2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Ministerial Statements

Federal government apology for Komagata Maru incident

Hon. A. Virk

H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M237 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016

L. Popham

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. Beef Day and ranching industry

D. Barnett

Delegation from Seoul

B. Ralston

B.C. Jade Day and design of Black Rod

R. Lee

Community garden project by University of Victoria students

C. James

Craft breweries and Ale Trail initiative

L. Reimer

Cedar Root Gallery

M. Mark

Oral Questions

Court case on violation of Election Act

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Anton

Investigation into multicultural outreach strategy

C. James

Hon. S. Anton

Payment of legal costs in breach-of-trust court case

L. Krog

Hon. S. Anton

Human rights protection for transgender persons

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. S. Anton

Funding for construction of schools in Surrey

R. Fleming

Hon. M. Bernier

B. Ralston

S. Hammell

H. Bains

Discharge of wastewater from Mount Polley mine into Quesnel Lake

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, report, May 3, 2016

J. Martin

L. Krog

Petitions

G. Holman

M. Mungall

J. Darcy

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Millar College of the Bible Act

G. Kyllo

Committee of the Whole House

Bill P r 401 — Millar College of the Bible Act

L. Krog

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — Millar College of the Bible Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. Morris

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 24 — Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. M. de Jong

A. Dix

Estimates: Management of Public Funds and Debt

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Estimates: Legislative Assembly

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

[ Page 13239 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APOLOGY

FOR Komagata Maru INCIDENT

Hon. A. Virk: On May 23, 1914, the Komagata Maru entered Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet carrying some 376 passengers from India. Sadly, they were turned away and not allowed entry into Canada. What made this event more tragic was that upon their forced return to India, 19 passengers perished.

The Komagata Maru incident is not just a story of what happened in 1914; it is one

chapter in a long struggle to create a Canada that resists racism and hatred. That story continues to incite those who believe in a Canada that accepts diversity and celebrates difference.

This House will recall, in 2008, the British Columbia Legislature made a formal apology to the South Asian community regarding the Komagata Maru incident. All the members will also recall that with the full support of all members of this House, we proclaimed May 28, 2014, in British Columbia as Komagata Maru Remembrance Day.

Today Prime Minister Trudeau and our federal counterparts made an apology in the Parliament of Canada. I’m proud to say that our Premier along with a delegation of British Columbians of South Asian descent are and were in witness to bear witness.

Cultural diversity, increased participation and engagement by all cultures are vitally important to maintaining a strong and vibrant social and economic future for British Columbia. Would everybody please join me in acknowledging that an acknowledgement of our history allows us to build a stronger future for all British Columbians.

H. Bains: Today, in fact, is a historic day for all of us as Canadians but particularly for the South Asian community. I say it’s a historic day because today in the Parliament of Canada the government has issued a long-awaited official apology for the Komagata Maru incident. For more than a century, the South Asian community has beared this injustice.

The Komagata Maru story is more than just an isolated incident. It reflected the deliberately exclusionary policies of the Canadian government of the day to keep out communities whom it deemed unfit to enter Canada. The justifications were embedded in racist views of suitability, which all supported the view that Canada should remain a white man’s country.

On the other hand, Komagata Maru became a catalyst for the South Asian community to work with other Canadians towards equal rights and for a better Canada — a Canada where South Asians finally regained the right to vote and where their contributions have helped to shape Canada into a multicultural, inclusive, more equal and more just Canada.

To make this a historic day, the credit belongs to individuals and organizations who refused to waver from their resolve to have this injustice acknowledged. I’d like to thank Harbhajan Gill from the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation, Sahib Thind from Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, Khalsa Diwan Society of Ross Street and countless individuals for their efforts to right this wrong. I say thank you to all of you.

Again, for me personally, it is a privilege to stand in this House to acknowledge history in the making as the Canadian government finally officially apologizes in the Parliament for the Komagata Maru incident. The government finally realized how important it is for the South Asian community and for all Canadians to be able to put this behind us and give us closure for this unnecessary act which went on for so long.

[1340]

I would like this House to join me in embracing this very important day in history and to pledge, once again, to redouble our efforts to commit to build an even better Canada for our future generations than the Canada that we have inherited.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: As we all know, today is B.C. Beef Day, a great day in the legislative calendar for British Columbia. Today we have the privilege of having with us people from all across the industry, an industry that has a deep-rooted history in British Columbia and is part of our future, especially when it comes to continuing to increase the food security of our province.

In the gallery today, we have members from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association — Lary Fossum, president; Brian McKersie, vice-president; David Haywood-Farmer, past president; Larry Garrett, Martin Rossmann, Grant Huffman, Kevin Boon, Elaine Stovin and Rick Mumford.

We also have with us, from the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association, Ken Fawcett, Gary Debruin, Connie Patterson, Lindy Gilson and Bob Miller.

And also, from the B.C. Association of Abattoirs, Dennis Gunter, Sandy Vanderbyl and Nova Woodbury.

