. Throness: I wanted to ask a couple of questions now about data.

In the Journal of the American Medical Association , a

pretty prestigious journal, there was a Canadian study of 2,400 mothers

from Calgary who reported on the screen time their children are

spending. Kids three years old are viewing nearly four hours of stuff

every day. There’s a statistical association they found between higher

levels of screen time at two and three years and poor child outcomes at

three and five years. What is the minister doing to inform parents about

the impact of too much screen time on the development of their

children?

Hon. K. Conroy: Obviously, our ministry is committed to providing early childhood

education, which is the best opportunity for children to thrive. All

studies have been shown…. There are hundreds of studies, I’m sure, that

have been done, but there are many, many studies that have been done

that have shown that the best opportunity for kids to grow in the early

years is good-quality early childhood education.

I know we will have many hours of time for the member to ask about

our early childhood education programs when we get to that. I just want

to say that I know that that is the best opportunity for parents to

ensure that their children have good-quality early childhood education,

because the studies have shown that children thrive when they have

good-quality early childhood education.

L. Throness: I want to talk for a moment about something related to screen

time, and that’s playtime.

In a global report last November on physical activity, Canada

scored a D. And a recent three-year study of 10,000 kids across Canada

found that children today lack motor skills like playing ball, for

instance, like throwing and catching a ball, because they don’t play

outside. What is the minister doing to inform parents about the

importance of unstructured play out of doors?

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, part of the guidelines around early childhood education

is to ensure that every child gets outside playtime every day. I think

that that carries on when you talk to parents on the weekends and when

parents are involved. I talk to parents that have their kids going to

baseball, soccer, hockey, swimming and figure skating. They’re very,

very involved in ensuring that their kids get exercise.

I do talk to parents who are concerned about the amount of screen

time their kids are getting. They know that they need to be outside.

They need to be playing. They need to just be running around in the yard

and having fun. Part of the early childhood education curriculum is to

ensure that kids are outside playing.

I talk to moms who are in mom-and-tot programs, who might be just

at the park. They recognize how critically important it is — and dads

too, I know, recognizing our Chair. He has a two-year-old, and he knows

how critically important it is that kids have that time outside

playing.

L. Throness: My final big-picture question is…. I want to ask about freedom for

kids. When I grew up in Fort St. John — I’m sure it was the same for the

minister; we’re of the same generation — we had one channel on TV.

Screen time was cartoons on Saturday morning and books.

Now the government has chosen an educative model for all of child

care where only early childhood educators can provide care, and the

emphasis from age zero is on school. It all seems so serious to me. What

about just being a carefree kid for a few years like we were? Will the

government offer a nurturing model, as well as an educative model, to

parents who prefer a less pressured, less academic and less

achievement-oriented environment for their children?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, we didn’t have TV until I was in my late teens. I

won all the awards for reading the most books in school, my entire

elementary. Actually, we did have TV during the Olympics and World Cup

soccer. My dad would rent a TV so that he could watch the Olympics and

World Cup soccer. That’s the only time we had TV. So just to clarify

that.

[11:35 a.m.]

There was no screen time in my growing up, and we carried that on

with our own kids, actually. We had CBC in Pass Creek when our kids were

growing up, much to their dismay. So there was very little screen time

for them as well. I see it with my grandkids. They know they only get so

much screen time. Then the rest of the time it’s playtime with all of

the grandkids, all nine of them. That’s been interesting to

watch.

I think it’s important to recognize that parents in B.C. have an

option. They have an option for early childhood education programs. They

also recognize that those are nurturing programs. Child care is

nurturing. I’m hoping that the member is not insinuating that it’s not

nurturing, because it is definitely nurturing. It is taking care of the

children. It’s early childhood education and also care, which is a big

part of that. It’s not just about education, as the member puts it. It’s

about care.

When you look at nursery school programs, preschool for families

who don’t require full-time child care, they are also very nurturing,

also ensuring that there is a great opportunity for play. Then there are

the mom-and-tot and dad-and-tot drop-in programs, where they also

encourage play. In those early years, from zero to five, it’s learning

by playing for the majority.

That’s what it’s about. It’s learning by being part of a program.

It’s learning by being nurtured by these experienced caregivers that are

providing these services. It’s not either-or, which I think is what the

member seems to be insinuating. It’s very much an opportunity for

nurturing and working together to raise children.

I want to point out that as a mom…. I was a better working mom

because my kids had really good early childhood education. I think my

kids had a better upbringing because of it. I think some moms…. You

know, that should be respected. If they’re going to work, they’re going

to work. If they have good quality early childhood education, good

quality care for their kids, that’s really important. Kids benefit from

that. I know my kids did. I know I’ve talked to other parents who

did.

I’ve talked to parents who feel guilty about it, who feel that

because they want to work or they need to work, they should feel guilty

about it. They shouldn’t. It’s all based on individual abilities and

rights and what people want to do, and I think that kids benefit from it

many, many times over. To say that it’s one or the other is a mistake. I

think it can be nurturing as well as educational.

L. Throness: I would never say that it is one or the other. We know that

educative models have nurturing and nurturing models have education. But

all matters of public policy are matters of emphasis. I would encourage

the minister to offer a model that emphasizes nurturing as well as one

that emphasizes education so that a parent can choose and a parent can

have the model that they prefer with the emphasis that they

prefer.

I want to move on to talk about children in care. I’m wondering if

the minister can tell me how many children are in care right now and

perhaps a few categories, like how many are Indigenous and what

categories of care the children are in.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As of December 31, 2018, for the year 2018, there are 6,365

children and youth in care, and 4,110 are Indigenous.

The legal categories. Of continuing custody, there are 3,498.

Temporary custody — there are 1,343. Interim order — there are 554.

Voluntary care agreement — there are 345. Special needs agreement is

298. Removal of child is 216. Out of province is 98. The Infants Act is

six, and Adoption Act wards are four, and not coded is three.

Just in case I went down the wrong list, we can give you those

numbers as well, if the member would like that.

L. Throness: How many were cared for by Aboriginal, Indigenous

agencies?

Hon. K. Conroy: So 2,018 of the Indigenous children in care were served by

delegated Aboriginal agencies.

L. Throness: Could the minister say how that has changed over the past year?

Has that increased?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just a correction. I transposed the numbers. This year, as of

December 31, there are 2,081, not 2,018. As of March 31, for the fiscal

year 2017-2018, there are 2,025.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada