Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 251

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M213 — Prohibiting Driving with Illegal Firearms Act

M. Hunt

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Laida Falsetto

J. Routledge

Sherry Elwood

L. Reid

Economic development

R. Glumac

Peace River area grandmothers of MLAs

G. Kyllo

Peers Victoria Resources Society

M. Dean

Peace River area grandmothers of MLAs

D. Davies

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Protection of old-growth forests

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Action on gas prices and investigation of pricing practices

S. Bond

Hon. B. Ralston

J. Thornthwaite

Action on gas prices and government position in Alberta court case

M. de Jong

Hon. B. Ralston

Action on gas prices

P. Milobar

Hon. B. Ralston

Point of Privilege

(continued)

M. Polak

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

T. Redies

I. Paton

T. Wat

S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

P. Milobar

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 29 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

N. Letnick

S. Thomson

J. Thornthwaite

M. Lee

S. Sullivan

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Good afternoon, Members. Pursuant to Standing Order 12, the House is

advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Thank you, hon. Speaker. First of all, I would like to wish you well

for this good day in that chair.

I’m really pleased to welcome our hard-working and dedicated team of

constituency assistants in the gallery. Our CAs are in town this week for

their annual conference, and they’re here from across the province. They do

a super job serving the people of British Columbia, assisting them on a

range of issues. They listen to painful and emotional stories of

constituents with patience and respect. They change lives by resolving

complex and difficult cases for people who are going through a difficult

time in their lives.

They’re here today in the gallery to watch our thoughtful and

respectful debate during question period. I ask every member of the House to

please make all the CAs welcome today in question period.

Hon. J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure to welcome a guest from New Westminster who is

here today. She is a school trustee for school district 40. Her name is

Gurveen Dhaliwal. She ran for election to school trustee last fall and was

elected by a good margin. She’s doing tremendous work there as part of the

team and is one of the key leaders in ensuring that New Westminster school

district 40 became the first school district in the province of British

Columbia to keep the Period Promise and ensure that there were free

menstrual products for girls in our schools in New Westminster.

Welcome, please, Gurveen Dhaliwal.

J. Isaacs: I’m pleased to welcome and introduce Diabetes Canada, who joined me

and my colleagues John Rustad, Linda Reid and Shirley Bond for lunch today.

We were so pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Russell Williams,

senior vice-president of mission, and B.C. advocacy representatives Mario

Miceli and Edward Sem.

We heard today that one out of three British Columbians who live with

diabetes and prediabetes have an increased risk of stroke, heart attack,

kidney disease, amputation and vision loss and that B.C.’s diverse

population of Asian, South Asian, southeast Asian and Indigenous are at

increased risk for diabetes.

Would the House please join me in welcoming these great advocates who

support those living with diabetes and who work to prevent the projected

increase for British Columbians.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the member’s gallery this afternoon is His Excellency

Roberto Rodríguez Arnillas, ambassador of Peru to Canada. The ambassador is

here in British Columbia to welcome a Peruvian navy tall ship, a training

ship that arrives in Vancouver harbour tomorrow. The ambassador will meet

with a number of British Columbia officials today, including myself, and I

will be pleased to visit the ship with him tomorrow evening. Would this

House please make the ambassador of Peru feel very welcome here.

M. Hunt: I have two introductions. First of all, throughout the afternoon we’ll

see three groups of students from Surrey Christian School in my riding who

will be here — part of their social studies.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also, it’s my pleasure to introduce three members of Wake Up Surrey

who are in the House today: Gurpreet Singh Sahota, Sarbjit Singh Sandhu and

Monte Ball. These gentlemen have been instrumental in pushing for new tools

and strategies to deal with the escalating guns and gang violence in our

community. I’d ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us in the House today is Fred Jay. He’s a constituent of mine

from Vancouver–Point Grey, up there in the gallery. He is a director on the

Kerrisdale Community Centre board. He also sits on the seniors council for

the Kerrisdale Community Centre. He’s very proud of the lunch program at the

centre for seniors, which he’s a part of. It runs six days a week, with

$58,000 worth of annual subsidies for seniors lunches. Would the House

please make Fred Jay feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: There are people who work in our offices right here in Victoria who

make our life a lot easier. They make sure we go to the places we’re

supposed to. They take care of us. My administrative assistant Holly Hubley

is with us in the House today, as well as my executive assistant, Mindy

Bansal. Please make them both feel welcome.

T. Wat: It is a great pleasure to welcome my two friends from Melbourne,

Australia — Zhuofan Zhen and his wife, Qing Lin — as well as two Richmond

friends, Weinan Lin and Kitty Huang, to the Legislature. Zhuofan is very

actively involved in the Chinese-Australian community in Melbourne. He was

one of the founding members of the Lions Club of Melbourne Sino Innovation

in 2015 and is the club’s current president. He has come to Vancouver to

attend the Vancouver Chinatown Lions Club’s 65th anniversary.

When I visited Melbourne last summer, Zhuofan took me on a tour of the

Museum of Chinese Australian History, right in the heart of Chinatown. The

museum is housed in a late 19th century five-level warehouse, which

showcases the heritage, history and culture of Australia’s Chinese

community. I was very impressed with all of the exhibits and how the museum

is managed and showcased to local Australians and tourists very effectively.

Zhuofan’s Lions Club is now working with the Museum of Chinese Australian

History on a world tour of the stories of Chinese-Australians.

Now that our Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is planning on

establishing a Chinese-Canadian museum, we should learn from the successful

experience of the Melbourne museum, which was established more than 30 years

ago, in 1985, and has been running very successfully.

Please join me in welcoming my friends from Melbourne and from

Richmond.

N. Simons: Hon. Members, on behalf of the Speaker, I have the pleasure of

welcoming 15 new staff members from the parliamentary education office

today. The member for Boundary-Similkameen and the member for Saanich North

and the Islands had an opportunity, with me, to meet with them.

Over the next four months, we expect over 100,000 school children to

visit this place from across B.C. and around the world. It will be the

responsibility of the summer tour guides and the Parliamentary Players to

explain to our visitors about the role of MLAs, the architecture of these

beautiful buildings and the history of our province.

You’ll certainly notice the players, as they will be in period

costumes, bringing our parliamentary history to life through their

portrayals of Nellie Cashman; Queen Victoria; Mary Ellen Smith; Francis

Rattenbury; my favourite, Thomas Uphill; and of course, Hamish the

stonemason.

Joining us in the gallery today are Isabelle Ava-Pointon, Stephen

Bagan, Rachelle Bait, Hannah Christensen, Aidan Gerrero, Olive Joiner,

Teeana Lackner, Ellen Law, Gabrielle Parent, Douglas Peerless, Regina Rios,

Daniel Saretsky, Aaron Smail, Taryn Yoneda and Alex Zhang.

Would the House please join…. Well, let’s just all welcome them and

wish them a happy summer.

Hon. C. James: We have four staff who are visiting us today from the corporate

services division of the Ministry of Finance. They are Cindy McKinstry,

Debra Janke, Patricia Laird and Saija Poldrugovac. Would the House please

welcome them and also thank them for their commitment to public service on

behalf of all British Columbians.

[1:45 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I have two friends in the gallery this afternoon, both from the south

Island, so I can’t claim credit for them as constituents — but two

friends.

Charlene Froom and I go way back. I was going to say we were old

friends, and then I realized that that would be insulting to both of us. We

are good friends, and our work goes back many years to when I was with the

Spinal Cord Injury Organization of B.C.

With her is Capt. David Willows. He is a father of a son with a

disability. Both are tremendous advocates, and they’ve ramped up their

advocacy since the change to the building code in the fall with the change

in parking regulations.

I would like the House to make them welcome and thank them for their

efforts.

R. Singh: I have two sets of introductions today. First, I would also like to

welcome the members of the B.C. advocacy group for Diabetes Canada — Russell

Williams, Mario Miceli and Ed Sem — who are in the gallery today. We had a

very productive meeting with them earlier, and I really want to thank them

for their advocacy. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

Also in the gallery is a great friend and activist, a volunteer for

not only my community office but also many Surrey offices, Margaret Barron.

She’s here in the gallery. She’s a really, really strong

supporter.

Margaret, I would really like to thank you for all the great work you

do.

I would really like the House to welcome her.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I have the great pleasure of introducing three family members today

who are attending question period. The first is Anne Donaldson, my wife,

from Hazelton, who’s here helping out with taking care of grandchildren

while our daughter-in-law attends a conference.

The second is our daughter-in-law — more like a daughter to us — Cyra

Yunkws, who’s a municipal councillor in War­field. She was raised in

Hazelton, and she’s also a constituency assistant to the member for Kootenay

West.

The third, last but not least, is an extended family member, I’ll say,

Renée Paquette, who’s celebrating her 12th birthday today. She’s in the

gallery. She’s from Hazelton. Her mother is here as well — Julie Maitland,

who is a constituency assistant in Hazelton.

Would the House please make all of them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Members, just a reminder that at 1:55 p.m., most cell phones will

receive a test alert notification. So don’t panic. It’s just a test alert

notification.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M213 — PROHIBITING DRIVING

WITH ILLEGAL FIREARMS

ACT

M. Hunt presented a bill intituled Prohibiting Driving with Illegal

Firearms Act.

M. Hunt: I move that a bill intituled Prohibiting Driving with Illegal

Firearms Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order

paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.

The Prohibiting Driving with Illegal Firearms Act ad­dresses the

transportation of illegal firearms in British Columbia, which is often

tied to organized crime. If passed, this bill would amend the Motor

Vehicle Act and make it an offence to drive with an illegal firearm on a

motorway, an idea that was proposed in the B.C. Task Force on Illegal

Firearms report of 2017. Anyone found guilty of driving in possession of

an illegal firearm would face up to six months in prison and fines up to

$10,000, in addition to a one-year driver’s licence

suspension.

This bill addresses concerns raised by our law enforcement

officers, some of the finest women and men, who work every day to keep

us and our loved ones safe.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M213, Prohibiting Driving with Illegal Firearms Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

LAIDA FALSETTO

J. Routledge: Every year the city of Burnaby recognizes one of its citizens for

outstanding service to the community. This year it was Laida Falsetto.

Laida teaches at Byrne Creek secondary, where she mentors, leads and

champions some of our community’s most vulnerable youth.

[1:50 p.m.]

The student population come from 80 different countries and speak

70 different languages. More than 50 percent of them do not speak

Ten years ago Byrne Creek discovered that many of their students

employment. So they created PAWS, Paving A Way for Success, that

supports refugee students to thrive in Canadian society. Laida became

part of it.

When she accepted her award, Laida told a story. She was leading a

discussion in PAWS and invited her students to brainstorm the meaning of

success. “Owning a car,” said one. “Owning a house,” said another, and

so it went. She noticed one young man who was not participating in the

discussion, so she asked him: “What’s going on?” He replied: “I don’t

agree with anything they are saying, I think these

definitions are

selfish.”

For him, he said: “Success means going back to my home country to

build a school.” That totally changed the conversation. They all started

talking about the importance of helping others.

Laida could have chosen to tell so many other stories, like how

she packs food hampers for families in need or how she spends countless

hours mentoring the student government. Instead, she chose to tell a

story about somebody else, about a student who redefined success and

influenced the thinking of his peers.

I would add that that this happened only because she saw him and

encouraged him to speak up. That story says a lot about who Laida

Falsetto is and why she’s Burnaby’s Citizen of the Year.

SHERRY ELWOOD

L. Reid: I rise today to recognize an outstanding educator. Sherry Elwood’s

career in public education spans 36 years, including teacher, school

administrator, assistant superintendent and superintendent.

In each of her roles, she’s been characterized as passionate about

public education and courageous and determined in all interactions. She

has modelled relentless dedication and keeping what is best for students

at the heart of every discussion and every decision.

Sherry Elwood has been a superintendent of schools for school

district No. 38, Richmond, since 2016. She spent the previous six years

in school district 71, Comox, as the superintendent of schools. She was

there with former MLA Don McRae.

Sherry has over 20 years of progressive, senior administrative

leadership within the school system of British Columbia. She has

demonstrated an ability to work as a collaborative leader, innovator,

problem solver and mentor for students, parents and staff alike. She’s a

former president of the British Columbia School Superintendents

Association.

Richmond is better for her leadership. I wish her many magical

moments and much intellectual stimulation in all future endeavours.

Sherry is an incredibly bright and talented leader who has set the bar

for Richmond.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

R. Glumac: We have a vast province and a wide diversity of communities and

regions. Each one has distinct economic development needs and

aspirations.

It’s important to highlight and celebrate the many economic

development achievements across this province. That’s why we are proud

to proclaim this week, May 12 to 16, as British Columbia Economic

Development Week. There will be events across the province organized by

the B.C. Economic Development Association, including workshops and

courses and the release of the Towntalk report, which presents issues

facing B.C. communities and solutions recommended by peers.

Every day across B.C. local leaders, community organizations,

local, regional and Indigenous governments work to respond with

innovation and creativity to the economic development needs of the

communities they serve. It’s important that we share the great

prosperity of this province that comes from an economy that is strong,

innovative and resilient — an economy that takes advantage of emerging

opportunities to grow a vibrant tech sector, an economy that directly

acknowledges and tackles challenges of climate change, an economy that

recognizes and supports the strengths of all sectors.

Our government is committed to creating good jobs in every corner

of this province and ensuring that people from every background can

reach their full potential.

We thank all those working in the economic development field for

their passion and commitment to strengthening their communities and

ensuring prosperity for future generations.

[1:55 p.m.]

PEACE RIVER AREA

GRANDMOTHERS OF

MLA s

G. Kyllo: A coincidence is an example of two things relating to each other

or having some connection that was unexpected. Today I have a rather

interesting coincidence to share with this House. It begins with my

grandmother, Edith Kyllo, an amazing woman who had a significant impact

on my life.

Born and raised in Vancouver, Edith became a school teacher but

always had the desire to be a pioneer. She took a job teaching in

Hudson’s Hope, where life was, well, just a bit more primitive. She

taught in a one-room schoolhouse with a small living quarters at the

back. Grandma lived without electricity, hauled her own water, cut and

split her own firewood, and spent a lot of time working with her

hands.

She taught grades 1 through 8, shaping young minds long before the

creation of the term “class size and composition.” She also helped form

the North Peace Historical Society, based in Fort. St. John, and was

asked by her friend Marguerite Davies and Cora Ventress to collaborate

on a book paying tribute to the pioneers of the Peace.

In 1973, Edith, Marguerite and Cora co-authored The

Peacemakers of North Peace , a compilation of history and

biographies of pioneers from areas north of Peace River. What Edith and

Marguerite didn’t know at the time was the connection their grandsons

would forge decades later, because Marguerite Davies’s grandson sits

right beside me in the Legislature every day.

What are the chances that of the small percentage of people even

elected to this place, their two grandsons would be among them and that

they would also happen to be seated next to each other in the people’s

House? It’s a strange coincidence, but we both believe our grandmothers

would be very proud to see us here, just as we are so very proud of them

and their many accomplishments, including co-authoring the book The

Peacemakers of North Peace .

PEERS VICTORIA RESOURCES SOCIETY

M. Dean: I’m very proud to rise today to shine a light on some innovative

and effective work in our region that supports some of the most

vulnerable in our community. Peers, which is an innovative, multiservice

grassroots agency, was established in 1995 by, with and for sex

workers.

In partnerships, Peers provide an array of outreach and drop-in

harm reduction and support services, alongside education and employment

training for current and former sex workers. Their night outreach is a

community-based service located on the Victoria stroll, and they also

offer an outreach program for men and trans individuals in the sex

industry. They also have a bad-date sheet and work with the Victoria

police in reporting violence against persons in the sex

industry.

Recently they were successful in their applications for three

crime prevention and remediation grants to enhance their programs, like

their Indigenous SACRED — Indigenous sex workers acknowledging, creating

and redefining experiential diversity — project, which will offer

monthly group meetings that focus on sharing a meal and cultural

knowledge in support of a holistic healing model; and their pilot

clinical counselling service for those currently or formerly involved in

the sex industry who have experienced sexual and/or intimate partner

violence.

They’re also going to provide a small business training program,

which will provide a flexible option to enhance economic security for

women transitioning from the sex industry. The program provides a

comprehensive curriculum designed to enable participants to launch their

own small business.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved with

Peers in support of these critical services.

PEACE RIVER AREA

GRANDMOTHERS OF

MLA s

D. Davies: I’m honoured today here to offer a bit of a follow-up, or maybe

part 2, to my colleague from Shuswap.

[2:00 p.m.]

My grandmother, Marguerite Davies, was living in Comox as my

grandfather was posted there in the air force during the Second World

War. After the war, she and her young family headed north, in 1949,

after hearing of the many opportunities in the Peace country. She

arrived on the train with her family to start a new life in the mostly

unheard of village of Fort St. John, population 1,400. Fort St. John was

not much more than a main street. If you can believe, there was only one

lawn in the whole community, and the only pavement was at the airport.

After being in Comox and from Ontario originally, this was quite

different than what she was used to.

My grandmother quickly got engaged in the community. She was

active in the Presbyterian Church, the literacy club and the local

writers guild, writing poetry and plays and winning a provincial award

for best original script. Almost all of her writings were to do with the

North Peace.

In September 1963, a group of residents — including Edith Kyllo,

grandmother of my colleague for Shuswap — were interested in preserving

the history of the north. They organized themselves as the North Peace

Historical Society, and the first meeting was held at my grandparents’.

Years later the group built the North Peace Museum, which is still

standing today. My grandmother was also a founding member of the public

library as well as an active member of the Women’s Institute. Over time,

my grandmother and the member for Shuswap’s grandmother became good

friends.

My grandparents were stellar people and dearly loved Fort St.

John. With the love of the Peace and its rich history, my grandma wanted

to preserve that history and, similarly, so did Edith. Working with some

other friends from the area, including Cora Ventress, they worked

together by compiling many stories and biographies of the

Peace.

As mentioned, they created the book in 1973, Peacemakers of

the North Peace . It captured our history forever. But more

importantly, it captured the incredible stories that the Peacemakers

made that make our community today.

As stated, it is quite amazing that here we are 50 years later, my

colleague and I, sitting in this chamber, a set of grandchildren from a

couple of amazing grandmas that many years ago created an incredible

lasting legacy today.

Deputy Speaker: Members, generally speaking, props are not allowed to be used in

the House. But in this case, both members had the permission of the

Chair.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

A. Wilkinson: Another day, another day of record gas prices. Every time this

comes up in the media, the Premier seems to go off track and come up

with a new excuse for why nothing can be done. In the past 30 days,

we’ve catalogued at least eight excuses, none of which have amounted to

anything in terms of consumer satisfaction or getting a better deal at

the pumps.

The position he took a year ago was that we’ve talked about a

range of options. A very simple question. It should be a straightforward

answer. It’s a matter of factual record of what happened a year ago.

Premier, what were those options?

Hon. J. Horgan: The opposition didn’t take the opportunity to ask me this question

yesterday. I would have, at that time, advised them that I spoke with

the Prime Minister, the owner of the Trans Mountain pipeline, about

getting more refined product into that pipe so that it would, through

supply and demand…. Again, a principle not unknown to members on that

side of the House — that an increase in supply would see a decrease in

prices. I think that that’s in the interest of the people of B.C., in

the interest the people of Canada, and so does the Prime

Minister.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition, supplemental question.

A. Wilkinson: Here we go again. Apparently, the Premier didn’t bother to read

the Globe and Mail over the weekend, where Justine Hunter made

it very clear what the commercial terms are on pipelines. Those who own

the pipes do not control what goes into them. The shippers own what’s in

the pipe, and those are oil companies controlled by the government of

Alberta, with which the Premier has picked a big fight. So that excuse

goes out the window.

Premier, you’re continuing to make it up as you go along. You’ve

claimed you have a range of options. A month ago, you said you’d have

your deputy look for options. Now you say you want to get the basic

facts straight from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Why not just make a phone call to Edmonton and ask for the

information?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s news to me that the government of Alberta controls the oil

companies that operate there. That’s news to me. I was unaware of

that.

If that is in fact true, then I’m sure the Utilities Commission,

when they’re laying out a common set of facts so that we don’t have the

partisan hectoring we’ve been having over the past number of weeks…. We

can start with the same facts, the same concerns, and focus in a united

way, as the…. I know the House Leader wants to get in on this as well,

but the Leader of the Opposition…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, one speaker at a time, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

…sent me a letter not a week and a half ago saying, “Let’s all

work together on this,” and I agreed with him entirely. But it didn’t

last. The sentiment in the letter didn’t last as long as the ink was wet

before, again, the partisan hectoring started.

I would argue that getting a common set of facts from an

independent regulator that will allow British Columbians to understand

how we got here, how a 40-cent increase in the price of a litre of

gasoline could happen over a number of months without any other

intervention…. I think that’s useful information. I thought the Leader

of the Opposition would like to see that.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, let’s get a few basic facts straight. The Premier doesn’t

have to hire anybody or pay the Utilities Commission to do it. Oil comes

out of the ground in Alberta. It goes through a pipeline to B.C. We buy

it. Fairly straightforward.

Premier, the problem is that the motorists of British

Columbia….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s listen to the question, please.

A. Wilkinson: The drivers, the motorists, people in British Columbia who use

80,000 barrels a day of gasoline are waiting for some answers about

relief. You turn to them with eight different excuses, nothing of

consequence at the pumps, and now the plan, the program, the

cabinet-level decision, is: we’ll get the basic facts.

When are drivers going to get some relief from this government

when you know the only answer is to make peace with Edmonton and cut

taxes?

Hon. J. Horgan: The party that increased taxes by 15 cents over their time in

office is now saying that taxes are the problem. Where were you in 2007?

Where were you in 2010?

The part that’s absolutely scintillating in that question is the

Leader of the Opposition says that it comes out of the ground, goes into

a pipe and we buy it. That used to be the case when refined products

were on the ascendency rather than on the decline. What’s coming through

that pipeline now, what will be assured to come through the pipeline if

it’s twinned, is diluted bitumen, and the last time I checked, not even

a car from Quilchena could use diluted bitumen.

J. Johal: Now, it turns out that when the pain-at-the-pump Premier told

British Columbians a year ago that he was considering a range of

options, even a member of his own caucus fell for it. On Monday, the

member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said: “You ask: what did the

government consider? I’m not in the cabinet room, but they probably

considered every option…and they probably dismissed them.”

Can the Premier confirm if this is true and tell us what those

options were?

Hon. J. Horgan: I take counsel and guidance from the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast all the time. What I will not do is continue to

play a partisan finger-pointing game with the official

opposition.

These are people who were…. Their founding principles are free

enterprise. You hear it everywhere they go, “We’re the free enterprise

party,” but not when it comes to being in opposition. Now it’s: “How can

we get a headline, and how can we get a billboard? We’ll use public

money. We’ll put up a billboard and blame someone else for market

forces.”

The Leader of the Opposition knows that. That’s why he’s tired of

this line of questioning. I don’t know why the guy…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …from Richmond doesn’t get that as well.

Market forces, my friend. We’re working as hard as we can with the

Prime Minister. This is an issue of national consequence. He understands

that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I understand that. Why don’t you?

Deputy Speaker: One speaker at a time. That will help.

The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

J. Johal: The Premier has taken eight different positions on this issue, and

it’s simple. Every time he gets pressured by the media, he just makes it

up. It’s one conspiracy theory after another. This Premier, for the last

couple of weeks, has been boxing with shadows — nothing more, nothing

less.

Former Premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall suggested today that if

our B.C. Premier wants to find the reason for high gas prices in

Vancouver, he should go purchase a mirror.

The whole mess is this Premier’s fault and this entire NDP

government’s. It was the Premier who said a year ago that he had looked

at a range of options, and he was the one who promised relief at the end

of the day.

What option was the Premier referring to a year ago, and when will

he give British Columbians the relief at the pumps that he has

promised?

Hon. J. Horgan: As much as I’m reluctant to quote one media source, the Leader of

the Opposition already talked about the very capable work done by

Justine Hunter in the Globe and Mail over the weekend, where

she talked about a range of factors that go into the increase in prices

at the pump.

I would have thought…. Again, I can’t just shake this from my

mind, but I know people on this side of the House, after a decade and a

half of hearing that the only people that understood the economy were

the free enterprisers over there…. Now, all of a sudden, they’re

interventionists. They don’t want to have SkyTrain. They don’t want to

have roads in British Columbia. They don’t want the resources that come

from the pumps…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that go to making life better for British Columbians. They want

to just eliminate all of that. And they probably want to

give…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …money back to the richest people in the province as

well.

I think if there’s anyone that’s at sea and adrift, it’s the

people on that side of the House. You have to have a philosophical

foundation. That’s all you used to be, and now you don’t even have

that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I think it’ll work really better if we listen to each

other. That would be a really novel idea.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

A. Olsen: I love the “you started it” response. That always is a very mature

thing to say.

Port Renfrew, formerly a logging town, has rebranded itself as an

ecotourism hot spot. This is driven in large part by the protection of

Avatar Grove, an ancient coastal old-growth forest. The community is

immensely proud of this. Their region is known internationally, and

their economy is now thriving because their remaining ecosystem is

intact. But this is at risk. Although Avatar Grove itself is protected,

109 hectares of ancient forest near Port Renfrew has been designated by

B.C. Timber Sales for cutting. The clearcutting will occur within 40

metres of the Juan de Fuca Provincial Park boundary.

The citizens of Port Renfrew are frustrated by this government’s

shortsighted approach. They’re angry that short-term corporate profits

are valued more than the long-term local profits. The sound of these

ancient giants falling will be heard by the same tourists that travelled

from around the world to view the endangered forests. Their stories will

be that of sorrow, not of wonder.

To the Minister of Forests, we hear the ministry and Timber Sales

may be postponing the auction of old-growth timber in the Premier’s

riding. The public wants to know: is this an outright cancellation or a

postponement, and if it’s the latter, for how long?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to just acknowledge the member for Saanich North and the

Islands’ question about a very important topic.

We’re blessed with amazing forests in this province. There are a

variety of perspectives on old-growth management. Our government is

committed to protecting the important biodiversity of old-growth

forests. We also recognize the value of old-growth forests as they

sustain wildlife, an important part of B.C.’s natural heritage. We’re

also committed to ensuring the continued vibrancy and an innovative

forest sector. Over 24,000 people are employed in the coastal forest

sector.

When it comes to protecting old-growth forests, the Minister of

Environment and myself met with environmental stakeholders earlier this

year. We wanted to hear directly from them as part of our ongoing talks

to inform our old-growth plan. In the very near future, we’ll be

launching the public engagement for this process. As far as the Port

Renfrew proposed B.C. Timber Sales cutblocks go, the member is correct.

The original timber sale licence comprised seven blocks totalling 109.2

hectares.

[2:15 p.m.]

Before putting up the sale, B.C. Timber Sales referred first to

the Pacheedaht First Nation and conducted field work with that First

Nation to identify archaeological values. They conducted environmental

assessments to ensure that stream and fish habitat, species-at-risk and

bear den assessments were done. They confirmed that no red- or

blue-listed plant communities were identified during the layout and that

no legacy trees were identified within the BCTS blocks. Now BCTS is no

longer considering advertising this sale in order to engage with the

stakeholder, who was inadvertently missed during the initial referral

process.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Port Renfrew is transitioning to a different approach to

harvesting their surrounding resources. Unfortunately, it’s outside the

current forest policy box, because it supports local profits over the

long term. They want to harvest the value of living old-growth trees as

part of a responsible, transitioning economy, away from death and

destruction.

As we’ve heard in the tightrope rhetoric here today and in the

previous questions from this week in question period, our Forests

Minister doesn’t recognize this. Instead, he cites an appalling example

of extracting old growth to fund a roof, the roof of a curling rink.

This appalling example he used on Monday is absurd, and it’s

embarrassing. It clearly highlights that this government’s definition of

managing old growth, as he responded in the first question, is to cut it

down and to continue cutting it down until it’s all gone. This is not an

economic vision. It’s shortsighted. It does not support a community, an

ecosystem or future generations.

I love curling, Mr. Speaker, but I love air and water and living

more. The minister recognizes the economic value of liquidating old

growth, but when will he recognize the long-term economic value of

leaving old-growth trees in the ground?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, old-growth forests are not being liquidated on Vancouver

Island. We have over 500,000 hectares of old-growth forests on the

Island, so old growth will not disappear from Vancouver

Island.

We do recognize the interests of local communities and other

stakeholders in old-growth forests that reside outside those protected

areas. I would refer the member to the hundreds of school children from

a neighbouring First Nation who actually use the curling rink facility

that I visited up in Port Hardy.

We’re committed to protecting old-growth forests, as well as

continuing with a vibrant forestry sector — the 24,000 jobs that rely on

old-growth forests in this province. We’re undertaking an old-growth

management plan, and we’ll be conducting public engagement soon on that

plan.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES AND

INVESTIGATION OF PRICING

PRACTICES

S. Bond: A year ago the Premier received a report on gas prices, and here

is one of the key findings that he received in that report. “There is no

sign of non-competitive or unfair business practices.” Simply put, the

report rules out gouging, yet the Premier continues to rely on this as

one of his excuses virtually every single day.

Can the Premier tell us whether he read the report and his view of

the facts, about there being no gouging in British Columbia, that he was

provided with?

Hon. B. Ralston: I will attempt to add to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the response, please.

Hon. B. Ralston: I will attempt to add to what the Premier has already stated. He’s

written a letter to the B.C. Utilities Commission. In fact, in that

letter, he remarks that the situation from last year has changed.

Ordinarily, there was a gap of the refined price, before taxes, of two

to three cents between Edmonton and Alberta. That gap has now widened to

25 cents in the month of May. That’s a very different situation from the

situation that was looked at a year ago.

[2:20 p.m.]

What the Premier has asked the Utilities Commission is to use

their expertise — their subpoena power, if necessary — and to

investigate that price gap difference. It would seem, arguably, that

that’s a very, very big difference from last year, and the oil companies

might have some explaining to do. So that endeavour is underway, and we

will see what comes forth from that inquiry.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George–​Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: We should just repeat the question, in case the minister missed

it. The fact of the matter is that the Premier got a report over a year

ago — which, presumably, he read — that said there is no gouging. That’s

certainly not a question he needs to ask again.

What’s completely apparent is that the Premier just continues to

make it up day after day. We have no idea whether he read the report or

not. In fact, he’s on his eighth position that he has taken in just the

last month, and none of those things will do anything to provide relief

at the pump. In fact, he has already told the commission not to bother

looking at taxation.

Well, that’s not good enough for British Columbians. It’s time for

the Premier to stop blaming everybody else, to look in the mirror and to

do something about it.

Will the Premier stand up and provide the relief that he promised

to British Columbians?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, I think the more prudent course would be to wait for the

Utilities Commission to investigate and come back with some answers.

Frankly, I would rather take advice….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I would rather take and I think the assembly would be wise

to take advice from the Utilities Commission, as opposed to the member

for Prince George–Valemount, who clearly has already made up her mind in

the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

J. Thornthwaite: A year ago the Premier claimed to have reviewed a range of

options. A week ago, he assured the public that “I’ve had some of the

most capable people” in the province of British Columbia looking at gas

prices. Yesterday he finally revealed his solution: ask someone else to

review it.

Come on, Premier. When are we going to get relief at the

pump?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, if you want an answer, we have to be quiet.

The minister will continue.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is rather regrettable, I think, that the member who has just

asked the question is choosing to denigrate the B.C. Utilities

Commission. I don’t really think that’s an appropriate

response.

It’s an expert tribunal with subpoena power and expert advice that

undoubtedly will get to the bottom of what is, really, a very thorny

economic issue. People are looking for an explanation for the increase

in gas prices — 40 cents in the Lower Mainland — of which only one cent

was an increase in taxes. Yet we hear again this afternoon, from the

Leader of the Opposition, the same proposition…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: …the so-called plan that he put forward before.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s have order. The minister will continue.

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, clearly, the Leader of the Opposition just acknowledged he

has no solution. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that’s hardly

surprising.

A Sauder School, University of B.C., business professor described

this so-called Liberal plan as “a completely ineffective proposition. It

makes no economic sense,” yet he was just repeating that a few minutes

ago. That’s where they’re at.

That’s why the Premier has sent this matter to the B.C. Utilities

Commission. We will wait for the answer.

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: The Premier, and now this minister, just seem to be making it up

as they go along, and British Columbians are paying the price at the

pump. The Premier has had at least eight different positions in the last

month alone. The only position that my constituents care about is when

he said: “If we’re in a position to provide relief, we’ll do

that.”

What was the Premier talking about, and when is he going to

provide relief at the pumps?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, this quotation from a University of B.C. business professor

is not made up. It’s a real quotation from a real person, a very

authoritative person, saying about the so-called Liberal plan: “A

completely ineffective proposition. It makes no economic sense

whatsoever.”

The member has accused me of making things up. Let’s hear what the

“BCBusiness report card” said. B.C. Business , an authoritative

journal here in the province, published monthly, said, and let me quote

from that report card: “It seems pretty clear that this is a desperate

party doing desperate things…”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: “…like putting up billboards rallying against the carbon tax that

their party started.” And they gave them a grade of F-minus. No

wonder.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES AND GOVERNMENT

POSITION IN ALBERTA

COURT CASE

M. de Jong: This really remarkable discrepancy has arisen between what the

Premier is saying to British Columbians about this very troubling issue

and what he and his government say when they are in a legal setting,

where they’re obliged to tell the truth. The discrepancy is really

remarkable.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.

M. de Jong: To British Columbians, he says: “The gas companies are gouging

you, these evil energy companies.” The Premier didn’t have any problem

being on the stage with one of them a few weeks ago, by the way. “These

evil energy companies are gouging you.”

But when he’s in court in Alberta, swearing affidavits to explain

the situation we’re in, how does he explain it? Well, fuel prices are

about “availability of supply, international market pricing, exchange

rates, the cost of refining crude oil, the cost of transporting gasoline

to retail outlets, federal and provincial taxes, as well as political

and social instability.”

You know the one word that’s not in the affidavit? Anything about

price-fixing and price gouging. Nothing in the government’s own legal

documentation.

When is the Premier going to stop saying one thing to the Alberta

court and something completely different to British

Columbians?

Hon. B. Ralston: What the Premier has said clearly in his letter to the B.C.

Utilities Commission, a public document, is: “British Columbians want to

know why refining margins are so much higher than in other parts of the

country.” Refining margins are “more than double the Canadian average

and higher than any other city in North America. This suggests that

producers are realizing a significant additional profit margin for fuel

sold in Metro Vancouver compared to other jurisdictions. This is not

acceptable, and British Columbians want answers.”

That’s what the Premier said here in a public document.

M. de Jong: You know what British Columbians want? They want their Premier to

stop saying one thing in a court in Alberta and a completely different

thing to British Columbians here at home.

I always find it curious when one of the ministers from the

cabinet has to stand up and begin his answer with “what the Premier

really meant,” or words to that effect.

The Premier started a fight. He’s now in court trying to extricate

him and, more importantly, British Columbians from the ill effects of

that fight. He has got officials on behalf of British Columbia swearing

affidavits about what contributes to the cost of fuel in British

Columbia.

[2:30 p.m.]

They are swearing documents and filing them in court in pursuit of

that application, and not once do they mention anything about price

gouging. Yet the Premier insists and persists in trying to persuade

British Columbians that they are the victims of price-fixing and price

gouging. When is he going to come clean with British Columbians, stop

saying one thing to Alberta courts and something completely different to

British Columbians?

Hon. B. Ralston: Always nice to hear the come-clean metaphor trotted out once

again.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. B. Ralston: The people on the other side are really settled into opposition

when you start using the come-clean metaphor.

This member has been around here long enough to reflect on the

fact…. I think he should really reconsider his comments. I was quoting a

letter written by the Premier. So to suggest that, somehow, my words are

at variance with those of the Premier…. This is a letter written by the

Premier.

Why are we in court in Alberta? We are not taking the advice of

the Leader of the Opposition, who said: “Do nothing. Don’t stand up for

British Columbians.” We’re in court in Alberta standing up for British

Columbians, and we will continue to do so.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

P. Milobar: Well, it’s unfortunate that the minister has to read from a letter

of the Premier and the Premier would not answer the question, because

British Columbians are paying the highest gasoline prices and the

highest gas taxes in North America. That is a fact.

The minister keeps offering up all sorts of solutions. Earlier in

the week, the minister suggested we should all go out and buy a Costco

membership to be able to afford to buy fuel at the pump. That was a

really good one too. We have the government in court, saying, “Don’t

send us more oil,” and we have the government in court, saying: “You

have to send us more oil.” We have a government that says that CleanBC

is going to get us off of fuel, and we have a Premier saying he needs a

bigger pipe to try to get more fuel here. The government needs to figure

out what exactly it is that they need.

We have the Premier saying that he now needs the Utilities

Commission to tell him how the market works, yet in their filings…. They

didn’t seem to need the Utilities Commission for the filing in the

Alberta court. Again, this Premier is promising, over and over again…. I

will quote him. He says: “If we’re in a position to provide relief,

we’ll do that.” Again, that was a year ago.

What exact options was the Premier looking at a year ago that he’s

refused to answer with endless questions now to provide to the public an

insight into what the government was actually looking at for relief for

people at the pumps? Just one option — one option — that the Premier was

even looking at would be so helpful.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s be quiet.

Hon. B. Ralston: This government has pursued an affordability agenda in our last

budget. By the end of this year, British Columbians will pay no MSP

premiums — a tax break of $900 per individual, $1,800 for a family, the

biggest single tax break in the history of British Columbia. Eliminated

tolls on bridges — the member from Abbotsford should be happy about

that. Eliminated interest on student loans. Eliminated PharmaCare

deductibles for up to a quarter of a million people here in British

Columbia. Free bus passes. I could go on. There’s so much more. There’s

so much more.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(continued)

M. Polak: I rise on behalf of the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie to

provide a reply to the point of privilege raised by the Minister of Justice

and Attorney General.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, “the Attorney,” has

raised a point of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 26. In his submission

on May 6, 2019, he alleges that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, “the

member,” deliberately misled the House in a statement delivered Monday,

April 29, 2019.

On April 29, 2019, the Attorney rose at the end of the day, just prior

to adjournment, to reserve his right to raise a matter of privilege.

Standing Order 26 requires that he do so at his earliest opportunity. I

submit that his earliest opportunity was at the beginning of the afternoon

sitting.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the reply.

Please continue.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the reply, please.

Member.

M. Polak: On April 30, 2019, the Attorney made a submission that fell far short

of the requirements under Standing Order 26. Indeed, the submission failed

to even mention Standing Order 26. As I understand it, the April 30, 2019,

submission was not provided to the House in written form, nor did it contain

the motion that the Attorney intends to move, should the Chair find a prima

facie case has been established. Both of these elements are required under

Standing Order 26, and I provide reference to Parliamentary Practice in

B.C. , fourth edition, pages 64 and 65.

On May 1, 2019, I advised the House that in the absence of a point of

privilege as defined by Standing Order 26, I saw no reason for the member to

submit a response. Consequently on May 2, 2019, the Attorney advised the

House that he would make another submission. He provided that submission on

May 6, 2019, a full week after the statement made by the member.

I draw the Speaker’s attention to the decision of Speaker Schroeder. I

won’t read the entire decision here. It’s reported in the B.C.

Journals , 1982, November 25, 26, pages 15 and 16. It relates to

a member’s failure to raise a point of privilege at the earliest

opportunity. Speaker Schroeder concludes, in part: “There is no doubt that

the onus on the member raising a matter of privilege is a heavy one, but the

Chair has no authority to relax these rules.” I submit that the Chair should

not allow this matter to proceed, as the Attorney did not make a full

submission consistent with Standing Order 26 until May 6, 2019, a full week

after the statement in question.

Should the Speaker, however, be satisfied that the Attorney raised his

point of privilege consistent with the requirements of Standing Order 26, I

ask that he consider my submissions respecting the substance of the

Attorney’s complaint. In order to succeed, the Attorney must present a prima

facie case that the member not only misled the House but did so

deliberately. It is not sufficient to present facts that are in dispute.

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fourth edition,

page 351, in quoting Beauchesne’s , fourth edition, at citation 113,

states: “A dispute arising between two members, as to the allegations of

fact, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.” It goes on

to say: “However aggrieved a member may feel, this does not permit the Chair

to extend the law of parliamentary privilege.”

In another decision of Speaker Schroeder, in B.C. Journals ,

April 13, 1982, page 41, he says:

“It might be appropriate to observe that in this chamber, by its very

nature, countless disputes relating to allegations of fact will arise and

with great frequency. To routinely convert those disagreements into what

amounts to a charge of deliberately misleading the House would be contrary

to well-established traditions observed throughout all parliaments. This

tradition states that all hon. members will accept the word of all other

hon. members, a tradition which I commend to this House.”

Considering the matter at hand, given the member’s unique knowledge

and experience, there is even more reason to accept his statements. The

authorities make special note of a member’s statements respecting their own

personal experience. Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms ,

fourth edition, citation 145, page 126, states: “It has been formally ruled

by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member

respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge, must be

accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements

made by a member as being contrary to the facts, but no imputation of

intentional falsehood is permissible.”

[2:40 p.m.]

Finally, in the case that there remains any doubt, the member stands

by his statement of April 29, 2019. I will provide the Speaker with a

statutory declaration sworn by the member in support of this submission,

which I will read now, on behalf of the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie.

“When I served as B.C.’s Solicitor General, I was briefed with respect

to numerous ongoing domestic, national and international investigations

related to organized crime, homicide, drug trafficking and money laundering,

including E-pirate investigations. These investigations had been ongoing

since before 2014. Some of these investigations were initiated as a result

of intelligence gathered at B.C. casinos, including videos later released to

the media and subsequently referred to by the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General, the Attorney.

“The joint illegal gaming investigations team was established by the

B.C. Liberal government to address the issues we were well aware of around

illegal gaming. This included money laundering. As B.C.’s Solicitor General,

I was briefed on at least two occasions regarding ongoing complex

international investigations by this unit.

“Based on my extensive experience as a criminal investigator and a

supervisor and manager of major, complex criminal investigations, I believe

the Attorney failed to respect the need for strict confidentiality

pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation. All information must be

held in confidence until a prosecution and any related appeals have

concluded.

“In making my statement in the Legislature on April 29, 2019, I was

aware that the report released by the Attorney General in September of 2017

contained a strict confidentiality clause. It stated: ‘This report is

private and confidential. It is not intended for general circulation or

publication. For certainty, this report may not be disclosed, copied, quoted

or referred to in whole or in part, whether for the purposes of litigation,

disciplinary proceedings or otherwise, without our prior written consent in

each specific instance.’

“In September 2017, the Attorney released the MNP report dated July 26,

2016, and publicly commented about an ongoing investigation. I was aware,

for the reasons stated in paragraph 4, that the report was not intended for

public release. Not long after that, federal prosecutors announced they

would not be proceeding with the prosecution of a high-profile case. Based

on my knowledge and experience, I concluded the release of the MNP report

and the comments made by the Attorney contributed to the failure of this

prosecution.”

Considering this submission, along with the attached statutory

declaration provided by the member, I respectfully submit that the

Attorney’s application must fail.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member opposite, the Opposition House Leader, for her

submission. I would respectfully submit that this is more than just an

everyday Standing Order 26 decision, but rather….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Excuse me. I have the floor. Thank you very much.

Point of Order

M. Polak: I do not recall, upon close inspection of Standing Order 26, any

provision for another submission on behalf of the member, the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, whether it be from the House Leader or anyone

else. I’m not aware of any provision in Standing Order 26 that would allow

for this.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair will listen and hear both sides and will make a deliberation

after we hear the comments. The Chair has the discretion to hear both sides,

and then we’ll make the decision after that.

M. Polak: The submission of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was

made under Standing Order 26. I have made my submission and response, under

Standing Order 26. The member just rose to say he had a further submission.

I am not aware of anything in the standing orders that would allow

the member to do so.

Deputy Speaker: As I stated earlier, the Chair has the discretion to hear from the

other members, and the Chair will make the decision afterwards.

[2:45 p.m.]

Point of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth: The point I was wanting to make was that the comments, the

allegations, made by both the Opposition House Leader, in her remarks, and

the remarks under question by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie are not

just what one would traditionally characterize in this House as a

disagreement between members but, rather, a direct impugning of the actions

of the Attorney General, who is unique amongst members in this House, in

particular being a member of the executive council, whose role has a dual

function — that of a minister but that of also the chief Attorney for the

province of British Columbia.

When that kind of impugning takes place, I believe that it is more

than just to say: “Oh, it was too late.” I think that it deserves full and

complete consideration, given the importance of the integrity of that

office.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. The Chair will take this under advisement and will

come back and inform the House about its decision.

Orders of the Day

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

of Finance. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued debates on

the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In the Birch Room, Committee C, I

call for debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Housing.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $265,327,000

(continued) .

A. Weaver: This is for the benefit of the children in the gallery from, I

believe, Surrey Christian School. What we’re doing here in the

Legislature is debating estimates for the Ministry of Finance. It’s a

time for opposition MLAs, the Liberals or the Greens here, to pose

questions to the minister about various budgetary issues that are

related to her file. I’ll be asking about some finance questions with

respect to natural gas royalties.

The reason why I’m posing these to the minister is that — I did

ask last time — the deep-well royalty credit program is actually

administered by the Ministry of Finance. The qualified wells receive

these credits automatically, and they don’t need to apply

separately.

The credit was first created in 2003, expanded in 2014, and in

last year’s public accounts, the unclaimed balance of deep-well credits

totalled $2.59 billion. A further $3.5 billion has already been cashed

in to reduce royalties that would otherwise have been payable. This

program has reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability

to the Crown by nearly $6 billion.

My questions in this area are this: how many deep-well credits

were issued over the past year and to whom?

Hon. C. James: The member asked how many deep-well credits. We don’t have the

information around the breakdown of which are new credits and which are

continuing credits with us, but I’m happy to get that information for

the member of which are new. We don’t have that breakdown with us, and

we’ll get that information.

[2:55 p.m.]

On page 120, it identifies the number for new, and that would be

$383 million. Then the identifier — the member asked how many and who

got them — is personal tax information, so we can’t provide that. But

we’re happy to get the information and get it back to the member around

the number of new credits for this year.

A. Weaver: Further on…. I suspect I’ll get a similar answer, and I welcome

the information at a later date. How many deep-well credits have been

issued since 2014 and to whom?

Hon. C. James: We’ll add that to the information for the member. We don’t have

that information with us.

A. Weaver: My question, then, is: why is there not a standard public

disclosure of these credits and royalties that are received? There is,

for example, for stumpage fees in the province, under the harvest

billing system. Why are we not making public the royalty credits that

are being claimed here?

Hon. C. James: This credit, the deep-well credit, fits under FOI, and under FOI,

we can’t release taxpayer information. I can’t give an explanation

around why it would be different, as the member talks about, in

stumpage. But the requirement is under FOI to protect individual

taxpayer information, which would include, of course, the names and the

identifiers.

A. Weaver: The inconsistency, as was noted, is with respect to the harvest

billing system, so perhaps we could explore that at some other

date.

What’s the total value of deep-well credits that are still

outstanding and that could be claimed against?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, $2.6 billion in ’17-18. The ’18-19

numbers get reported out in Public Accounts . That tracking is

just being done now, and they get reported out in Public

Accounts .

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to FOI, freedom-of-information,

requests that went to the Ministry of Finance. The file number, for

reference, is FIN-2019-90584. This was a freedom-of-information request

put in by an independent person outside of the Legislature. What was

being requested there was a list showing the total royalty credits

granted to each company that applied for such credits in the most recent

fiscal year.

Now, the freedom-of-information requests from the Ministry of

Energy and Mines and from the Ministry of Finance provided completely

different answers. The Ministry of Energy and Mines had no issue and

provided, actually, the detailed credits, by whom and to whom,

whereas

the Ministry of Finance withheld all information.

[3:00 p.m.]

My question is: why is there a discrepancy between information

we’re getting from the Ministry of Energy and Mines versus the Ministry

of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The FOI request that the member is referring to was asking about

the infrastructure royalty credits. The infrastructure royalty credits

actually have a provision where when someone applies for the credit,

they give permission for their information to be shared. That’s why

Energy and Mines was able to share the information, because the

infrastructure royalty credits have that application for the individuals

when they apply. So that’s, obviously, a different program than the

deep-well credits.

A. Olsen: I just have one question for the minister. Property-assessed clean

energy, which is commonly known as PACE, is an innovative financing tool

which building owners and developers can use to upgrade their buildings’

energy performance, install renewable energy systems and reduce resource

consumption with the financing paid through their property tax

bill.

Programs like this have been in place since 2009 in the United

States and are currently under development in Alberta and elsewhere in

the country. The city of Port Moody recently asked the provincial

government to look into legislative changes to allow the city to

implement their own similar program.

It’s clear that the climate change crisis will require us to make

significant changes, not only to the way we do things. Reducing the

upfront barrier of costs would not only help people who retrofit their

homes on their energy costs but would also help us to reach our goal of

reaching the targets on carbon emissions.

The UBCM passed a resolution asking the government to change the

Community Charter to enable municipalities to do this. So I’m just

asking the minister. Municipalities are asking for the tools, and we

need to do things differently. Has the minister considered implementing

an innovative financing tool such as PACE to empower residents and

municipal governments to achieve these outcomes?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for raising the question. I think, as the

member will probably know, any changes to the Community Charter or the

Vancouver Charter sit with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing. I certainly know they review all of the motions that come

forward from UBCM, and they’d be reviewing this piece.

As the member points out well, CleanBC does have, in fact, a

commitment to looking at net-zero building code applications for all new

buildings and to looking at retrofits. Certainly, the Ministry of

Finance would be involved in any of those discussions, and all creative

ideas and approaches are being looked at.

I’ll certainly have that conversation as well. I’ll pass on the

conversation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I’m sure

there’s the opportunity to ask that question there as well. But I’m

happy to engage in taking a look at the ideas and the program that came

forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I also have a question for the minister. It’s a question that I

actually asked about last year, so I’m revisiting it.

In my riding, there is the Cowichan Bio-Diesel Co-op. They sell a

variety of biodiesels with different levels of biodiesel generated from

cooking oil. In some cases, the diesel can be mixed with 5 percent of

that. There is a 100 percent biodiesel option available, which is a

carbon-neutral, carbon-free biodiesel. We want to, clearly, provide

incentives to people to use this kind of fuel in their vehicles, so I’m

revisiting the question that I had last year, which was about the carbon

tax continuing to be applied to this 100 percent biodiesel.

Interesting to note, Cowichan Bio-Diesel actually just completed

an audit for the Ministry of Finance. In that audit, they were able to

clearly identify exactly the percentage of biodiesel in all of their

fuels, including in their 100 percent fuels, which has often been the

reason stated for why the carbon tax can’t be removed from the 100

percent biodiesel. But in this case, they’ve demonstrated quite clearly

that they are able to identify exactly which fuel that is.

The question is: can we hope to see the removal of the carbon tax

from the 100 percent biodiesel?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question and the continued advocacy on behalf of

what is a unique company, no question, in Cowichan. And I think that’s

part of the challenge, as others catch up to the work that’s being done.

The member talked about the identification that the company has done

that isn’t practised across the industry and across other examples of

biofuel. That then creates the challenge. That’s the challenge of

putting together a program for, in fact, one company that’s done the

work around the measurement and other companies haven’t. That makes it

complex.

Given all of that, there’s no question that we’re continuing to

look at how we can incent the use of biofuels, including 100 percent, of

course, biofuel. We’ll consider that as part of budget discussions and

happy to have further conversations. Happy to receive the information,

as well, from the company around the work that they’ve done.

T. Redies: Good afternoon, Minister and staff. Thank you again for giving us

this opportunity to ask questions of your ministry.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m going to start with some general questions around taxation. My

first question is: can the minister tell us how many people of the

roughly 5½ million people in this province actually pay tax?

Hon. C. James: Perhaps the member could tell us what kind of tax. I mean, there

are a variety of taxes out there. There are a variety of taxes, so I

wonder if the member could be a bit more specific.

T. Redies: I’m actually referring to the people who file income taxes and pay

tax.

Hon. C. James: There are a couple of different numbers. One would obviously be

the number of people who file taxes and then the number of people who

pay taxes. We’re just gathering that information, and we’ll be able to

get that back to the member.

T. Redies: All right. There are a number of questions I have from

there.

Perhaps while you’re gathering that information, I’d like to know

from the minister how many people under her tax policy are actually

going to be paying lower tax and how many people are going to be paying

higher tax.

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just on the first question that the member asked and quick work by

staff. The number of tax filers…. Now, remember, 2016 is the most recent

year that we would have information on, of course, because you’re always

behind with CRA. The number of tax filers in 2016 was 3.748 million, and

the number of people who paid taxes was 2.548 million.

Then the member asked about individual taxpayers and how many

individual taxpayers would be paying more tax and how many would be

paying less tax. Obviously, we don’t do that kind of analysis for

individuals. That’s a much more in-depth process, and there are so many

different rationales and reasons for people paying increases in taxes.

For example, their wages have gone up, and they’re receiving more pay.

All of those factors go into account.

What we do — I think the member can refer to it at page 117 of the

budget — is look at the brackets of family income. As the member can

see, it’s $30,000, $60,000, $80,000 and $100,000. We do take a look at

the net tax that that family would have paid, as the member can see, in

2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and then when policies are all fully

implemented.

For example, the child benefit doesn’t kick in until 2020. So when

it says “fully implemented,” it would mean that for all the three years,

the policies would be fully implemented. I think the member can see in

each of those years the savings that are there for families when it

comes to paying taxes. For example, with an $80,000 family income, they

would have paid $5,637 in 2016. When the policies are fully implemented,

they’ll pay $3,239.

That just gives the member an idea. I think the member can see the

numbers that are there.

T. Redies: I presume that for budget purposes, you must know how many

families are in those categories. If so, could you share that with

us?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’ll gather that information and get it to the member. Obviously,

it’s different with each family, so again, you run into the challenges

of determining individual families, but there will be some general

numbers. Certainly, there are numbers, obviously, that are used for

programs, when you’re developing programs. So we can get some general

numbers, but it may take a bit for the member.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister. It will be interesting to get that

information.

I wonder if the minister might be able to explain to us, or at

least provide a dollar number, the increased taxation on businesses and

families since the government took office to the end of 2022, the fiscal

plan.

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: If the member looks on page 129 in the budget, it has the share of

total nominal GDP. That number would include the measures, as the member

was talking about, that have been implemented. But it’s also important

to note that it includes growth. That would be included in those numbers

as well. I think the member can see that there are adjustments that

occur. If we start at 2014-2015, you’re looking at 19, 19.1, 19.5

percent; in 2017-18, 18.4; updated forecast, 19.2; then budget estimate

’19, continuing on again through the plan to 18.7.

T. Redies: We actually did the specific calculation of all the 19 new and

increased taxes. We may have some rounding errors and maybe a little bit

of an assumption here and there, but our total came to about $13.7

billion from the time this government took office to 2022. Does that

sound about right?

Hon. C. James: Again, I can’t judge the member’s numbers. If the member wants to

share them, we can take some time to go through. But again, I can’t

judge the member’s estimates, what was included and what wasn’t, whether

growth was included, whether MSP premiums that were previously paid were

included. All of those numbers need to be calculated as well.

T. Redies: What I can tell you is that it actually includes all of the 19 new

or increased taxes that the government has implemented, or will

implement, from the time they took office to 2017. I’m happy to share

that with you.

Could you perhaps give us a sense of how much of the new taxation

is being borne by businesses and corporations in this

province?

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the largest piece, obviously, is the employer health tax

that has been introduced. I think the members know the number, $1.95

billion, coming in on the employer health tax.

I think it’s important to note, as we’ve talked about — and I know

we went through this in estimates last year as well — that that does not

include the savings from MSP for all the employers who already pay

medical services premiums, who have that savings — the 50 percent and

the 50 percent and then full savings as of January. That’s the largest

piece coming in when it comes to measures in the budget.

Then, of course, there are measures on the other side of the

ledger. Again, you have to take into account both of those: the small

business corporate tax rate April 1 of this year; the elimination of PST

on electricity. That was completed. And then remember in Budget 2019, as

well, there were the corporate income tax reductions that we’re doing in

partnership with the federal government, which is about $800 million, as

well, in reductions.

All of those have to be taken into account when the member is

taking a look at the costs coming in or revenue as a share of the

economy. Those pieces all have to be added in.

T. Redies: What about the corporate income tax? Is the minister aware of how

much businesses pay in terms of percentage on the carbon tax and

property tax?

Hon. C. James: We don’t break down the carbon tax revenue. It’s not broken down

by businesses and individuals. On the non-residential property tax

piece, that would be $1.249 billion, but there’s been no change to that

for businesses. There have been no changes in the property

tax.

T. Redies: Can the minister tell us the exact amount of new taxation that

will be borne by property owners in total since the government came to

power and through to 2022?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The three pieces that have changed since we became government are

all targeted measures. I think that’s the important piece to mention

first. These do not apply to all British Columbians. They’re very

targeted measures. They include the speculation tax, the additional

school tax on houses worth more than $3 million and the increase in the

foreign buyer tax.

On the budget, the speculation tax, as the member knows, is

expected to bring in $185 million, the additional school tax on houses

worth more than $3 million is expected to bring in $200 million, and the

foreign buyers increase, so the amount of increase, is expected to bring

in additional $40 million in the change.

T. Redies: Minister, the reason why I’m asking these specific questions is

that I think it’s really important that the government understands where

its revenue is coming from and, in particular, whether or not it’s

disproportionately burdening one group over another.

We remain a bit perturbed on this side of the House with respect

to what we think is a disproportionate burden on the job creators of

this province, who I think are carrying probably three-quarters of the

additional taxation costs that this government has

implemented.

I’ll look forward to getting the additional information that the

minister has indicated that she will provide us. At this point in time,

our colleague the member for Delta South would like to ask a few

questions.

I. Paton: B.C. has been hit with an abundance of new taxes since government

changed. Agriculture has been especially hit. I’m dealing all the time,

in the past two years, with farmers institutes, with co-ops, Cattlemen’s

Association, B.C. Agriculture Council, and they’re extremely upset about

the taxes that have been implemented, especially on the agricultural

industry. I would call it the triple whammy when you talk about farmers

and ranchers and processors trying to deal with a carbon tax hike,

employer health tax and minimum wage going up.

I would like to quickly just quote some figures from a greenhouse

company in my riding of Ladner called Westcoast Vegetables. It’s a very,

very large greenhouse operation owned by two brothers and locally. They

live right in my town. They operate this greenhouse

operation.

[3:50 p.m.]

Their

summary of some expenses coming up from 2018 to 2019, the

increase for one year, from one year to the next…. Carbon tax, taking

into consideration the full 80 percent rebate on natural gas, will add

$14,000. The employer health tax of 1.95 percent on their operation will

add $96,000. And a minimum-wage increase, because they have a great

number of employees, will add $455,000 to their operation. So a one-year

increase to this greenhouse in Ladner will be $565,000 for this year

over last year.

To quote from the two brothers: “We have seen slight decreases

year after year in our prices due to increased competition from Mexico

and California.” They go on to say: “We have also seen our costs of

packaging, corrugate and greenhouse supplies increasing due to exchange

rate, resin costs, etc. Unfortunately, we are unable to pass on these

cost increases to our customers. It is no wonder the vegetable

greenhouses are switching to cannabis.”

Did the Agriculture Minister consult with the Finance Minister,

advising her of these major impacts that would be placed upon farmers,

ranchers, greenhouse operators and processors in B.C.?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. Whether it’s the

minimum-wage increase or whether it’s any government program that has

been brought forward, those are thorough discussions around the cabinet

table, and those are discussions that would include all the

ministers.

It’s important to make sure that all of those issues are looked

at, and we take competitiveness seriously. But we do, as a government,

take a look at competitiveness when it comes to businesses. We take a

look at industries. That’s why we have reduced the small business tax

rate. That’s why we got rid of the PST on electricity — a piece that was

raised with us by business to be able to make sure that they remain

competitive.

It’s part of the reason that we’re also looking at the issues of

housing and child care — again, because many employers have come to us

to say that’s one of their biggest challenges when it comes to

recruitment and retention, when it comes to workers: being able to

provide those supports. All of those supports are put in

place.

I certainly know that the member will have had the opportunity,

I’m sure, to be able to ask questions in the estimates of Agriculture.

But I know the Minister of Agriculture is always looking at

opportunities to be able to address competitiveness and to support the

industry. I think the industry knows, clearly, they have a very good

advocate there.

I. Paton: I have some figures here that are quite astounding, affecting

agriculture and ranching in this province, based on just three of the

many taxes that have been tacked on since the change in government a

couple of years ago.

Now, there’s a farming family in Delta called Felix Farms, and

they go back to the 1800s, having arrived in Delta, the Guichon family.

They farm roughly 800 acres of potatoes and different other crops in

Delta, as well as some land that they own up in the Abbotsford area.

This is quite astounding. I asked them just yesterday if they could give

me a quote of the cost of fuel to run their equipment on their tractors

for this upcoming year, and they have kept track of this. They quoted

that in 2017, their fuel costs to run their tractors, their trucks,

their forklifts, etc., on the farm, was $231,000. Quite astounding. I

don’t think people would even imagine that much to fuel up all your

tractors.

[3:55 p.m.]

Of course, at this time of year, the tractors are running 16 to 20

hours a day, with this good weather. In 2018, their fuel costs went up

to $282,000 in one year. And the projection for 2019 for diesel,

gasoline and propane on the Felix Farms farm in Delta is going to be

$340,000 to run all their tractors, trucks, forklifts, etc., on their

farm.

As we know, the agriculture industry makes a great deal of use,

obviously, of diesel, gasoline, propane and, of course, natural gas. The

greenhouse industry lives and thrives on natural gas to heat their

buildings. The poultry industry thrives on natural gas to heat their

buildings to keep the chicks and the birds warm in the wintertime.

Including the mushroom industry….

Agriculture is being hit hard. Fuel costs — everything related to

farming requires fuel, from their vehicles to running irrigation pumps.

The Premier suggested a range of options to deal with rising fuel costs.

What options are being considered for farmers in the 2019 growing and

harvest season?

Hon. C. James: I think we could go back through question period again, as we’ve

done. The very specific question has come up in question period for the

last number of days, so I think the member knows the responses,

clearly.

Are the Premier and his government concerned about what we’re

seeing when it comes to the price of gas? Yes, we are. That’s why we’ve

referred it to the Utilities Commission to be able to do an independent

investigation of the issue.

I. Paton: I just have a couple more questions.

One of the most respected agriculturists in B.C. is a gentleman

named Murray Driediger. We’ve all heard of Driediger Farms, of course,

up in Langley. But Murray Driediger, actually, is the chief executive

officer of BCfresh, a producer-owned marketing and distribution company

for vegetable farmers. It’s located in Delta. It’s a huge warehouse.

Just about all the vegetables grown in British Columbia — potatoes — are

all boxed, washed, packaged, graded on farms and brought to BCfresh.

From there, they’re shipped out to all the grocery stores and the

wholesalers.

I’d like to just read out a little quote from Business in

Vancouver from Mr. Driediger.

“Mr. Driediger has not yet done a full calculation of how much all

the new federal and provincial tax hikes and other measures will cost

his company, BCfresh. He just knows it’s going to affect the company’s

competitiveness and result in having to pass on escalating costs to

consumers.”

Now, to quote Murray Driediger:

“‘It’s unbelievable that both the provincial and federal government

have literally been dumping costs onto business at the levels that they

have and expect us to remain competitive,’ he said. ‘These are moneys

that we use to modernize to ensure that we remain competitive, and

they’re doing everything they can to throw sand in the gears.’

“The biggest, most immediate tax hit will come from a new payroll

tax that is being foisted onto employers, from businesses to school

districts, to replace the Medical Services Plan. BCfresh covers MSP

premiums for its 24 employees. ‘That used to cost us about $15,000 a

year,’ Driediger said. ‘Under the new payroll tax, for the exact same

services supplied to our employees, that cost will now be $45,000 per

year.’

“And because the new payroll tax comes into effect one year before

MSP premiums are eliminated, it means…BCfresh will have to pay both MSP

premiums and the new payroll tax for the first year.”

Did the Agriculture Minister advise her colleague, the Minister of

Finance, of the effect that the employee health tax would have on

farmers, ranchers and processors in the province?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As I’ve said, whenever a new program change is occurring, we have

a very good, thorough discussion around the cabinet table. That includes

all ministers. As the member knows, the employers health tax is the

lowest rate across the country when it comes to employers health taxes.

Other provinces had moved away from medical service premiums years and

years ago. British Columbia is the last province left with medical

service premiums — a very regressive tax that we’re eliminating, and

bringing in the employer health tax. So yes, a very thorough discussion

occurred around the table with all ministers.

I. Paton: One more question. Thank you to minister. Cannabis, unfortunately,

has become an allowable use in greenhouses on our prime class 1 soil in

Delta and in Langley and in Abbotsford, etc. I’m not sure why this has

been allowed to happen, but it is happening under this new government.

So cannabis is replacing food production in many of our

greenhouses.

What I would like to know…. There is an 80 percent rebate on

natural gas provided to greenhouses growing food. Is the 80 percent

rebate on natural gas being provided to the cannabis growers that are

using all that fuel to heat their buildings?

The second question, if I could lump that in as well: are the

cannabis-growing greenhouses receiving the same farm tax status that

vegetable-growing greenhouses would receive?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The 80 percent rebate — cannabis is not an eligible crop for that

80 percent rebate. On the B.C. Assessment site, it says classification

of land as farm excludes the production of cannabis.

T. Wat: Before I ask a question, I would like to provide a copy of the

Hansard of my budget estimate debate with the Minister of

Tourism, Arts and Culture for the reference of the Finance

Minister.

I have a tag on the Hansard there, on 91535. The Minister

of Tourism, Arts and Culture, when I engaged in the budget estimate

debate with her, said the SFU contract on the public consultation of the

Chinese-Canadian history museum was done through the Ministry of

Finance, and she told me to feel free to canvass the Finance Minister

regarding this SFU contract. I would like to confirm with the Finance

Minister if this is the case.

Hon. C. James: We’re just gathering information. We don’t have the information

with us, so I just want to give a chance…. If there are other questions

that people want to ask while we’re gathering the information, the

opportunity is there. Or the member can put a series of questions, if

the member wishes, and we can look at all those questions when we get

the details.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the response. But I just want to know if

the minister is aware of this SFU contract on the public consultation of

the Chinese-Canadian history museum. To be honest, I was quite shocked

when the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture told me that this

particular contract has nothing to do with her.

[4:10 p.m.]

Through FOI, I asked for three reports that the Minister of TAC

has done concerning the Chinese-Canadian history museum. One is a UBC

report, also on the Chinese-Canadian history museum. The second one is

this SFU report, this contract. And the third one is a contract with the

Lord consulting firm.

I received two of the three reports that the Minister of Tourism

has contracted to do with the public consultation of the

Chinese-Canadian history museum, but I have not got the SFU report.

That’s why I was wondering what’s happening. The Minister of Tourism at

first told me that it was done through the Minister of Citizens’

Services several times until towards the middle of the debate. Then she

said: “Oh, I have to put it on the record that I made a mistake. The

contract was done through the Ministry of Finance.”

I totally cannot gather why this is the case, because the Minister

of Finance is responsible for finance issues. Something to do with the

Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism should be done by the minister

responsible for it. Why is it being done by the Minister of Finance? I

want the Minister of Finance to enlighten me on why such an

arrangement.

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, we’re making sure we have staff here, but I am

presuming — and I’ll confirm this when we have staff come in — that

because it’s public engagement, it may have been done through government

communications, which is part of the Ministry of Finance. So I’m

presuming, because it was a public engagement contract, that it may have

been done through those staff. We’re just making sure we have those

staff so we can answer the member’s questions.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Is the minister suggesting that I should sit down and wait until

the minister gets all the information before we proceed with any

question I would like to ask the minister?

Hon. C. James: Well, the member can do a couple of things. The member could list

all of the questions, if the member wishes, and we can wait. When the

staff are here, we can make sure we answer them. Other members may ask

questions if they want to while we wait for staff, but I think it’s

important to make sure that accurate information is being given to the

member, so I want to make sure we’ve got the right staff here to be able

to respond to the questions.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell us approximately when the staff might be

available so that we can…? Obviously, the member has, also, other

activities to take care of. If the minister could get that answer, I

will start a new section, and we’ll have the MLA wait just for a couple

of minutes while she sorts that out.

Hon. C. James: We expect about five minutes.

S. Bond: Thanks to the minister for accommodating that. I know these are

important issues for my colleague.

We’re going back to the revenue division, and we’re going to ask

some questions about expenses now. My colleague looked at some of the

general questions we had around taxation. We know, though, that when we

look at the revenue division budget, we can see that costs have almost

doubled in the revenue division, whose budget increased, from our

calculations, by $89 million this year. We want to walk through why

exactly that is the case.

Perhaps we’ll start with: what has been the primary driver of the

$89 million in cost increases to the revenue division?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The two largest changes in the budget are student loan

elimination, which is 76.1, and tax enforcement at 9.4.

S. Bond: Tax enforcement. We’re going to talk a little bit about auditing

in a minute. Could the minister articulate for us, then, what the FTE

increase has been in the revenue division?

Hon. C. James: The revenue division FTEs in ’18-19 actually dropped by seven

FTEs, and then for ’19-20, the increase is anticipated to be about 40

FTEs. Those individuals are in the process of being hired, so that’s not

completed yet, but it’s anticipated to be about an increase of 40

FTEs.

S. Bond: I just want to confirm that the minister said four-zero, 40.

Right.

So we’re seeing a reduction, and then we’re going to see a ramp-up

— a replacement of those 20 — and an additional 20. Can the minister

give us, please, a breakdown of the increases both in cost and staffing

for each branch level?

Hon. C. James: The member said a breakdown for each branch in the revenue

division?

[4:20 p.m.]

I’ll just read the variances — I’m guessing that’s what the member

is looking for — in the budget in the revenue division.

For base salary and overtime, the variance is $4.1 million; the

employee benefits chargeback is $1.3 million; public servant travel,

$82,000; legal services, $281,000; professional services, $2.3 million;

office and business expenses, $2.3 million; advertising and

publications, $500,000. Again, these are variances, the increases that

have occurred.

Amortization expenses, $2.8 million; grants, $49.151 million.

That’s the student loan piece that we talked about. Transfers under

agreement, $47,000; other expenses, $3.3 million; recoveries external,

fees and licences, $997,000; then recoveries external, fiscal agency

loans — again, that’s student loans — $21.2 million. Those are the

increases in the revenue division.

S. Bond: From what we can, at least, see from a fiscal perspective, there

seems to be a significant increase in the funding for audits. Is that

accurate?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s a broad range of staff. This would be a range of staff needed

to administer the employers health tax and the speculation tax. Yes,

that would include auditors, but not the majority of numbers. In fact,

it includes auditors, it includes people who work on collections, it

includes people who would work on appeals, and it includes information

technology — so a wide variety in those 40 FTEs that we talked

about.

S. Bond: I think a fair assessment of that would be, then, as the minister

points out, that because we’ve seen a significant number of new taxes or

increased taxes, we’re now seeing also an increase in the public service

in order to…. And we’re going to talk about those taxes and how they’re

administered and, obviously, the staffing requirements. But I assume

that the bulk of the staff that’s been hired in this branch, is dealing

with the administration of EHT and the spec tax. Is that

accurate?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Bond: There was an amount set aside for an increase in the advertising,

I believe. Can the minister describe the nature of advertising that is

done and if, in particular, there was an increase in that budget line to

talk to British Columbians about what they needed to do, for example,

with the speculation tax? We certainly fielded many, many, many calls

about the spec tax and people being unsure of what they needed to

do.

Was the increase in the advertising budget related to taxation

measures, or could the minister just explain the fiscal aspect of the

advertising budget?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome to the chair. I’ll respond to

this question, and then if we want to go back, we have an additional

staff person in, so we can go back to the member’s questions.

[4:30 p.m.]

The member is right. This has to do with the speculation tax and

making sure that information gets out. It would include everything, as

evaluation of the information that went out and then take a look at what

needs to be done for next year.

It would include informational pamphlets. It would include the

are aware of the speculation tax. I think, certainly, the fact that it

was a new tax that was coming in and that we were informing people….

Just for the member’s interest, we are up over 97 percent response now,

so the well vast majority of people have filled in their declarations

and have that information in.

S. Bond: Could the minister, then, just pull out for us the total amount of

advertising that would have been spent related to the spec

tax?

Hon. C. James: The costs for last year were $644,000.

The Chair: Member.

S. Bond: Thank you, hon. Chair, and good afternoon to you.

I’ll finish one more question on this section, which will allow us

to move forward, and then I’m going to have our colleague continue with

her questions.

Is it possible for the minister to give us the number that…? Let

me find the best way to say this. What does it now cost to collect $1 of

tax revenue? I believe that is a number the ministry is aware of. I

think we’ve asked that question before. I think that there was an

implication that there may be a decrease in the offing in terms of how

that was done. But with new taxes now and more collection and all of

that, can the ministry provide us with what it costs to collect $1 of

tax revenue and whether or not the ministry is still on target for a

decrease in that cost?

Hon. C. James: The member is quite right that this information, in fact, is in

the service plan and continues to be in the service plan for the

Ministry of Finance. The cost of collecting $1 is half a cent. The goal

is to continue to look at how that amount gets reduced in collecting

$1.

T. Wat: I guess the minister will confirm whether the SFU contract is done

by the minister’s ministry.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: To the member: thank you for your patience. Yes, indeed, public

consultation for ministries is actually managed centrally through GCPE.

The cost is paid for by the ministries, but the contract is held by

GCPE. So yes, that’s why it was referred to the Ministry of Finance,

because GCPE is part of the Ministry of Finance.

T. Wat: I just want to make myself clear. The cost, the minister said, was

paid by the Ministry of Tourism, but it was managed by the Ministry of

Finance.

Hon. C. James: Yes, managed through GCPE. That’s where the consultation is

managed, funded by the ministry.

T. Wat: Since the cost was paid by the Ministry of Tourism, I was

wondering why, when I asked that question to the Minister of Tourism,

she referred all the questions to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. C. James: It’s because the contracts are managed centrally, so details about

the contract are held by GCPE. That would be why the minister would

suggest that if the member wanted more details, she ask the question of

the Finance Ministry, because GCPE is part of the Finance

Ministry.

T. Wat: Can the minister tell me what the total cost is for this SFU

contract?

Hon. C. James: The total cost of the contract was $126,425.

T. Wat: So the total cost is for the coordination, originally, for public

consultation. Later, at my request…. It’s also for the compilation of

the public consultation report.

Hon. C. James: Yes. The member is correct. That total cost covered all of those

pieces.

T. Wat: Can I have a copy of the contract? Also, has the report been

completed?

Hon. C. James: Yes. We’re happy to provide the contract. We’ll do the follow-up

with the member to provide the contract. The report is just being

finalized. That includes translation, so that’s still taking a little

bit of time, so it’s not completed yet.

T. Wat: Does the minister know when the report will be completed? I was

told earlier by the minister that there would be translation of the

report. I assume it would be translated into Chinese language. So it

will be publicly available to the general public?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The timeline is the end of June. Yes, it will be publicly

available, and yes, it is being translated into Chinese.

T. Wat: Minister, I just want to confirm that I will receive a copy of the

contract. Since the report will be made public, I will be able to see

the report.

This is just for my own clarification. The decision to hire an

external organization to coordinate the public consultation was made by

the Minister of Tourism, not by the Minister of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The process would be that the ministry would be interested in

doing a public consultation. They would sit down with GCPE, which

manages that process centrally. They would talk about the criteria, the

things that they were interested in and the areas that they wanted to

have covered. They would have that conversation with GCPE. GCPE would

then look at the providers that are available and would make that

decision.

T. Wat: So the decision was entirely between the Minister of Tourism and

GCPE.

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

T. Wat: The Finance Minister was not involved in the decision to hire an

external organization for the coordination of the public

consultation.

Hon. C. James: The reason it’s with the Ministry of Finance is because GCPE is

part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance.

T. Wat: It’s very clear. Thank you, Minister.

I just want to share my own experience with the Finance Minister

since the Minister of Tourism said that I should direct all the

questions to the Minister of Finance, so I will have to share this with

you.

When I was the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, I

undertook seven public consultations throughout the province for the

apology motion, and we did it entirely in-house. It was all civil

servants, all the staff of multiculturalism. They were coordinating the

public consultation, and I, as the Minister Responsible for

Multiculturalism, made sure that I attended each and every one of the

seven public consultations. The report was subsequently compiled by the

staff of the multiculturalism branch.

I don’t understand why we have to spend taxpayers’ money to hire

the external organization to do public consultation. Is the minister

suggesting that our staff at multiculturalism are not qualified and

professional enough to coordinate a public consultation? Why should we

waste taxpayers’ money to coordinate a public consultation when we have

all the qualified and professional civil servants in the ministry that

can do the job?

I set an example, and to be honest, the fate of my public

consultation was much better than the one undertaken by the Ministry of

Tourism through SFU. When I did the public consultation, there were a

total of 1,300 people turning up for the seven public consultations. And

for the four later on — because I talked to the media in Richmond…. For

the five public consultations that this Chinese-Canadian museum has

done, there’s only a 480 audience that turned up.

So there’s one-third of the people that turned up at the public

consultation they undertook. I just don’t understand why it has to be

done by an external organization and not by the professional and

qualified staff at Multiculturalism.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Each of the ministries would take a look at the resources that are

available, the expertise that’s there. Certainly, in this case, SFU does

hold expertise on museums, in particular, which was a particular skill,

and then those decisions are made by the individual

ministries.

T. Redies: Now, Minister, I’d like to talk a bit more about the speculation

tax, if you’re okay with the staff that you have. All right. Thank

you.

The minister had talked about the advertising costs of $644,000. I

wonder. Can the minister explain in detail and itemize all of the costs

associated with the implementation of the speculation tax, with a dollar

figure?

Hon. C. James: The total for salaries and benefits is $1,540,616, and the total

for operating costs, which obviously would include business expenses and

systems, would be $6,036,281.

T. Redies: It is our understanding that there was a contract provided to Fast

Enterprises of $14.7 million to build the system. So presumably that is

also part of the cost of the spec tax?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The contract that the member is talking about — $10 million of

that was for the speculation tax. But that’s capital, so that gets

amortized over the time period, so the amortization costs were $343,000.

That’s included in the total that I gave the members.

T. Redies: Can the minister tell us if any third-party contractors have been

used in order to administer this tax? Are there any, for example, people

who are being used or who have had to be hired to man the call centre,

for example, for the spec tax? If so, what is that, and what is the cost

associated with that?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we used Service B.C. Again, these are related to call centres

and being able to manage those. We also had a contract with Advanced

Solutions for the call centre, to ensure that we had people there to be

able to take people’s calls. Again, those are included in the numbers

that I provided to the member.

T. Redies: How many people in government and third-party providers are

actually working on the speculation tax administration?

Hon. C. James: In the ministry, ongoing for administering the speculation tax,

it’s about 30 people. They don’t spend all of their time, necessarily,

full-time on the speculation tax. That’s the advantage of having people

inside the ministry: they can also provide support in other areas as

needed. But it’s approximately 30 people.

T. Redies: Does that also include the call centre people that have been

hired?

Hon. C. James: No, that does not include the call centre. That’s ongoing people

within the ministry administering the speculation tax.

T. Redies: So how many people, third-party contractors, are working on the

speculation tax?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I mentioned that there were two contracts that were used for the

call centre. One of those was Service B.C., and one of them was Advanced

Solutions. The Advanced Solutions contract is finished. That only went

till March 31. We can get the hours. We’re billed by hours, so it’s not

FTEs. I could get some numbers for how many people were in place for

that previous contract, but that one finished up March 31.

We have an ongoing contract with Service B.C. for tax questions,

so that’s approximately 50 FTEs. Again, that varies, depending on the

busyness and the other issues they’re doing, so this isn’t simply for

speculation tax. They’re actually doing the rural taxation calls, as

well, right now. That contract goes to the end of May, and again, we

expect those numbers to drop down after that as well.

T. Redies: I just wanted to go back to the software solution that the

ministry contracted with Fast Enterprises to build. I think the minister

said it was $10 million, and the amortization costs that are being

applied here are $343,000 annually. That would imply an amortization on

a software solution of 29 years. Is that actually the case?

Hon. C. James: The cost that I talked about, the $343,000, is three months’ worth

of amortization, because it doesn’t start being amortized until it

becomes operational. And it’s a five-year amortization.

[5:00 p.m.]

T. Redies: I’m sorry. Can somebody explain the math to me on that? For a $10

million…. You’re taking $343,000 every three months?

Hon. C. James: Yes.

T. Redies: I’m sorry. I don’t understand how you get to five years, but we’ll

move it along.

Are there any ongoing support costs associated with this contract

with Fast Enterprises — annual support costs?

Hon. C. James: We have an ongoing maintenance agreement already in place with the

company, so it isn’t broken down. We’ll go back and take a look and see

if we can get the numbers of it broken down, because we already have an

existing relationship with them on maintenance. I’ll check and see if we

can get the broken-down numbers for the speculation tax.

T. Redies: Could the minister just tell us what the total support contract is

with Fast Enterprises on an annual basis and then get us those

specifics?

Hon. C. James: We’re getting that information, so if the member wants to ask

another question, we’ll get that back.

S. Bond: I’m going to ask a series of questions that are really about the

numbers behind the speculation tax, so hopefully the minister has the

right staff there. We’ll start with how many declaration notices have

been issued.

Hon. C. James: To the member, 1.62 million notices sent out.

S. Bond: It’s 1.62 million. How many declarations have been

filed?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: So 1.53 million notices have been returned. That’s an over 97

percent return.

S. Bond: Of the declarations that have been filed — so 1.5 million of them

— how many will be required to pay tax?

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, we’ve been continuing, including reminder

letters and other processes, to give public updates on the declaration

rate. We’ve issued notices, as well, since the declaration opened in

January, so that work is still ongoing.

I’ve asked Finance to, obviously, pull the information together as

quickly as we can, but it will be after those notices go out and when

the tax notices are received, because again, people still have the

opportunity to be able to make their declaration if they didn’t have a

chance to make that declaration. So information will be released

later.

S. Bond: Is the minister saying that at this point she doesn’t know how

many people are going to have to pay tax, and people have not received

that taxation notice? So there are people in British Columbia who have

filed a declaration, and they don’t know they’re going to have to pay

tax?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Maybe I’ll just walk through the process again, just so we’re

clear.

I think, as the member knows, that the notices went out. People

did their declarations. They claimed their exemption if they were

eligible for exemption. If they had to pay the speculation tax, they

would have received their number that they had to pay. That pops up as

part of that process. They have until July 2 to be able to pay their

tax, if they owe their tax. They still have an opportunity to claim

their credits. That process, again, continues on until July

For us to have an accurate picture of how many people will be

paying tax and what they will be paying, it will need to occur after

July 2. As I said, I’ve asked the ministry staff to pull that work

together as quickly as possible after the July 2 deadline because we

know it’s important. It’s certainly important for us and for the public

to know what the preliminary results are.

Until we do that work, until we go through that process, until

people have had the opportunity to be able to claim their credits, you

don’t have an accurate picture of the information that’s needed. So as

quickly as possible after the July 2 date, we’ll have a better analysis.

We’ll do some preliminary results. We’ll release those as quickly as we

can to the public. As we’ve done with other estimates, they’ll be

posted. Then we’ll have an opportunity, as I said, to look at the final

numbers as well.

S. Bond: I have one follow up. My colleague is then going to ask

one.

Can the minister not tell me, then…? Notices, declaration,

exemptions — and the minister references the fact that they received a

form that would pop up and tell them they have to pay this amount of

tax. What number of British Columbians received that form that says:

“Here’s the tax you’re going to have to pay?”

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As I said, it’s too preliminary at this stage to have a breakdown.

We need the breakdown, obviously, of British Columbians, the breakdown

of other Canadians and the breakdown of foreign investors or foreign

owners to be able to make that determination. Again, that determination

won’t come in until we get to July 2, until people have had the

opportunity to claim their credits, to be able to have accurate

information to put together.

T. Redies: I believe the minister was just lauding the fact that 97 percent

of the people who are affected by this registry have registered. I

believe the number of people originally affected was 1.62 million and

the number that had registered was 1.53 million. That would imply that

there are 90,000 people still to register.

If that’s the case, there were 96,000 people as of March 31 that

had not registered for the spec tax. That suggests that the ministry is

dealing with this at about 6,000 people a month. To get through that

amount of people would be 15 months.

The minister said last year that 32,000 households would be

affected. You’ve got 90,000 outstanding, and you’ve got 1.53 million

that have registered, and we don’t know how many of those are paying the

tax. So just exactly how many people are going to be affected by this,

Minister?

Hon. C. James: I’m not sure of the member’s numbers that she was putting

together, but I just want to make sure I’m clear, because I think there

was a correction on that. The 97.15 percent of people who put their

notices in would be 1.58 million, so it’s about 40,000

outstanding.

Again, that’s part of the reason that it’s important to make sure

that we get the information that comes in, 40,000 outstanding, whether

they pay the taxes, whether they are exempt. That’s still work that

obviously has to happen and has to occur. As people know, if they

haven’t claimed, if there were extenuating circumstances and they still

get a notice and they think they have to pay, that they still have the

opportunity. If they’re exempt, they will not pay the speculation

tax.

All of that data is important. That’s part of the reason that the

July date is so critical for us to be able to have the accurate

information to put together.

T. Redies: I think if we go back in Hansard , the original number

that the minister said was 1.53 million. So I’m glad to hear that it’s

actually better than that. But that’s still 40,000 people who have not

registered who could be subject to this tax if they don’t register

before the date. Am I not correct, Minister? If they do not register

before July 2, they will be sent a property tax notice suggesting they

have to pay 0.5 percent this year. Then, if they don’t register next

year, it’s 2 percent.

Hon. C. James: I think the member has heard me say this both publicly as well as

many times in the House. If people receive their bill because they did

not register, because they didn’t….

[5:20 p.m.]

Maybe there were circumstances…. Whatever the reason they didn’t

register, they still have the opportunity to phone in. They have the

opportunity to be able to file their exemption. If they are exempt, they

will not pay the tax.

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I guess that with 40,000

people who have not registered and then 1.58 million that have

registered, some of who I know are already receiving their tax notices

for the spec tax, it would seem that we have the potential for there to

be many more numbers of people affected by this tax.

Does the minister still believe that it will only be 32,000

households that will be affected by this particular tax?

Hon. C. James: Again, we believe our estimates are good estimates. We still

believe our estimates. But again, the member is asking about specifics.

It will be important to wait for that July date to make sure that we

have the specifics to be able to give the best information we can.

That’s why we’re waiting for the July date.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much. We’re going to continue to work through

some numbers questions, because we want to at least set down a marker so

that that information is provided to us.

I’m sure the minister is not going to be surprised that…. This is

mind-boggling — that 1.62 million British Columbians got notices, the

vast, vast majority of whom are nowhere near being speculators. I feel

like we’ve almost heard from about a million of them in our

time.

We have stacks of people who are concerned about this. The

minister can celebrate the fact that only 40,000 people have not filed

their declarations, but believe you me, of the ones that did file, there

are a whole lot of people who really didn’t want to have to do that and

didn’t feel they should have. However, I digress.

Can the minister tell us, please, how many rental exemptions have

been claimed so far?

Hon. C. James: Again, I think the member has run through the numbers that are

there. I’ll again repeat that the July date is an important date,

because that’s when the gathering of the information will occur. It’ll

give us a chance to do the proper analysis that needs to occur to be

able to put accurate information out for people. So all of that kind of

anal