Would the House please make all these distinguished guests feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: Last fall the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, the member for Surrey-Whalley and the mem-

[ Page 13240 ]

ber for Burnaby-Lougheed visited Seoul and other cities in Korea. In a reciprocal visit, we have in the gallery today an extraordinary group of legislators from the metropolitan area around Seoul, South Korea.

Seoul is the home of 26 million residents, nearly the population of Canada. It’s the world’s fourth-largest metropolitan GDP, surpassed only by Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. The Seoul metropolitan government has a mayor, three vice-mayors and 110 city councillors. For those of us in the Victoria area, with 13 municipalities, we certainly defer to the 110 councillors in the city of Seoul.

We have here today with us from the delegation the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Kim Inho; the Minister of Sport and Culture, Mr. Moon Sangmo; the Minister of Environment and Urban Development, Mr. Jang Hungsoon and Mr. Han Myonghee. Also, the Minister of Social Development, Mr. Lee Shinhye, and the Minister of Infrastructure, Cho Sangho; the Ministers of Transportation, Woo Hyoungchan and Mr. Kim Sanghwan; and the Minister of Operations, Mr. Kim Kyungja.

Now, this is an operation, of course, of tremendous magnitude compared to what we’re doing here in the province of British Columbia. I want all members of this House, government and opposition, to give a very, very warm welcome to the delegation from Seoul, South Korea.

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s a real pleasure today to have in the House a group of very passionate moms who travelled here from Surrey, led by Cindy Dalglish. This is a great group of advocates for education, a great group of advocates for their children and for the community of Surrey. I had a great opportunity to meet with some of them earlier on today, talking about the opportunities that are coming to Surrey, about the great work that has taken place in Surrey over the years to help education.

But of course, it’s really important for myself to meet with passionate families and parents who get out advocating for their children. I think it’s really important that we do that all the time in this House, so I want to welcome them. I believe that for the majority of them, it’s their first time here in the House.

Welcome to the Legislature to all of the families from Surrey.

R. Fleming: I want to follow up on the introduction just made by the Minister of Education, as well, and welcome one carload of several carloads of parents from Surrey. I’m so pleased that they could finally get a meeting with the minister this afternoon. I understand they were pleased that that could finally be scheduled as well.

I’ll introduce just three of them — wonderful, passionate parents Cindy Dalglish, Novie Padasakas and Maria Myers. These parents are working very, very hard in their region in Surrey with other parents to address the issue of chronic overcrowding of Surrey schools.

As the minister said, for many of them, this will be their first visit to the Legislative Assembly, so I’d ask members on all sides of the House to make these guests most welcome here today.

[1345]

P. Pimm: I know we’re not supposed to do this when we have a group in the House, but I have a very special person visiting here today. She’s with the breeders and feeders from Dawson Creek. Connie Patterson and her family were my billet parents when I played junior hockey in Dawson Creek many years ago. The Patterson family and their Auction Mart have been a huge part of the backbone of the cattle industry in the Peace country in the province.

Please help me welcome Connie Patterson to the precinct today.

K. Conroy: I take a great deal of pleasure in introducing a former MLA back to the House. David Zirnhelt was an MLA from 1991 to 2001. He is a rancher from the Cariboo, actually located in Beaver Valley near Williams Lake.

He’s here today promoting a program at TRU called applied sustainable ranching, which can almost be an oxymoron in the ranching community. But I’m so glad he’s doing it, because it’s desperately needed. I hope that we can all support a program like what he’s supporting today.

Could you all please join me in making him very welcome.

Hon. M. Morris: I’m pleased to introduce three guests to the House today: Gordon Bliss, a local Prince George builder and the new president of the B.C. homebuilders association; Neil Moody, the CEO of the homebuilders association, who hails from Burnaby; and Ron Rapp, representing the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, who comes here from Coquitlam.

I ask that the House give them a warm welcome, please.

M. Karagianis: This is not necessarily an introduction, but someone who’s an avid viewer of question period watching today served as a councillor in Esquimalt for several terms and then became the mayor for two terms while I was a city councillor. It’s Mr. Ray Rice. It’s his birthday today, and I’d love to the House to offer him a happy birthday. I know he’ll be thrilled as he watches the proceedings today.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today Barrie Nicholls, who is a recent graduate from UVic in the political science program. He recently won an award for the best concept paper at the Model United Nations in New York. He’s also the son of Elizabeth Nicholls, who is one of the many hard-

[ Page 13241 ]

working folks in the Ministry of Transportation. She’s a manager in the partnership division.

I ask that the House please make Barrie feel welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d also like to introduce several parents from Surrey who are in the gallery today. They are Lori Palka, Amanda Smith-Weston and a good friend of mine, Christy Peterson. They are here to voice their support for the students of Surrey. Would the House again make them welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a very special introduction to make today. It’ll take me a moment to read through it, so I hope that the members will listen intently.

Joining us in the gallery today for the first time — indeed, for the first time in the Legislature precinct for all but one — are members of the ministry’s Youth Advisory Council. I had the honour of having lunch with them today and hearing from them about their ideas about things we can do differently in the ministry.

I’d like very much to welcome Ruby Barclay. She’s just completed her second year of her child and youth care degree at Vancouver Island University. Raven McCallum is completing her year with government’s aboriginal internship program. This young Haida woman is also an officer and a reservist with the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. She is completing a degree in native Indian teacher education at UBC. Bryant Doradea is a terrific young man and a prolific writer of poetry and rap music.

Ashley Frerichs is entering her fourth year of child and youth care at the University of Victoria. Sara-Ann Poirier is attending Vancouver Island University as well, to complete her child and youth care degree. She’s also an artist and budding film director. Guy Bonneau is working right now. He’s got an incredible passion for youth and just for people. I’ve had an opportunity to speak with Guy on a number of occasions now. He’s a terrific person and a feature at many slam poetry nights.

[1350]

Lastly but not least, Kymberlee Stogan, hailing from Musqueam Nation. Kymberlee is the coordinator of the youth council. In its first year, she has done an absolutely incredible job of coordinating the council so that they can provide absolutely critical and real feedback for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Accompanying them today is Cory Heavener, the director of child welfare. Please make them all welcome.

M. Mark: A couple of weeks ago, I had an art poster contest in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant about the importance of voting. A number of the students in the nine elementary schools submitted their posters, and I’m very pleased to welcome my guest Jade in the House, with her mother, Lisa. They’re from Grandview Elementary School. She’s ten years old. She’s from the Tsimshian nation.

Her poster…. I want to share a few words about why it’s important. She says it’s important for the environment; equal rights; the next generation; aboriginal rights; creative, positive change; our rights; and a better future. Would the House join me in welcoming Jade and her mother, Lisa.

Hon. T. Lake: My very favourite constituent in Kamloops–North Thompson is having a birthday today. Dina Sim is turning 90 years old. Everyone in Kamloops knows Dina. She’s been married for nearly seven decades to Alex Sim, who is one of the most decorated veterans in British Columbia, being a veteran of the Second World War and the Korean War. But everyone who knows Alex and Dina knows that Dina should be getting all the medals for putting up with Alex for so long.

I know that she will be celebrated this weekend. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to be there, but I wanted to let the House know that Dina is a perfectly wonderful lady and deserves every medal that anyone could ever give her for living with Alex for most of her 90 years. Would we please wish her a very happy birthday.

L. Popham: It’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Rob Sealey to the chamber today. Dr. Sealey has been a GP in greater Victoria for over 25 years. Many of you may recognize his voice, because he was also part of the famous Wise Quacks team on radio.

Dr. Sealey is also the leading advocate and educator on the topic of medical cannabis in Canada. After 25 years of seeing patients, he has hundreds and hundreds of patients that adore him, and so do I. Please welcome him to the chamber.

S. Hamilton: I’d just like to take this opportunity to welcome two people to the Legislature today. First of all, a former Delta police officer, Hugh Davies, now the manager of the property compliance and enforcement department — they’re the guys who are going to get you if you’re caught watering your lawn when you’re not supposed to be — and the assistant manager of that department, Kaare Coupar. They’re here to have a few meetings and discuss some mutual interests. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Bains: Part of the parents’ delegation that is here today…. Most of them are from my neighbourhood. I will introduce three of them: Jenna Parker, Angela Skillen and Erica Campbell. They are part of a delegation that has such a passion to improve education for our children in the Surrey schools, and they’re here to talk to the minister to fix the overcrowding of schools. Please help me to thank them for their passion and extend them a warm welcome.

K. Corrigan: I am very pleased to welcome into the precinct today over 230 students from Moscrop

[ Page 13242 ]

[1355]

G. Kyllo: I’m very pleased to introduce a group of guests with us today from the Millar College of the Bible. I must say I’m feeling a little bit blessed today to have them joining us here in the House. We have Steve Janz, who’s a director; and Mr. Phil Ruten, president, joined by his lovely wife, Esther. We also have Trevor Kiriaka, who’s the academic dean; and David Ruten, the campus registrar.

The Millar College of the Bible has been operating in the province of Saskatchewan since 1944 and more recently has been operating in my riding of Shuswap, in Sunnybrae, with the Sunnybrae Bible Camp facility. Anyhow, would the House please make them feel very welcome.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome Lesley Fox. She’s the executive director of the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. A number of opposition members will be having meetings with her this afternoon.

C. James: I have a few guests in the gallery today. I want to introduce them all individually, because one is a group of students from UVic’s political science CityStudio Victoria class. This is the first-ever field school in public policy in our area. With them today is their professor, Dr. Sarah Wiebe. Also from the city of Victoria is Kerri Moore, who is the manager of strategic relations and business development. I’d ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

N. