Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 30

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)

Commonwealth Charter and parliamentary association

L. Reid

World Teachers Day

A. Kang

Agassiz Fall Fair and Corn Festival

L. Throness

Foundry North Shore youth services facility

B. Ma

Coquitlam Crunch Diversity Challenge

J. Isaacs

Moose Hide anti-violence campaign

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Marijuana legalization and regulation of dispensaries

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Data tracking and regulation of real estate industry

A. Olsen

Hon. C. James

Employee severance payments by Office of the Representative for

Children and Youth

L. Throness

Hon. M. Mark

S. Cadieux

M. de Jong

Assistance for victims of Tappen landslide

G. Kyllo

Hon. D. Donaldson

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

17-03 , lobbyist: Robert Iasenza, July 10, 2017

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

17-04 , lobbyist: Adrian Pollard, July 10, 2017

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

17-05 , Gateway Casinos and Entertainment Ltd., designated filer: Tony

Santo, July 6, 2017

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

17-06 , lobbyist: Lorne Valensky, August 21, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

D. Barnett

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: I look up in the gallery, and I see representatives of the B.C. Wine

Institute up there today who are visiting the Legislature to meet with

decision-makers and talk about their important work. I know that a number of

members of this House are responsibly appreciative of their work on a

regular basis, so I thank them for that.

I also see up there Ian Waddell, who is a former member of this House

and a constituent of mine. I wonder if the House would make them all

welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: My guests, I believe, are on the way, but I would like to introduce

them — Raghvir Singh Sidhu, a teacher, a retired principal, visiting here

from India; and Manjit Kaur, also a teacher. It’s fitting that they should

be visiting here today on World Teachers Day.

We also have Sajjan Singh Dhaliwal and Jasbir Kaur Dhaliwal. Sajjan

Singh is involved in the transportation business. They’re being brought by a

constituent of mine, Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, who is a small businessman and

also a member of the Sikh Motorcycle Club and who has done amazing work in

raising awareness around gun violence and positive experiences for kids.

They do fundraising. They add to the Surrey Food Bank, etc. His beautiful

wife, who is a nurse, Pawandeep Kaur Dhaliwal, and, of course, their young

son, Diltaj Singh Dhaliwal.

I would like all of you to join me in welcoming them to this

House.

S. Sullivan: We are very fortunate to have with us today a person who is positively

improving the lives of people with disabilities across the province. This is

a woman who started her career in the corporate sector and then decided her

passion was in the non-profit, charitable world. She worked for the

Alzheimer Society and then Variety, The Children’s Charity. Now she supports

a network of people with disabilities and organizations that help people

with sailing and accessing the wilderness and assistive devices, music, etc.

Please welcome Ruby Ng.

Hon. L. Popham: I also noticed that we’ve got board members from the B.C. Wine

Institute visiting us today. I just want to say that the B.C. wine and grape

industry brings us 12,000 jobs to British Columbia and generates $2.8

billion of economic activity.

I’m not sure if all the board members are here, but I believe that

Miles Prodan, president and CEO; Christa-Lee McWatters Bond, the chair and

small winery director; Ezra Cipes, medium winery director; Josie Tyabji,

large winery director; and Vance Campbell from One Hospitality are here.

Welcome to the chamber.

D. Ashton: I don’t want to be repetitive, but I too want to recognize those from

the Wine Institute. These individuals are part and parcel of ensuring that

our wines garner the national and international reputation that they have.

It rests solely on those individuals up there for ensuring that we continue

to put our incredible wines all around the world. Thank you for coming

today.

M. Elmore: Today, October 5, is the 49th wedding anniversary of my parents. They

met in Prince Rupert. My dad was working in the pulp and paper mill. My mom

was a nurse in the hospital. My uncle, the younger brother of my dad, was in

the hospital with a broken leg. That’s where they met.

They’re celebrating their anniversary tonight. Apologies. I’m going to

miss the dinner. I have important business here. But I just want them to

know that I love them very much, and I hope I can ask the House to please

join me in wishing them a happy 49th wedding anniversary. I hope to be there

for the one next year.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I had the opportunity to speak with two power line technicians, Greg

Hiltz and Ryan Hawryluk, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers Local 258 a couple of days ago. They shared with me their experience

of working in this unprecedented wildfire situation this summer. What a lot

of people don’t know about power line technicians is that they’re often the

ones who go in even before the firefighters to make sure that our power

lines are grounded and that it’s safe for firefighters to go in.

I’m asking the House to please join me in thanking both Ryan and Greg

for taking the time to talk with me and all of our power line technicians

for the courageous work that they did this summer.

A. Olsen: I’m happy to introduce people who aren’t here yet, but I know that

they’re in the precinct. They will be joining us shortly for question

period. Catherine Wallace’s grade 10 class is from my alma mater. I’m a

proud Stelly’s Stinger, a proud alumnus of Stelly’s.

No, I won’t just continue to talk until they show up, but I do want to

say that I’m a proud Stinger, and I’m very happy to welcome the first class

from Stelly’s here. When they do get…. Maybe we could do it now. Let’s make

them all feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMONWEALTH CHARTER AND

PARLIAMENTARY

ASSOCIATION

L. Reid: The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a voluntary

association of independent sovereign states, today made up of 52

countries with a population total of nearly 2.4 billion. The

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is the recognized parliamentary

arm of the Commonwealth and the professional association of

parliamentarians in Commonwealth legislatures.

The CPA aims to advance parliamentary democracy by enhancing

knowledge and understanding of democratic governance and building an

informed parliamentary community that is able to deepen the Commonwealth

democratic commitment and further cooperation among parliaments and

parliamentarians.

The Commonwealth Charter of 2013 says: “We” — the people of the

Commonwealth — “aspire to a Commonwealth that is a strong and respected

voice in the world, speaking out on major issues; that strengthens and

enlarges its networks; that has a global relevance and profile; and that

is devoted to improving the lives of all peoples of the

Commonwealth.”

The Commonwealth Charter reiterates the member countries’

commitment to the Commonwealth’s core values: international peace and

security; democracy; human rights; tolerance, respect and understanding;

separation of powers; the rule of law; freedom of expression;

development; gender equality; access to health and education; good

governance; and the role of civil society.

In 2011, the former British Foreign Secretary, the Rt. Hon.

William Hague, stated that in a world dominated by networks and not by

power blocs of old, the Commonwealth is the ultimate network.

WORLD TEACHERS DAY

A. Kang: Today is perhaps the most important day of appreciation for me.

It’s World Teachers Day. As a teacher by profession, I am honoured to

stand in the House today to celebrate, recognize and honour all the

outstanding educators across B.C.

Before I became an MLA, I worked as an elementary school teacher

in Burnaby. I had lots of degrees under my belt, but even with all these

degrees, the job as a teacher was never easy. Imagine raising 30 or more

children as your own, teaching them valuable skills in life and

fostering their personal growth. No degree prepares anyone for

that.

I know firsthand how hard teachers work, how much they care and

how much they love our children. Teachers are the foundation of B.C.’s

education system — and I see a class and teachers there. The teaching

profession in B.C. is a highly respected and honoured profession, filled

with the best and the brightest talent. I’m so grateful that our

children are in these very capable and trusted hands.

Teachers play an important role in helping us discover our own

identify, developing into who we want to be and choosing our own career

paths. Even after we graduate, in appreciation and respect for our

teachers, we continue to grow. I know mine has.

Nothing shows appreciation more than dedicating a day to celebrate

and honour our teachers. World Teachers Day began in 1994, when the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

proclaimed a date to show appreciation for teachers and to raise

awareness about the significant contributions that teachers make to

education and society.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today over 100 countries worldwide celebrate World Teachers Day.

On this very important day, I would like to reiterate our promise to

reinvest in B.C.’s education system and to build respectful relationship

with teachers. Education is a right, not a privilege. A teacher takes a

hand, opens a mind and touches a heart.

Thank you, teachers, for making our days happy and bright, and

thank you for making a difference for us.

AGASSIZ FALL FAIR

AND CORN

FESTIVAL

L. Throness: I always enjoy attending the Agassiz Fall Fair and Corn Festival.

This year was the 113th consecutive celebration since 1904, and I wasn’t

about to miss it on a beautiful Saturday in September.

I especially enjoyed the parade, which I think is the cutest one

in the Fraser Valley, because it’s all local. Agassiz families enter a

float along with their kids and dress up according to the fair’s theme.

You can imagine the bright yellow costumes and floats for this year’s

theme, the “Year of the sunflower,” with floats of every description

drawn by every form of locomotion, from ancient tractors to miniature

donkeys.

The fair sports all the elements of a traditional fair, from

tractor pulls to 4-H exhibits of rabbits, hens and livestock to

log-cutting contests, magic shows, minigolf for the kids, a midway, and

so much more. Of course, there was barbecued chicken for lunch and

delicious Agassiz corn always on the boil. Speaking of corn, Adrie Stuyt

was crowned the corn king this year. Congratulations to him and his

wife, Michelle.

As usual, I walked by the long rows of championship pies and cakes

and other baking, wishing I could have a piece. As usual, I bought a few

raffle tickets from the quilters and, as usual, won nothing. Then

there’s the annual humiliation of the Celebrity Goat Milking contest. I

was invited to try my hand, or hands, again this year and, once again,

came in last, managing to squeeze out just 22 millilitres of milk. Next

year I’m determined to get the hang of it.

The Agassiz Agricultural and Horticultural Association won the

title of best fair in B.C. for six years in a row from the B.C.

Association of Agricultural Fairs. President Victoria Brookes,

Vice-President Ken Schwaerzle and past president Rita Bruneski, their

dedicated board and a couple of hundred local volunteers make every part

of the fair a pleasure for 10,000 fairgoers.

Our congratulations go out to all for another successful event,

and we thank them for continuing to build the community of Agassiz year

after year after year.

FOUNDRY NORTH SHORE

YOUTH SERVICES

FACILITY

B. Ma: “Ask once. Get help fast.” This is the vision that the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions shared with British Columbia at the

official opening for the one-stop shop for youth in North Vancouver. The

opening ceremony was for Foundry, and the tag line on the wall in the

reception area said: “Where wellness takes shape.”

It’s a new facility that centralizes Vancouver Coastal Health

primary care and youth mental health and addiction services into one

location, and it opened a couple of weeks ago in my riding — not a

moment too soon. In fact, arguably, it’s far too many years too

late.

Yesterday a heart-wrenching report was released by the

Representative for Children and Youth called Missing Pieces:

Joshua’s Story . It told the story of a North Vancouver boy who

struggled with mental illness that manifested as early as two years old.

Fifteen years later, at the age of 17, he killed himself.

I suppose there might be a time for a lot of finger-pointing to be

done, but the reality is that the responsibility for this death falls on

all of us. It seems trite now to say that it takes a village to raise a

child, but perhaps it is not so trite to say to all members of this

House that we are that village.

Foundry is a testament to the hard work of all the incredible

partners that have come together to make Foundry a reality, and this

includes the effort of members from all sides of this House. So let us

continue to work together as a village to raise B.C.’s

children.

COQUITLAM CRUNCH

DIVERSITY

CHALLENGE

J. Isaacs: Last month I participated in a very tough and punishing physical

event where I climbed 437 stairs, hiked up a steep dirt pathway and

crossed roadways with over 200 other enthusiastic participants in

support of the Coquitlam Crunch Diversity Challenge.

[10:20 a.m.]

Now in its eighth year, this annual event was founded by Coquitlam

resident Alex Bell. Alex’s goal was to raise $10,000 over five years. He

teamed up with the Coquitlam Foundation, and together they launched the

diversity initiative fund. Today the fund has raised over $18,000 and

provides grants to Coquitlam non-profit organizations that deliver

actions, programs or education aimed at improving integration,

participation and community access for diversity groups.

The Nothin’ Dragon Masters team became the new hosts and

organizers of the event. They are an amazing Coquitlam-based, age

50-plus competitive dragon boat team who are passionate about living a

healthy lifestyle. They are involved in many community projects and

mentor challenged youth in the sport of dragon boating.

Embracing diversity is about accepting individuals and groups for

their differences. This includes race, culture, age, physical and

intellectual abilities, gender, sexual orientation, social-economic

status, religious beliefs, as well as other ideologies and political

beliefs.

While society is making progress in evolving to better celebrate

our differences, Alex has been a committed leader and continues to make

a real difference in our community. It is my pleasure to stand today and

thank Alex Bell and all the participants for the Coquitlam Crunch

Diversity Challenge and their commitment to embrace

diversity.

MOOSE HIDE

ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d like to acknowledge the Lekwungen-speaking peoples, whose

territories we are on today.

Today, through the Moose Hide Campaign, Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal men across Canada are joining together to say “no more”

to violence and commit to do our part to end it. Men across Canada,

including my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and myself,

are fasting today as part of our commitment to clear our minds and focus

on the need for action. The act of fasting is a sacred ritual that

Aboriginal people and many other cultures have practised for thousands

of years.

The Moose Hide Campaign fast is a pledge to end violence against

women and children. Men have been invited to fast from sun-up until

sundown and, at sundown, to break their fast with others to acknowledge

the fast and talk about their commitment to end the violence.

We pledge to stand up with women and children and speak out

against violence towards them. We pledge to support each other as men

and to hold each other accountable. We will teach our young boys about

the true meaning of love and respect, and we will be healthy role models

for them. We will heal ourselves as men, and we will support our

brothers on their healing journeys.

The idea for the Moose Hide Campaign took root in 2011, when Paul

and Raven Lacerte were out on a moose-hunting trip along what has

become, sadly, known as the Highway of Tears. They had been discussing

the missing women along that route, the recent loss of Jack Layton and

his action with his white ribbon campaign, and they decided they needed

to act.

After a successful hunt, they decided that the gift the moose had

given them would be shared across B.C. Now the Moose Hide Campaign is

being shared across Canada. It has grown every year, with a large

gathering at our nation’s capital today. The campaign’s goal is now to

have one million men join together in a fast to make their commitment,

to make our commitment, to end the violence too many women and children

have faced.

I want to thank Paul and Raven Lacerte for their leadership, for

their gift, and thank all who’ve worked so hard and continue to work

hard to end the violence. We all must do our part.

Oral Questions

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AND

REGULATION OF

DISPENSARIES

R. Coleman: In about nine months, there’s going to be a profound change come

across the social infrastructure of British Columbia and Canada, when

the legalization of marijuana takes place. It’s going to have long-term

health impacts. It’s going to affect our youth. We need to know how

we’re going to handle this in such a way that…. The THC, which can

actually damage the adolescent mind up to an older age, is substantial.

It does require a thoughtful, evidence-based drug policy.

My question is to the Premier. Earlier this week the Premier was

quoted as saying we are well advanced in terms of the retail elements.

“We have, in some parts of the Lower Mainland, more dispensaries than we

do Starbucks.” Yesterday the Solicitor General said: “As I said

yesterday, and I say today, we’ve not landed on a retail

model.”

[10:25 a.m.]

I’d like to know how far along we are, Premier, with regards to

the policy with regards to marijuana, so that people in communities in

British Columbia can know what to get ready for, how they will handle

the zoning and how they will handle management of the product, because

it’s going to be important in nine months that we’re ready to

go.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. The comments that he referred

to I made at a first ministers conference in Ottawa where the subject

matter there for discussion was, in fact, the accelerated speed with

which the federal government is moving on legalization of cannabis. The

context of my remarks was to put us in a place beside other provinces in

Canada.

We all know, certainly those that live in the Lower Mainland and

the south Island, where there is a proliferation of dispensaries, that

municipal levels of government have been ahead of the curve on this when

senior levels of government have been waiting for some action from

Ottawa. That was the context of my remarks.

When it comes to where we are in terms of how we will retail these

products in the future, my colleague the Solicitor General is

responsible for that. We started a consultation at UBCM last week, and

we’ll await the results of that consultation.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: To the Premier again: I’ve had some consultations over the years,

and I’ve had long conversations with local government and, more

importantly, with law enforcement. It is well known in my community,

with the proliferation of the dispensaries in my community, that very

few of them operate within the law.

They sell marijuana illegally, as well as legally on the medical

side. It goes out the back door. It goes through the front door. They

write prescriptions in the back room so that somebody can get their

marijuana right now, and they’re not medical professionals. Law

enforcement tells me that a lot of people who are involved in the

dispensaries that have proliferated are not operating in a legal

manner.

Will the Premier make a commitment to British Columbians today

that we will not allow anybody that has operated illegally in a

marijuana space in British Columbia to ever have a licence to dispense

in the future in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know how many dispensaries have emerged in British

Columbia since July 18, but I do know there was an enormous expansion of

the distribution of cannabis under the watch of the government on the

other side.

I’m reminded of my time on that side. If the member has evidence

of criminal activity, I’m certain that as a former law enforcement

officer, he’ll know how to deal with that. So I won’t give him

chapter

and verse on how to deal with that.

I will also add — for the benefit of the members here and the

benefit of people watching at home and those in the gallery — that the

parliamentary secretary driving this initiative from the federal level

is a guy named Bill Blair. Bill Blair was the chief of police in

Toronto. He was in law enforcement for 40 years. I believe that at the

federal level, we’re in very good hands.

I am absolutely convinced that the minister responsible here in

British Columbia will take that responsibility seriously, and we will

have in place, in the appropriate time, a distribution and regulation

system that protects young people and ensures that health and safety are

paramount and that the public who wants to access this product can do so

lawfully.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: The Premier, I’m sure, has looked at the briefing across

government. He would know that work was already being done as to how we

would handle this product legally going forward and on the options that

were available to British Columbians. The issue here is a standard that

we need to know exists as we go forward.

There are people operating dispensaries in my community that the

police are investigating. There are dispensaries elsewhere in this

province where people are being investigated by police. I don’t think

this proliferation of dispensaries — if there’s one like every Starbucks

on the Lower Mainland — is actually good social policy with regard to

how many places you can access a product and put it in a competitive

space where somebody is actually going to sell it illegally to young

people because they need to make their money.

I think you need a strong format and foundation for this. I

believe that strongly. I just want the Premier to commit today that

nobody that has been selling in a dispensary in British Columbia either

with not having the right licence or not having the right bylaw will

ever, ever get the opportunity to sell marijuana in British

Columbia.

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, 16 years in power — the explosion of dispensaries on their

watch. If the Leader of the Opposition has evidence of criminal

activity, I’m certain that his colleagues on either side, both members

of the bar, will be able to direct him to the appropriate law

enforcement agency to deal with those allegations.

I want the public to know that this government takes this file

very, very seriously. In opposition, we did a lot of legwork, going to

Washington and Oregon and looking at what systems were put in place

there. We’re going to act responsibly, we’re going to act in the public

interest, and we’ll do so in a timely manner.

M. Morris: The number one priority for all of us in this House and all of us

in this province is to ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of

minors and we protect the health of our children. The Premier’s

dismissive attitude to this is troubling. We’re nine months away from a

federally mandated deadline, and British Columbians don’t have any

answers from this government.

This week the Premier claimed that B.C. has marijuana distribution

all figured out. In fact, the Globe and Mail headline says the

Premier “suggests dispensaries make B.C. well-positioned for marijuana

legalization.” He further says in that article: “We are well-advanced in

terms of the retail elements in British Columbia.” His minister said not

too long ago that we have not landed on a retail model.

To the Premier, can he explain why he and his minister aren’t on

the same page on this issue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This side of the House has been clear right from the start of this

debate — even before the last election, when my colleague the Minister

of Finance and myself went down to Washington and Oregon to get a good

understanding of how legalization has taken place in both of those

jurisdictions. We came back here with a clear understanding of what

needs to happen. One is a tight regulatory framework. That regulatory

framework is based on two key issues: (1) protecting young people and

(2) getting organized crime out of the cannabis industry.

Critical to that is operating within the framework that the

federal government is setting up, where the federal government is

controlling the licensing of production and the quality control and

testing. British Columbia, as are the rest of the provinces, is

responsible for the distribution model and the retail model.

That’s why at UBCM we launched a comprehensive consultation

program with local government. We understand that local government is

going to be on the front line of this great social change. This is a

fundamental change in drug policy in this country, and local government

is going to be on the front line of that. It’s crucial that we

understand the kinds of retail models, the kinds of distribution models

that communities feel work in their communities.

That was very well received at UBCM, and that is what is taking

place. We have not landed on a retail model because we are going to

listen to local government first, because as I have said publicly and

local government has said, what works in Vancouver may not work in

Prince George or in Williams Lake or in Port Coquitlam.

We will have a model that does two things. It protects kids, and

it gets criminals out of the business. When people go to retail outlets,

they will be buying legal product from a legal establishment.

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

supplemental.

M. Morris: As a former police officer, I’ve seen the devastation that drug

trafficking has had in all our communities right across this province

here. I have a problem with the euphemistic comments from the Premier,

like: “British Columbia has, I would suggest, a mature market when it

comes to cannabis.” Yeah, we do have a mature market here. It’s full of

traffickers and illegal activity with respect to that.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Premier made a comment in his earlier answer to our leader,

saying that he was waiting for the action from Ottawa to take place.

Well, Ottawa made a comment. They came out long ago, a couple of years

ago now, and they said that trafficking in cannabis is still illegal in

Canada. It’s not allowed. It’s against the law — period. That’s the

action that Ottawa says. It’s still allowed.

I have trouble reconciling what the Premier said in Ottawa and

what his minister said yesterday or the other day in estimates. To the

minister, since he appears to be responding: does he share the Premier’s

view that this so-called mature market should be allowed to proliferate

on every corner in the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only group that has allowed things to proliferate is that side

of the House when they sat over here. I have a real problem listening to

that member and reconciling his statements with statements being made by

one of the leading contenders for the Liberal leadership race on that

side of the House. A former mayor is out, and the first time she’s asked

about legalization of cannabis, all she does is talk about it being a

windfall.

We understand what this issue is about. It is about the

legalization of cannabis in this country. It is not about a windfall. It

is about putting in place a system that protects our kids and gets

organized crime out of the industry. That’s the goal of this side of the

House.

We are putting in place a framework, under the federal framework

that will be in place, that will ensure key issues. Local government

will be playing a key role in how cannabis is retailed in this province.

That is what the consultation process is about. Since we launched that

consultation process, we have had over 20,000 submissions. That’s not

something that that side of the House thought about doing.

Finally, we will have a retail system. It will be legal, selling

legal product, and there will be no place for organized

crime.

DATA TRACKING AND REGULATION OF

REAL ESTATE

INDUSTRY

A. Olsen: Developing well-informed, evidence-based public policy starts with

a strong foundation of good data.

To the Minister of Finance: what steps has your ministry taken in

these early days to better track who is purchasing housing in B.C.,

where they are paying their taxes and where the money being used to

purchase the house is coming from?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think he has pointed

out one of the many big gaps that the other side left, when we deal with

the affordability housing crisis, which is information. The previous

government took a piecemeal approach to dealing with the housing

affordability crisis. We are making sure that we gather the

information.

In fact, in this budget there are two steps that were specific

steps that were taken to gather that information. First, we’re improving

data collection to address the very issues that the member has raised.

We’ve improved information-sharing under the homeowner’s grant and the

Income Tax Act by allowing information to be shared between the two

acts. Further, we’ve amended the Income Tax Act in this budget update,

so these are part of the budget, to provide tax administrators with

increased access to assessment data.

We take this issue very seriously. I’m working with my colleague

the Minister of Housing to ensure we present a comprehensive approach to

housing affordability to actually address the issue in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: If we’re going to ensure that houses are used first and foremost

as homes and not simply as commodities to be bought and sold for profit,

just flipped, we need to understand what is actually happening in our

province.

I think we must turn now to the now Attorney General, who as

opposition critic argued: “It would be very easy for the province to do

the gold standard and map up who is paying worldwide tax here in B.C.

and who is buying property, to determine the extent of the

problem.”

[10:40 a.m.]

Every stakeholder we can find, from academics to the chamber of

commerce, is saying that we need more information to inform our

policies. We have heard this government repeatedly state that they are

currently working on a housing strategy. If we do not have a gold

standard of data tracking in B.C., what information is that strategy

being built on?

Hon. C. James: I couldn’t agree more with the member. I couldn’t agree more on

the information that needs to be gathered. That’s why we’re making the

changes in this budget update that are coming forward. I’m sure we’ll

see strong support for those changes.

Coordinating the information-sharing between the homeowner’s grant

and the Income Tax Act will actually provide the opportunity for that

data to be looked at together to ensure that we’re addressing the

speculation piece. We can then put together the changes that need to

occur, whether it’s taxes or whether it’s building houses to look at

demand and supply, and put together that comprehensive strategy. That’s

what I’m looking forward to.

EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PAYMENTS BY

OFFICE OF THE

REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

L. Throness: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. Yesterday

the minister repeatedly stated in this House that she was terminated

from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth because her

job as associative deputy representative was eliminated. It was all very

sad. She was ejected from the office against her will and, accordingly,

received a severance that is due to a victim of a heartless

bureaucracy.

Well, it seems clear to me that the minister disagrees with the

former representative, who by her words seemed quite convinced that her

employee left by her own choice. The former representative was renowned,

to say the least, for her independence, her candid comments and for

speaking her mind without fear of consequence. Is the minister saying

that she was not telling the truth?

Hon. M. Mark: I have been an advocate for 20 years, advocating for the most

vulnerable people in this province, locally and nationally. I started my

tenure at an independent office of the Legislature in 2006 as a child

and youth advocate. I later became the associate deputy representative

responsible for the advocacy program for this province, advocating for

the most vulnerable young people in this province.

I remember standing on that side of this House, advocating for

kids like Alex Gervais and those children that have suffered in foster

care. That was our role at the representative’s office.

In 2013, there was a restructuring when the mandate of the

representative’s office was extended. Through that time, there was a

corporate restructuring. After the restructuring, my position was

eliminated, and I was given severance. As soon as I got elected as the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on Groundhog Day, February 2, 2016,

after the former Premier delayed the by-election for six months, I

reported immediately to the representative’s office to stop severance

payments, and as soon as I met with the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner, I reported the same facts.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: The minister continues to play the victim, continues to assert

that there was a restructuring in the office, so let’s take a closer

look at that claim. She left the office in March of 2015. Her six-figure

severance began. She was elected MLA, as she says, on February 2, 2016.

And by some strange happenstance — I’m sure it was pure coincidence — a

few days later, a job posting appeared on the website of the

Representative for Children and Youth for an associate deputy

representative, the same job that was supposedly restructured out of

existence less than a year earlier.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: was the office

of the representative really restructured in 2015, or did the member

really quit, just like the representative said?

Hon. M. Mark: I have answered the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:45 a.m.]

S. Cadieux: I’m having a hard time reconciling what the minister is saying

today with the documents on the representative’s website. It was under a

heading of “Current positions.” The job title is associate deputy

representative for advocacy, an identical position to the position that

the minister claims was eliminated. But that’s not all. The minister, on

multiple occasions, linked the RCY career postings to her own Facebook

page during that time period after it was listed.

Now I think it’s time that the minister cleared the air. Can she

explain why a mere three days after she was elected, the very position

she claimed $106,000 in severance for was listed as available for

application on the representative’s website?

Hon. M. Mark: I welcome a question from the member opposite to ask me something

about post-secondary education or skills and training. I will add for

the record that the member opposite was the Minister for Children and

Families. She had a close relationship or she could have had a close

relationship with the Representative for Children and Youth.

The facts of the matter are this. There was a restructuring of the

organization. I was let go. I was given a severance, and I reported that

fact to the representative’s office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you might take your seat for a moment.

Members, let us be reminded that when someone’s speaking, it will

be important for us to listen. Thank you.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. M. Mark: I’ll conclude with the facts. Severance terms and agreements are

clearly laid out for all public sector employees — which I was at the

time, for an independent office of the Legislature — guided under the

management and executive employees. I was an executive member at the

level of a deputy minister.

Those decisions were in accordance with the public sector

employees’ regulation, and those are the facts.

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

S. Cadieux: This isn’t about my former relationship with the representative’s

office. It’s not about….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I wish to remind all members again that we will want to

be quiet when someone is speaking. Thank you.

S. Cadieux: It’s not about advanced education right now, but I’m going to be

looking forward to asking a lot of questions of the minister about

advanced education in estimates.

The minister stood in this House yesterday and said that the

position was eliminated due to restructuring. Her employer at the time,

the former Representative for Children and Youth, says that she chose to

leave. The document posted on February 5, 2016, proved that the same

position still existed.

Now the minister has a responsibility to this House to explain the

discrepancies. In the face of clear evidence that clearly shows that she

left the office of her own accord, why did the minister collect almost

$106,000 in severance?

Hon. M. Mark: In 2013, there were changes to the representative’s office. The

mandate was expanded. There was a restructuring. I don’t know how many

times I have to repeat myself.

For the record, I looked at the job posting that the member

opposite is referring to. We’ve got to stick to the facts. I was hired

as the associate deputy representative responsible for advocacy,

aboriginal relations, community relations and youth engagement. The new

posting that was posted last year was for an associate deputy

responsible for advocacy and youth engagement.

It’s interesting to me that the member opposite overlooks the

duties that I had to work with aboriginal people and to work on

community relations. Those were two key aspects of my responsibility as

the Associate Deputy Representative for Children and Youth. Those duties

were transferred to the deputy representative. That is what corporate

restructuring means. So I will leave it at that.

[10:50 a.m.]

M. de Jong: It’s the very facts that actually cause us to pursue further the

line of questioning, because they simply aren’t consistent with the

narrative that the minister has attempted to present to the

House.

Fact: at the time she left, the representative made it clear she

was leaving of her own accord. The minister contradicts that. The

minister says she was terminated — that there was a restructuring and

that the position was eliminated. Then mere days after she secures

alternate employment, honourable employment in this House, the very same

posting for the same position appears on the website.

The minister cannot….

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: The minister can’t have it both ways. There is a clear policy

about when the entitlement to severance is triggered. It is triggered

when there is a dismissal. It seems clear that something else occurred

here.

Will the minister stand and confirm that there was a different

arrangement in place and that she wasn’t entitled to severance when she

left that job?

Hon. M. Mark: I have answered the question. But for the record, when the member

opposite is putting into question my integrity about whether I

voluntarily left…. I was let go, which triggered the severance that I

received under the regulation that is guided under provincial

law.

ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF

TAPPEN

LANDSLIDE

G. Kyllo: At the end of April, Rachel and Ian Sudbury moved into their

waterfront dream home near Tappen, B.C. They were expecting their first

child. Just before midnight on May 5, a landslide ripped through their

home and the home of their neighbour, who tragically lost his life. The

Sudburys made a harrowing escape down the hill. They boarded a boat and

escaped by water in pitch darkness, waiting in the middle of the lake

while a debris torrent destroyed their home. The Sudburys have hit rock

bottom. Their home is in ruins, their business gone.

Now, I’ve spoken to the Minister of Forests about this case, but

it has taken far too long. Question to the minister: it has now been

over five months since the tragic event. The Sudburys have a new baby,

and they need their government to act. Will the minister commit today to

expediting disaster financial assistance for the Sudburys?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to thank the member for his question. Yes, indeed, we have

discussed the matter. He brought it to my attention. We had a long

discussion about it. I’ve authorized our staff to get in touch with the

couple. My heart goes out to them, the tragedy they’re facing and the

stress. The member has definitely made that clear to me — the stress

they’re facing. Our staff has been in touch with them, and we’re doing

all we can to help them to resolve the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for your response.

Now, the Sudburys are entitled to full DFA payments of $240,000.

That has already been established, yet they haven’t seen a dime. When

they’ve asked the ministry again, they’ve been told to expect to wait

further weeks. It’s now October. It’s been five months, and the Sudburys

have been waiting far long enough. They’ve had to endure hardship that

many of us can’t even imagine, let alone with a young family.

To the minister, will he personally instruct staff to fast-track

the financial assistance owed to the Sudburys so that they don’t have to

continue to wait with this needless suffering?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ve already instructed staff to look into this matter, to work

with local government and to work with the couple.

[End of question period.]

Hon. J. Horgan: During question period, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena asked a

member of this House to tell the truth. I’m certain that he has

sufficient integrity to withdraw that statement without me having to

move a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 2. In the little House, Committee A, I call

the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports of

the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists: Investigation Report

17-03 , lobbyist: Robert Iasenza; Investigation Report

17-04 , lobbyist: Adrian Pollard; Investigation Report

17-05 , Gateway Casinos and Entertainment Ltd., designated filer:

Tony Santo; and Investigation Report 17-06 , lobbyist: Lorne

Valensky.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2017,

be read a second time.

Bill 2 consists of two parts.

Part 1 includes a number of

provisions that will enable government’s Budget 2017 Update.

Part 2 of

the bill amends eight statutes in order to implement many of the tax

measures that are in the Budget 2017 Update. I’ll take my time in second

reading just to go through those specific changes that are in this

bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

part 1, the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act

is amended to increase the total amount that may be paid by government

to the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust by $10 million, a

request coming forward from the trust that fits with the act. The act is

also amended to clarify the powers and duties of the directors in

relationship to the receipt, deposit, investment and use of money paid

by the government to the trust and in relation to the investment of

other moneys in the trust’s regional account.

The Transportation Investment Act is amended in this bill to

authorize transferring ownership of the share of the Transportation

Investment Corporation from government to the B.C. Transportation

Financing Authority.

[11:00 a.m.]

The amendment also makes the board of the B.C. Transportation

Financing Authority responsible for appointing the board of the

corporation. It is consistent with common practice that the shareholder

appoints board members of its subsidiary companies.

Part 1 of the bill also includes two transitional provisions. The

first clarifies that certain references to the estimates and other

documents for the 2017-18 fiscal year are those tabled with the budget.

This is a clarification because of having two budgets — a budget in

February and a budget in September. This clarifies that when we talk

about estimates, we’re talking about the estimates that were tabled with

the budget update in September. The second provides appropriation for

the Transportation Investment Corporation share transfer, if required,

and for the continuation of existing agreements.

Part 2 of Bill 2 promotes a strong economy by amending various tax

statutes to ensure that our tax system is fair and competitive, to

ensure that everyone pays their fair share for the programs and services

that, in fact, every British Columbian benefits from.

We believe when you take a look at indicators, when you take a

look at individuals speaking about the economy of British Columbia, that

we will continue to be among the top performers this year and next. Bill

2 amends eight statutes in order to implement many of the tax measures

that we believe will continue to build the strong economy that is needed

for British Columbia.

I’ll just go through some of these individual acts. Bill 2 amends

the Carbon Tax Act to increase the carbon tax rates annually by $5 per

tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions for four years, commencing

April 1, 2018. That will give us the opportunity to meet our federal

requirements, in fact, one year ahead of the requirements. That’s

something that I believe British Columbians are pleased about — that we

will once again be a climate leader here in British Columbia.

While not part of this bill, this also ensures that the Low Income

Climate Action Tax Credit — and you’ll see that in the next budget — is

increased to help low- and modest-income families. When the increase

occurs, it’s about 17 percent. You will see the low-income tax credit

also increase by 17 percent to ensure that families are managing the

increase that is there.

We’ve also removed

part 2 of the act. It is repealed in this bill.

That’s removing the requirement to prepare an annual carbon tax report

and plan, because that was based on the so-called revenue neutrality

that was in the previous bill with carbon tax. This will allow our

government, the new government, to spend carbon tax revenue on

initiatives that, in fact, directly reduce emissions. With all

government spending, this will be reported out publicly.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to increase the rate on

personal income over $150,000 to 16.8 percent from 14.7 percent. The

public will remember this. This was a tax break that the previous

government gave to the top income earners in our province.

We believe, again, that everyone should pay to be able to benefit

from all of the services and programs that are important to British

Columbia. So we believe this increase, which impacts less than 3 percent

of the tax-filers, will, in fact, ensure that the tax system is more

fair and provide and contribute towards programs and services that

everyone benefits from.

For example, if we are taking a look at something like adult basic

are free of tuition will benefit not only those individuals but, in

fact, will benefit businesses, will benefit employers. It will help

them, in addition, to be able to attract and retain employees here in

British Columbia. Everyone paying and contributing to what everyone

benefits from is what a fair tax system is all about.

Bill 2 also amends the Income Tax Act to increase the general

corporate income tax rate to 12 percent from 11 percent, as we committed

to in the election. That’s effective January 1, 2018, and that keeps us

comparable, again, to western provinces, ensuring that we continue to

remain competitive here in British Columbia.

We recognize the importance of small businesses and the role that

they play in creating jobs and strengthening our economies. So the

Income Tax Act is also amended to reduce the small business corporate

tax rate to 2 percent from 2.5 percent, and that’s effective April 1,

2017. The dividend tax credit rates are also adjusted

accordingly.

[11:05 a.m.]

With all of these changes, British Columbia will continue to have

a very competitive tax rate with, in fact, our small business tax rate

being the second lowest in the country — continuing to grow our economy

and continuing to ensure affordability for families as well as improving

programs and services that everyone benefits from.

Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act as well to create the volunteer

firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credit. This was a tax

credit that was proposed back in February, in the budget brought forward

by the previous government, and from my view of it — although we didn’t

get a chance to vote on the February budget — supported widely by all

members in this Legislature.

I think, certainly, this measure — as you would know, hon.

Speaker, and as all the members would know in this House — is

particularly timely, given the significant efforts by all firefighters,

including volunteer firefighters, this year to combat B.C.’s wildfires.

This non-refundable credit is available, starting for the 2017 tax year,

to British Columbians who provide at least 200 hours of volunteer

service to a volunteer fire department or an eligible search and rescue

organization.

I know that all members in this House not only support this but

send our thanks and appreciation to those individuals who are out there

putting themselves in danger to ensure that they can protect all of

us.

The credit amount, for members’ information, is $3,000, providing

a tax benefit of more than $150 per year. Combined with the

corresponding federal credit…. I think this is an important piece to

note as we go through this budget and this budget bill. There are

federal tax credits that correspond with the British Columbia tax

credits — in some cases, tax credits that will end because the federal

government is also ending their tax credit, so there’s often

coordination. If you combine the volunteer firefighters and search and

rescue volunteers with the federal credit, individuals will be eligible

for more than $600 per year, which, again, I think is a small measure of

appreciation for those individuals.

Bill 2 also amends the Income Tax Act to enact the back-to-school

tax credit that was included in a previous budget. It was included but

not enacted. There was an agreement with the federal government to

administer while enactment took place. This non-refundable tax credit is

a very small benefit, as we’ll see with a few of these other tax

credits. It provided a benefit of about $13 for a child, and this credit

does not continue on beyond 2016.

It is a small credit, and again, it’s not accessible to most

low-income families. This is a non-refundable credit. Therefore, you

have to have enough income to be able to claim the credit. Therefore,

many low-income families do not benefit from this credit. Instead there

will be, as you saw in the budget, significant investments made in the

education system to provide better support for all children.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to expand, extend, clarify or

eliminate several tax credits. I’ll just run through a number of those

and the timing on those individual tax credits.

I’ll start with the scientific research and experimental

development tax credit. That’s extended in this bill for five years to

August 31, 2022. This credit certainly helps continue to ensure that

B.C. companies innovate and develop new technologies.

The book publishing tax credit is extended for one year to March

31, 2018. As with many of these credits, they are one-year extensions as

we do a review around a fair tax system. Many of these were, in fact,

one-year credits in the previous budget as well. This extension of a

credit ensures government support to approximately 30 book publishers in

British Columbia.

The training tax credits are extended for one year to the end of

2018, and these credits help with skill development of apprentices in

British Columbia. This is a small piece of the work that is going to be

done by our government to look at how we actually improve access to

trades training opportunities and support apprenticeships through

employers across our province. That will be a bigger discussion that the

minister will bring forward as time goes on.

As in the February budget — so identical to the February budget —

the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit is extended to the end of

2017. The mining exploration tax credit is expanded to include costs

incurred for environmental studies and community consultations — now a

large part, in fact, of much of the work of mining companies when

they’re going in to look in communities. That will now be included as

part of that credit.

We know that the mining sector is a vital part of our economy, and

these amendments will certainly continue to encourage investment in

mining exploration and in development.

[11:10 a.m.]

Again, I talked a little bit about credits at the federal level

and provincial level. The children’s fitness, the children’s fitness

equipment and the arts tax credits end in 2018 and subsequent tax years.

These changes parallel the elimination of the federal child fitness and

arts credits in 2017, so again, linking the changes that are being made

at the federal level to look at…. Rather than very small benefits that

are non-refundable and that, in fact, don’t benefit low-income families

in particular, you will see these changes and the money invested in

better ways to provide support to families when it comes to either arts

or when it comes to fitness or education.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to make changes to the

interactive digital media tax credit. Previously, there was a

restriction against corporations that participated in the small business

venture program. That’s removed. They will be able to now participate in

this tax credit. In addition, the principal business requirement is

adjusted so that companies whose principal business is not interactive

digital media can now claim the credit, so long as they incur the

qualifying B.C. labour expenses of approximately $2 million.

The interactive digital media tax credit provides support to

B.C.’s tech sector, which, as we all know, is an integral part of our

growing economy. These amendments will certainly further support B.C.’s

tech sector. I think one of the pieces we’ll be looking at, as we look

at tech support, will be the innovation commission and the work that

they’ll be able to do as well with the tech sector, to ensure that we’re

staying on top of the new technology that’s coming in.

As we put these tax credits in place…. In many cases, the

technology is ahead of where the tax credits are, which means

definitions need to change as you’re looking at that work. So I expect

you’ll see continued changes that will need to keep up with where the

private sector and tech sector is to ensure the benefits are

there.

There’s also an amendment in this Income Tax Act that restores the

tax benefit for credit unions. I’m very proud that we’re bringing this

piece forward. It’s a piece that we worked hard on, on the other side,

to provide that support. We all know the vital role that credit unions

play in providing investment opportunities, particularly in small and

rural communities.

In many communities, credit unions are, in fact, the only

financial institution in that community. They also ensure that they

provide support to small businesses that often are too small to be paid

attention to by the big banks and that don’t receive the kind of support

that they need. The credit union is always there for them, to provide

that support. So to be able to ensure that the tax benefit for credit

unions is in place and ensure that the resources that credit unions lend

come back to communities…. That really is the strength of this change —

the money that is invested by credit unions in lending to small

businesses circulates back into the community. It provides strength to

the local economy, particularly rural communities, as well as strength

to our bigger economies.

I’m very pleased that we have this change coming forward — a

permanent change. Previously, the government had frozen the change and

was tapering it up, getting rid of the tax break that was there. We’ve

made it permanent so this won’t be an issue coming up each year in the

budget.

The government is also committed to combating tax evasion and

fraud, and that’s why you see some changes in this bill to provide

administrators with access to B.C. assessment information. Also to

facilitate information-sharing for the purposes of administering the

homeowner grant.

These provide opportunities for sharing of information that will

be critical to determining what next steps have to be taken to end

speculation; to close tax loopholes; to be able to address the

challenges, particularly in the area of housing. It will give us the

opportunity to do a comparison on the information coming in on the

income tax end and on the homeowner grant end to hopefully begin to

address and put specific measures in place to close those loopholes and

to ensure that we end speculation in the real estate market.

These two amendments also will improve the government’s audit

capacity by ensuring that capital gains from property transactions are

accurately reported and by ensuring that homeowner grants only go to

homeowners who are eligible. So these are important pieces.

[11:15 a.m.]

The International Business Activity Act is also amended to

eliminate the program, as of September 12, 2017. It was very clear in

the review of this program that it was not generating the level of

economic activity and the employment that was envisioned. In fact, most

of the companies involved who were receiving the tax benefit through

this program were already based in B.C. — did not come to B.C.; were

already based in B.C. — and were receiving a bigger tax benefit after

they were already in B.C. Certainly, the employment numbers did not play

out.

While I appreciate that there was a most recent review that was

tabled to a number of members in this House about the program, there

were a number of shortfalls in that report — most importantly, that the

report was based on interviews with the individuals receiving the tax

benefit.

The work that was done and the analysis done in the Ministry of

Finance was done based on actual tax information, not simply interviews

of people on how they felt about the program, but actual tax

information. I think that’s very important. These are taxpayer dollars.

We need to make sure that we do our due diligence on how dollars are

spent. Even the report that came forward just recently had to point out

that there was no specific link between the dollars that were provided,

the tax breaks provided and the jobs created, because there was no

evidence to show that. I think that’s a very important piece. That’s why

you see that the program is eliminated in this budget.

Bill 2 also amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to increase the

threshold for eligible residential properties under the

first-time-homebuyers program. Effective for registrants after February

22, 2017, the threshold is increased to $500,000 from $475,000, and that

increases the maximum property transfer tax exemption under the program

to $8,000. This higher threshold will help first-time homebuyers as they

are buying their first home.

We also see an amendment in this bill to the Tobacco Tax Act to

increase the tax rate on cigarettes to $49.40 from $47.80 per carton of

200 cigarettes and to increase the tax rate on loose tobacco to 24.7

cents from 23.9 cents per gram. I think we’ve certainly seen in British

Columbia the benefit of increasing tobacco taxes. Increasing the price

of tobacco is a very effective deterrent, particularly for young people.

We know we have a very good record in British Columbia when it comes to

British Columbians quitting smoking or never starting in the first

place. I know my colleague the Minister of Health will appreciate this

piece in the bill, to continue making sure we keep that good record here

in British Columbia.

Bill 2 also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to exclude natural gas

used in locomotive rolling stock or other vehicles when run on rails

from the three-cents-per-litre tax on locomotive fuel. Not taxing

natural gas used as locomotive fuel is very consistent with other

exemptions that are in place for natural gas when used in motor vehicles

or in a ship. It provides an added incentive for railways to switch over

to natural gas from more carbon-intensive fuels — which supports, again,

our climate action strategy. So a win-win all the way around.

Another piece. When I talk about business competitiveness, Bill 2

amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to phase out the provincial sales

tax on electricity. This has been recommended by the Commission on Tax

Competitiveness and, certainly, requested for a number of years by

businesses to ensure that we remain a competitive environment for

investment and for business activities here in British Columbia. The PST

will be reduced to 3.5 percent. Then, effective April 1, 2019,

electricity will be fully exempt from PST.

This exemption, when fully implemented, will provide businesses

large and small with a savings of more than $150 million annually — a

very significant investment in businesses, a significant investment in

competitiveness and a significant investment, again, in climate action.

If we can encourage businesses to take a look at clean energy and a

transfer to clean energy, that’s going to be a benefit to all of us in

British Columbia.

These savings will allow businesses to reinvest in new equipment

and new technologies, hopefully increase our productivity in British

Columbia as well, and give us an ability to compete globally. It’s going

to be, certainly, a positive step. It also provides an added incentive

for businesses, as I said, to switch over to electric power, which helps

with our climate action.

[11:20 a.m.]

This bill, and this government, will promote a fair and

competitive tax system, as I’ve said often in the introduction of our

budget, to ensure a strong, vibrant economy in British Columbia, while

investing in people, investing in affordability and investing in

services that are critical for every British Columbian.

We believe that this bill meets those objectives. This bill enacts

the areas in the budget that, as I said, I believe will benefit a strong

economy in British Columbia and, most importantly, will support the very

people who create that strong economy.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks about Bill 2,

the budget implementation act. I think it was refreshing that the

Finance Minister got a vigorous round of applause for her work on this

bill. In fact, what this bill is, is actually the technical

implementation part of delivering a budget in British Columbia. I do

want to thank the minister for her remarks.

I also want to reflect on the fact that while we stand in the

Legislature and review the number of acts that are going to be amended,

the consequential things that are necessary to adjust legislation, this

really breathes life into the principles, the changes and the direction

that the government has set in its budget. While we allow the names of

the acts and everything to be read, these changes affect people’s lives.

And there are changes here that as the official opposition, we are

concerned about.

Today I’ll make some introductory comments. Of course, when we get

to committee stage, that’s when we’re going to have a conversation about

why some of the changes were made. Obviously, the budget has been passed

in this Legislature, and we’ll move forward, but this really is the bill

that sets in motion the implications of the budget that was introduced

by the government.

From the outset, we want to say how much we appreciate the

retention of many features in this budget update that were actually

introduced by our government in the February 2017 budget that was

introduced previously. Obviously, what’s important will be how the

implementation takes place, but we should start with a very significant

one: the reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent. That was actually

introduced in the previous budget by our government. We will see, and

obviously there’s been…. The approach to the MSP reductions will be

something that we will be monitoring and holding the government to

account for.

The reduction in the small business tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2

percent is, once again, obviously, absolutely essential to B.C.

entrepreneurs and small businesses. We know that small businesses are

the heart of the economy in British Columbia. But we also have to

recognize that there is a layering effect in this budget that impacts

small businesses. On one hand, we’re going to reduce their small

business tax rate, but we’re also going to see the carbon tax increase.

We’re going to look at a number of other things that impact those small

businesses.

If we want to talk about the impact of this budget…. Today, the

bill is about how we bring life and give life to that budget. Let’s take

a look at what’s happened with small business confidence since July in

this province. Since the new government came into place, we’ve seen the

optimism of B.C. entrepreneurs drop from first to sixth place in British

Columbia, according to the CFIB.

Now, I have every reason to believe that some of the very

significant policy decisions and shifts, things that haven’t been

included in this budget, have actually impacted the confidence of small

business entrepreneurs in this province. That is something that we

should not take for granted.

The budget also retains the phasing out of the PST on electricity

paid by industry. As someone who lives in a resource-dependent

community, I can assure you we worked long and hard and recognize the

importance of the reduction of PST on electricity paid by industry. Once

again, it is another way of providing some relief to small businesses,

who very often operate at the margins — for people, for example, in the

forest and paper industry, like Catalyst.

[11:25 a.m.]

Their vice-president said, and this was after we put the PST

reduction in the last budget: “The elimination of this tax will help

industry in B.C. improve its competitiveness.” Again, I do want to

recognize that the government looked at, which I think was a very wise

thing to do, the introduction of many of these items by our previous

government and retained them.

The introduction of a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit for

volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. I appreciate

the member noting that that is something that was introduced in the

previous budget. All of us recognize, especially those of us who

represent small, rural interior communities.... We know how important it

is with volunteer firefighters. We know this is a small way of

recognizing the incredible work that they’ve done that has been

highlighted even more during the unbelievable wildfire season that we’ve

faced in our part of the province. Again, we very much appreciate seeing

that particular initiative being retained.

We’re also glad to see the extension of the book publishing tax

credit and the training tax credit. I do want to note, and one of the

areas of concern that I have…. The minister made the comment that, in

fact, these are typically one-year extensions. I should point out —

again, we’ll talk about this in committee — that we previously announced

a two-year extension to both of these programs. So I’d be very

interested in knowing what prompted the Finance Minister to move from a

two-year extension, which was promised in the previous budget, to a

one-year extension. Because every time we introduce that kind of

uncertainty….

When we look at, particularly, the book publishing industry in

British Columbia, they want certainty. We have a phenomenal book

publishing sector in this province. Again, it’s a simple question of:

why move that from a two-year commitment that was made previously back

to a one-year commitment? That matters. Certainty matters, and we’ve now

added an additional degree of uncertainty.

I think much of that is designed to look at what will be

affordable for this government when it announces its full budget in

February. These are all items that British Columbians were already

counting on because of the previous budget that we introduced in

February. And it is important to note that these tax cuts contribute to

a very healthy and competitive economy.

I have to take the opportunity, as you can imagine, when we’re

talking about the budget…. We were able to afford those types of

broad-based tax cuts because we had worked incredibly hard with British

Columbians to present five consecutive balanced budgets, as we now know,

which produced a very significant, more than $2.5 billion surplus. That

was turned over to this government and, in fact, was confirmed by the

Auditor General very recently. As we know, as part of B.C.’s balanced

budget law, we applied the surplus primarily against public

debt.

The government inherited a very healthy, robust circumstance when

it comes to the fiscal health of this province. We have an economy that

was growing. We had one of the leading economies in the country, the

best job creation record, and that sets the bar for this government. We

will be looking at how this budget update impacts British Columbia’s

standing on the national level.

The February 2017 budget also included investments in things that

were most important to everyone in B.C. We constantly hear from the

members on the other side that we didn’t provide funding for education

or health care — all of those things.

Well, in fact, when the Auditor General reviewed the financial

situation in British Columbia, it was confirmed that health care

spending increased by $486 million, or 2.5 percent, over the previous

year. The education sector also had a significant increase of 2.1

percent, and the social services sector increased by $137 million or 3.3

percent. Not only did we look at how to remain competitive and have one

of the lowest tax burdens in the country, we also invested in those

important services.

[11:30 a.m.]

We acknowledge that British Columbians made it clear when we went

to the polls in May that they did expect their government to add

additional resources to important programs. But they did not go to the

polls to reject the fact that having fiscal prudence and discipline,

looking at balanced budgets, looking at growing the economy, looking at

job creation was an important thing for governments to consider. All of

these important factors were recognized by the Auditor General when we

look at what happened with the fiscal circumstances in the

province.

I want to speak to a couple of the specifics in the bill.

Obviously, the minister has outlined virtually every act that will have

to be amended and the consequentials as well.

We have said, from the introduction of the September budget

update, that we are very concerned about the principles that underlie

the ability for this budget to remain balanced in the future. We’ve seen

this government move from a practice of prudent fiscal management to

large-scale increases in program spending with very little certainty

about how those promises are going to be paid for.

Quite frankly, British Columbians know well that, in fact, it

relies on an almost $1 billion increase in taxes to pay for the

commitments that are outlined in this budget update. That has prompted….

We’re going to have, in committee and also in estimates, a discussion

about what the credit-rating agencies are saying about this. In fact,

the budget update prompted credit-rating agencies such as Moody’s and

Dominion Bond Rating to issue a warning of sorts to the government about

ambitious increases in program spending.

In fact, one of the analysts said: “The government’s plan is

credit-negative, as it will increase taxpayer-supported debt and remove

a dedicated line of revenue for debt repayment.” Hardi goes on to say:

“We assume that action will be taken in addition to other actions to be

announced in the upcoming September budget update. Any ratings impact

would therefore need to take into account other possible measures would

be announced at that time.”

One of the things that I have learned over my time in this House

and as now a fifth-term MLA is that when you talk about a triple-A

credit rating, most people’s eyes glaze over. They don’t make the

connection about how important that is to being able to fund important

services in this province. I can assure you that we believe that there

is the potential to put the triple-A credit rating of this province at

risk with some of the decisions that have been made and, more

importantly, with many of the significant promises that have been made

by this government that are not reflected in the budget

update.

The remarkable feature, as I said, is that the government is

implementing wide-scale tax increases on top of a built-in $2.7 billion

surplus. In other words, the budget implementation bill anticipates

spending well in excess of the current fiscal framework.

Currently, British Columbians enjoy some of the lowest tax burdens

in the country. Following passage of the Budget Measures Implementation

Act, that will no longer be the case. Bill 2 proposes a significant

personal tax increase on high-income earners from 14.7 to 16.8 percent.

The income threshold for this bracket is set as $150,000.

This new measure is estimated to bring in $67 million in

2017-2018, $273 million in 2018-2019 and $287 million in 2019-20. While

these figures represent a large sum of money, it pales in comparison

with the government’s total spending plan in excess of $51 billion for

2017-2018.

What other tax increases are we looking at? This bill will

increase the corporate income tax rate from 11 percent to 12 percent. At

the current rate of 11 percent, British Columbia has the lowest general

corporate income tax rate. This gave our province a competitive

advantage, not only in comparison to the rest of the country but in the

global marketplace where we as British Columbians have to compete for

business.

According to the Minister of Finance, this will make British

Columbia “comparable to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.” In fact,

British Columbia will be tied with Alberta and Manitoba for the

fourth-highest general corporate tax rate in Canada. Well, there goes

our competitive advantage.

[11:35 a.m.]

Why should large companies like Amazon locate in a province like

British Columbia when the tax rate is much higher than the rest of the

country? Where is the incentive? While it’s easy for the Minister of

Finance to stand up and list all of the acts that are going to be

impacted by the budget, perhaps we need to stop for a moment and think

about the implication of those measures on the lives of ordinary British

Columbians, everyday British Columbians, on the lives of small

businesses, small business owners in the province. And what about those

big companies that we’re trying to attract to British Columbia to create

good family-supporting jobs?

As a matter of fact, the current Premier once provided a media

interview to the Northern View a few years ago and stated the

following: “The lowest tax jurisdiction in North America is not

something we should strive for. Why wouldn’t we strive to be the middle

tax jurisdiction in North America?” Well, I can tell you why: because we

want to attract businesses.

The government talks frequently about an emerging economy in

British Columbia. Well, I can tell you one thing. One of the things that

companies that are in those emerging sectors, like technology and life

sciences…. They’re looking for a competitive tax regime. They’re looking

for a place where they are going to make a choice about investing those

dollars. In terms of our competitive advantage, Bill 2 certainly strives

and achieves for mediocrity. As a result of this legislation, B.C. now

stands proudly in the middle of the pack.

These are just two of the significant tax increases. The third

concerns me and certainly concerns many British Columbians. The increase

in the carbon tax, as laid out in this bill, will impact individuals,

small businesses and industry all at the same time.

The Budget Measures Implementation Act sets out four consecutive

tax hikes in the carbon tax in each of the next four years. This will

have a compound effect in raising taxes. Furthermore, Bill 2 abandons

the principle of revenue neutrality.

I have to say to the minister: I very much appreciate the work she

does. But to stand in the House today and use the phrase “so-called

revenue neutrality….” Under the previous government, any increase in the

carbon tax had to, by law, be accompanied by a decrease in personal or

other forms of tax. That is called revenue neutrality. This legislation

effectively will end that.

When we designed the carbon tax, referenced as the so-called

revenue-neutrality piece, it was held up as a model around the world.

This was primarily because of the very aspect that the minister

dismissed so freely in the House today — and with it, the transparency

of reporting out.

Our government required a plan to be laid out with each and every

budget to demonstrate to British Columbians how that revenue that was

generated would be returned to them. Then we didn’t stop there. We

didn’t lay out a plan. In fact, there was a required reporting back. Was

the plan met? Did we achieve the results that were expected?

I’m sorry. Neither British Columbians nor the opposition accept

the fact that simply telling them the money was spent and that it will

be reported out, without the requirement by law, is a serious flaw.

Members on the opposite side can chuckle about that. We are talking

about hundreds of millions of dollars that impact people’s prices at the

pumps. And in this bill, we look at it being applied to every single

kind of fuel, as it should be. But what analysis has been

done?

For example, there is a long list of fuel types. We will certainly

be exploring this in committee. What kind of analysis has been done on

the impacts to business? We already know it will affect consumers at the

gas pumps. So after paying all of their income taxes, consumers in

British Columbia can look forward to more tax on gasoline and, where I

live, home heating fuel, making it more expensive to heat your home in

the winter.

What about industry? We’re going to ask about the kind of

analysis. Has it been done on the increases in the cost of jet and

aviation fuel, for example? How much will carbon tax increases affect

travellers who use air travel? What effect will the increases have on

our province’s tourism industry?

[11:40 a.m.]

All of those things matter. It’s easy to announce additional tax

increases and to list them here, one after another. What kind of

analysis has been done on the economic impacts of things like raising

jet fuel or aviation fuel over the next four years? When we lifted the

taxes on aviation and jet fuel on the international side, it led to a

dramatic increase of air traffic at YVR, particularly with Asia. So

we’re going to have a discussion about those kinds of things in

committee. The people of British Columbia deserve to know how

well-thought-out Bill 2 is and how it will impact our provincial

economy.

The minister also walked through the tax breaks that will

disappear with this act — the child’s fitness tax credit, the child’s

fitness equipment tax credit and the child’s arts tax credit. The

minister gave some explanation to that, but we’re going to actually

pursue that a little bit when we go to committee stage.

We want to also emphasize again that the government continues to

claim that it wants to make life more affordable for British Columbians.

I think every person standing in this Legislature would agree with that

notionally. But here we see a series of tax increases. We see a loss of

tax credits aimed at children’s activities, and it seems to counter that

objective. So that’s the revenue side.

To recap, in addition to a $2.7 billion surplus, the NDP and Green

coalition government have seen it necessary to implement increased

personal, corporate and carbon taxes. It’s almost a billion dollars in

tax increases in just the first year.

I also want to look at the expectations that have been laid out in

terms of the economic forecast. The government has increased its

economic forecast from 2.1 percent in the February budget to 2.9 percent

in 2017-2018. In other words, the government is banking on the same

remarkable economic performance British Columbia experienced last year,

but with a heavier tax burden that will make it less competitive in the

coming year. Remember, British Columbia now proudly stands in the middle

of the pack.

No wonder that the credit-rating agencies are keeping a close eye

on our triple-A credit rating, and they should be. There are significant

risks to the government’s economic forecast. The central bank has raised

interest rates twice since July — the first in seven years. The softwood

lumber dispute continues to threaten the performance of the forest

industry. And we haven’t even begun to factor in the worst wildfire

season in the province’s history. We also have the renegotiation of

NAFTA. That is still unresolved. All of this comes at a time when the

U.S. administration is proposing drastic cuts to its corporate income

tax rates, making it much more difficult for a province like British

Columbia to compete south of the border.

Let’s take just a quick look at the ambitious spending plans that

the Budget Measures Implementation Act brings to life. So $4.5 billion

over the next three years, and all of this spending is limited to the

current bill we have before us. Even more concerning for us are the

unfunded campaign promises that were omitted in the September budget

update. These are not insignificant financial matters. They’re

big-ticket items — $10-a-day daycare program, $400 annual renters

rebate, rollback on ferry fares, a freeze on hydro rates, elimination of

interest payments on student loans, $1,000 completion grant for

colleges.

Also missing is any mention of transportation and transit

infrastructure, long-term funding for transit, additional capital

spending on hospitals and schools, the introduction of a new essential

drugs program, additional funding for K to 12 and post-secondary, a new

pilot program on basic income, and new investments in affordable housing

— not mentioned, not funded, all promised.

To pay for all of these items, it is absolutely apparent that the

NDP and Green coalition are looking to either eliminate long-standing

programs…. Because we certainly haven’t seen a revenue-generation

program, other than taking out of the pockets of British

Columbians.

Let’s face it. We’ve had two surprises over the last two weeks.

I’m wondering how the government plans to fund the now

taxpayer-supported election fundraising process in British Columbia.

Promised: no, it won’t be taxpayers paying for it. We now know that

millions of dollars will be required from taxpayers to actually fund

elections in British Columbia. And then yesterday. Where’s the budget

for the referendum on electoral reform?

[11:45 a.m.]

I do appreciate the minister, because I know she’s lived in

northern and rural parts of British Columbia. I’m going to digress for

just one moment to say this. She spoke passionately about the importance

of changing the credit union bill. That’s so important because rural and

northern communities and small communities require that special

attention.

Well, I want to say to the members opposite that when the

government introduces a referendum on proportional representation that

reflects 50 percent plus one and has no regard for the size of this

province or the geography, I’m not just concerned about how they’re

going to pay for it. I’m concerned that virtually the future of the

voting process in British Columbia will be decided by urban British

Columbia, simply saying to rural B.C.: “Your voices do not matter in

this referendum.”

Not only are we concerned about the policy implications. We’re

concerned about one more thing to add to the list in terms of how

they’re going to pay for it.

I also want to comment for just a few minutes about the

elimination of the international business activity program — once again,

dismissed completely by the minister in the House today. “Didn’t work.

Not worth it. Report wasn’t really very good.”

It was interesting. The minister should actually be more specific

about her comments about the analysis that was done because, in fact, in

the analysis that the ministry did, certainly to the best of our

knowledge and the information we were provided with in our briefing, was

the fact that the last time the analysis of this program was done by the

ministry was in 2010.

Now, I can assure you that if the decision to eliminate that

program, based on a 2010 analysis, is the way that the framework for the

policy decisions are being made, that doesn’t give us a lot of

confidence. That program has been around since the 1980s. In fact, it’s

been supported and expanded by ministers of all political stripes,

including the NDP. The program is designed, once again, to attract and

retain international business activity that simply would not otherwise

be located in British Columbia.

Back in 1987, then Finance Minister Mel Couvelier said that the

IBA is designed to “develop an international financial centre in

Vancouver so that we can be Canada and North America’s financial gateway

to the Pacific Rim.” In the late 1980s, British Columbia did not rank

anywhere as an international financial centre. But by 2008, that had

changed. Vancouver ranked as 33. Today, Vancouver has climbed to No.

All of us recognize that there is more to be done. But B.C.

benefits from international commerce. You can’t attract international

investment or head offices like Amazon unless they have ready access to

financial services. The financial services sector is an important

generator of employment.

The IBA program is totally administered by the Minister of

Finance. It does not come at a cost to taxpayers because the income

generated by increased investment is returned to taxpayers in the form

of corporate tax income.

Every jurisdiction in North America has some form of tax

incentive. Unlike British Columbia, most simply cut a cheque to

individual companies for direct corporate subsidies. B.C. did away with

that practice in 2001.

As you can imagine, we’re going to have more to say about that.

I’m not sure why the minister, at this point, would simply have

eliminated the program without a proper review, without at least

considering the report that’s been presented to her in draft form. And

why not potentially refer that program to the emerging economy task

force, rather than simply eliminate it?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In conclusion, the official opposition remains very concerned that

the government will be capable of achieving ongoing balanced budgets.

The spending contained within this legislation essentially takes up all

of the fiscal room that the government has.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. We look

forward to having further discussion in committee.

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: It’s wonderful to rise in this debate. When you look at the

detail…. I think most British Columbians, when they saw the budget

presented by the Minister of Finance, which makes life more affordable,

which makes the taxes more progressive, which relieves costs on business

and on British Columbians…. They were delighted.

When we have the opportunity here to review these changes in

detail.... Contrary to what we’ve been hearing from the members of the

opposition, there are facts and then there are facts. The facts are

contained in the budget document. Those facts on page 60 show that there

is a net tax reduction of $389 million in this budget — and annualized

in 2018-19 of $881 million. Those are the facts, not what was put

forward by them.

Now, as members will know, that’s actually what’s in the budget. I

know that reading the facts is disturbing. Reducing the

facts….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: You know what, hon. Speaker? I challenge them to read page 60 of

the budget, to actually read the budget and see the tax changes, which

are a reduction — $1.3 billion annually in MSP cuts, paid by individuals

and business.

How can they stand there seriously, when the facts say opposite,

and claim that this budget raises taxes? It is absolutely untrue, and

they continue to say it day after day in this House.

I want to say, because we only have a short period of time before

the House adjourns for lunch…. Well, the tax information is very clear

in the budget. It’s on page 60, and the members opposite can either read

it or not, either pay attention to the facts or not. I understand they

have a difficult job in opposition, and they’re having a difficult time

making the adjustment.

I want to make one point, with respect to what…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …the member from Prince George just said. I want to make one

correction.

She claimed that the policies around proportional representation

were designed to limit voices. There was a referendum on STV in 2009,

produced by that government over there, which was 50 percent plus one.

Now, that referendum happened to be defeated. That government over there

did a referendum on minority rights, on First Nations rights, in 2002

and 2003. There was a referendum on First Nations rights. What was it?

Fifty percent plus one.

How can they make that argument seriously in this House? How can

they make that argument seriously? It is so disrespectful. When they do

a referendum that’s 50 percent plus one, it’s okay. When we do it, it’s

not okay. That’s their policy. They are completely out of touch. It was

50 percent plus one in 2009. You know it. You know it was 50 percent

plus one in 2009, and to say differently now is incorrect.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $67,410,000

(continued).

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and staff for coming back for another

day of Agriculture estimates.

[11:05 a.m.]

One of the topics that was canvassed lightly over the last couple

of days was extension officers, extension services. The minister has

been strongly advocating for more extension services, in her role as

critic. I’d just like to know, now that she’s the minister, what her

plans are when it comes to changing, adding, modifying extension

services in the province of B.C.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s nice to be back again today. There’s nothing I like more than

talking about agriculture. I have my excellent staff with me here today:

my deputy minister, Wes Shoemaker; Deputy Assistant Arif Lalani; and

Deputy Assistant Wes Boyd.

I have Lorie Hrycuik, executive director of corporate governance,

policy and legislation; and Gavin Last, executive director, food safety

and inspection branch. They’re here joining me again today, and I can’t

tell them how much I appreciate their support.

First off, I’m going to answer the question that the member just

asked, and that’s regarding extension services. I have been on record

many times saying that extension services are extremely valuable for

farmers and how I did believe that we needed more resources in the area.

I’m currently working on a budget proposal for the next year’s budget

and discussing with my colleagues the importance of having this

front-line resource available to farmers.

I used extension services in the ’90s, when I was farming. It

definitely helped me plan my crops and figure out a business plan.

Without those in place, we would probably be creating barriers to

farming. Part of my mandate in Grow B.C. is to make sure that we get as

many farmers and as much land into production as possible, and extension

services is part of that.

I’m happy to say that we are currently advertising for a First

Nations agrologist, and the competition has closed for organics

specialist. The organics specialist is something that, as critic, I

called for, for years and years. I’m so pleased that we’re moving

ahead.

[11:10 a.m.]

We have already added some of those resources into the ministry,

which will reflect the importance and the value of front line. Also it

will allow farmers to have direct contact with the ministry.

I’m going to also answer a question from yesterday. We were asked

a question about the carbon tax and gasoline that farmers use.

Currently, exemptions for eligible farmers are on marked fuel. This will

remain in effect until April 1 of this next year, 2018. I’m working very

closely with my colleagues at this point, with the Minister of Finance,

with respect to confirming the impact to agricultural producers of the

increase in the carbon tax. This is a work in progress. But the

exemption on marked fuels will remain in place until April 1.

There’s one more. I just wanted to talk about something we

discussed on our first day — the critic’s opening statements and the

numbers around production value of farming. The critic’s numbers on

profits are correct, but they were numbers from 2015. In May 2017, Stats

Canada released new numbers for 2016. I think this is really important.

The total gross profits were $357 million, which was down 22 percent,

and total net profits were $6.3 million, which was down 95 percent. Now,

it’s important to know that this is for primary production and not the

whole sector.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for those answers. So we don’t have the

numbers yet for the whole sector, just for the primary. Okay. At some

point, obviously, the ministry, through its updates, will publish the

numbers for the whole sector. Good. We can keep track of how we’re doing

over time. It’s always nice to see the lines go in the upward direction

— on the positive numbers, for sure — on those that are

important.

On the extension officers, thank you also for confirming that we

do have an excellent core of extension officers doing a lot of work all

around the province. The additional two that the minister is talking

about will be welcomed, obviously — the organics in particular, since we

are moving to a regime where, if you are going to be using the term

“organic,” you have to be certified, which is something that both the

minister and the former minister were very supportive of.

The application that she’s making to her colleagues for more

resources for extension officers — is she at liberty now to give us a

thumbnail sketch as to what that might look like?

Hon. L. Popham: The discussions are preliminary right now. I think it’s very well

understood that my mandate includes additional resources to the Ministry

of Agriculture, and that falls under the Grow B.C. part of our

three-part pillar. It may not just be extension services. Other

resources will also be looked at. I am not able to share numbers with

the member today, but I will definitely be happy to talk to them as we

move toward the next budget.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate things being preliminary

and not having something she can share with us today. My concern, of

course, is that I want to help the minister achieve her goals of having

more resources for extension officers, amongst all the other priorities

she has for the ministry.

[11:15 a.m.]

It seems over the last three days, we have canvassed quite a few

priorities, and with the budget basically flatlined as compared to the

overall budget for the province increasing considerably, right now it

does not appear that the ministry has that support from those people

with the decision-making power to grant her the money that she is

looking for. Whatever we can do in opposition to assist and bolster the

minister’s argument to her colleagues, I say, sincerely, that we would

love to be able to do that. If your offer is open to us helping you,

please take us up on our reciprocal offer to do that.

Of course, we’ll be looking at the budget in 2018, in February, to

see how successful our joint push for more funds for the ministry is.

And then, the critic, in 2018, will be there to hold the minister

accountable if those dollars don’t show up in the 2018 budget, I’m

sure.

One more related question and then the member for Delta South has

some questions as well.

I found, over the time that I had the privilege of working with

this ministry and leading the ministry, that there was a lot of overlap

between the ministry’s needs and the needs of FLNRO, in particular in

the areas of range and fish. I’m just wondering if there’s any talk with

the current government. I know there was talk with the previous

government, about perhaps realigning those relationships and potentially

even moving Range back into Agriculture — it used to be Agriculture and

Lands at one point — and/or potentially moving fish into

Agriculture.

Is there any discussion happening with the other ministries on

this, and if so, when would we likely hear of a resolution to

that?

Hon. L. Popham: There are not any organizational changes underway currently, but I

can tell the members that my focus is on my mandate.

[11:20 a.m.]

That’s a mandate that was given to me by the Premier of British

Columbia, and I’m working as hard as I can to fulfil my entire mandate

as quickly as I can.

That being said, the idea of ministries overlapping is very clear.

The member will know that from his time as Agriculture Minister. We will

continue to do that, working very closely with our colleagues in other

ministries. I think that really came to light over the forest fire

disaster this summer. The ministries worked very well together, and we

will continue to do so.

I. Paton: Just to let you know, I have to buzz out of here at 11:30, so I’ll

ask a quick question.

Unfortunately, your Dr. Pritchard has gone home. I did talk

yesterday about armyworm. We didn’t get an answer on that. Minister, I

think you probably realize that it has become a big issue this

particular summer throughout the Fraser Valley, with damage to our corn

crops and to our pasture fields, which will lead me, later on, hopefully

after lunch, to our crop protection program for ducks, geese, swans that

are devastating our grass crops in the Fraser Valley.

Unfortunately, Dr. Pritchard’s not here. But perhaps you could

give me a bit of an update on what the ministry might be doing in the

way of any effects they could have on armyworm with some sort of

natural-based spray or chemicals or whatever.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Armyworms have been something that has been very alarming for

growers in the Fraser Valley. The member from Delta has brought that up

as a concern, and we’ve also see that in the Comox Valley.

I was lucky to get out to our agriculture lab in Abbotsford, where

I was speaking with a plant pathologist who had just brought in samples

from the field of the armyworm. We were discussing how, when you look at

ways of dealing with armyworm, you have to consider: is the grower a

conventional grower, or is the grower an organic grower? There are

different methods on how to deal with that.

At this point, we’re gathering information. Our agrologists are

working with farmers. We’re having growers meetings with our ministry

staff to try and get a handle on the devastation. Then, of course, our

business risk management department is starting to look at what type of

compensation and financial impact this has had on our

growers.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I appreciate

that.

In a related matter, organics is obviously very important to our

province. Many individuals in British Columbia eat organic food. Others

produce organic food for domestic consumption as well as

export.

Over the years, we’ve consulted extensively, as a government, with

the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. Through that

consultation work and with the broader community, we came up with

legislation and regulations the minister will be aware of that pretty

soon will require anybody who is going to be advertising themselves as

organic to be certified.

Could the minister please take a few minutes to explain to the

public the process we’ve gone through, where we are right now on the

regulations regarding that question that I just brought up and if there

are any plans in place between now and the certification date deadline

to make changes so that the public has a chance to know well ahead of

time that the minister has some changes in the plan?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I think this has been a process that

has been long going, and I know the former minister put a lot of time

and effort into this subject.

I also want to recognize that it’s been coming for a number of

years and that there have been groups all across the province,

certification bodies that fall under the Certified Organic Associations

of British Columbia. For example, on the south Island, we have the

Island Organic Producers Association. Many people have put in a lot of

time, farmers have put in a lot of time, in conversations and talks and

meetings across the country looking at the federal regulations compared

to our own provincial regulations.

Really, this is about aligning our certification guidelines with

the federal guidelines. I think the use of the word “organic” being part

of this process is really important to a lot of growers who have

invested a lot of time and energy into being certified organic farms.

This gives them some assurance that the brand they’ve created is secure,

it’s authentic, and it will allow consumers to purchase with confidence

when they see that.

As far as any changes that we see coming, I don’t think that we

foresee any changes, but we will be focusing on education and outreach

to consumers. That can be part of our third pillar, which is Buy B.C. Of

course, it also lines up with our Grow B.C. program, which is making

sure we’ve got the resources on the ground, and in this case, it will be

an organic specialist.

N. Letnick: Could the minister remind the public when the organic companies

need to have their certification by to qualify them to use the term

“organic”? Could she expand a little more on what the education and the

rest of that will be afterwards?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: It will take effect in September 2018. As far as who, we are not

looking at people that are out of compliance or applying yet. We can get

the numbers on those who are applying, but really, people won’t be out

of compliance until September rolls around.

As far as what education and outreach look like, we will be

working with COABC on that matter, and because we have a new certified

organic officer, we will be tasking them with making sure that we’re

coming up with a plan, working with COABC to make sure that we’re

working with farmers to help them come into compliance, and also doing

outreach to new farmers who maybe want to become certified

organic.

I think the important thing for consumers is that they will know

that if they’re buying a product that says “organic,” it is certified

organic, after September.

N. Letnick: A big part of the organic industry is sold through retail stores,

but some part of it is also sold through farmers markets. Could the

minister explain to us what her vision is for this government’s support

for farmers markets?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the questions on farmers markets. I love farmers

markets.

In fact, when I started as a farmer, the farmers market was one of

the best ways I found that I could sell my goods on Saturday mornings

down at the Gorge. I would get up at probably five o’clock in the

morning. I’d cut all my vegetables. I’d bag up my salad greens. I’d cut

down the sunflowers. I’d fill my old rusty red pickup truck with

everything that I could manage to fit in.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’d head down to the Gorge farmers market, where I would be

probably…. I would empty my truck within an hour and a half, because

there were lineups of people that were waiting for the farmers markets

to open in the morning.

The thing I loved about farmers markets is that you got one-on-one

time with the consumers who were buying your goods. When we talk about

the value of farmers markets, it’s a massive value. You know, when

larger-scale farmers say, “Well, it’s just farmers markets,” I always

used to say: “Farmers markets are the cheerleaders for larger

agriculture.” It’s where communities can connect with agriculture at a

level that means something to them. When they bring those goods home and

they cook them up, serve them for dinner, they know exactly where they

came from. That’s an important part of public trust in agriculture, so

we’re very supportive.

There’s a coupon program through the farmers markets that is in

conjunction with the Ministry of Health. I’ve been in talks with my

colleague about continuing that program, and he is very supportive as

well.

Part of my mandate is Grow B.C. It’s making sure that we get as

many farmers growing and as many fields into production. Farmers markets

are a great avenue for farmers to be able to sell their goods — and a

lot of times value-added, which makes sure that primary goods are

getting the best value back to the farmer.

I hope that answers your question. I know the member has always

been supportive of farmers markets, and I think we share this very much,

as Members of the Legislative Assembly. I know that Members in the

Legislative Assembly often — in fact, weekly — give two-minute

statements about farmers markets in their communities, so I know that we

all value them.

The Chair: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Noting the time, we’ll probably do the answer after we

return.

D. Barnett: Yesterday I asked you a question about the forms for those people

needing assistance — ranchers. You stated that those forms would be out

today. I have been told by my constituents, ranchers, that the forms are

not going to be made public, that somebody is coming to visit them with

the form.

My question is: what has changed? Why are the people not getting

the forms to fill out themselves? Is this person hired by the ministry?

Is this person on contract? What has changed in your recovery plan for

the agri-fund?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Just a reminder to all, please use “the member” or “the

speaker,” instead of “you” or “yours.”

D. Barnett: Oh, I’m sorry.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada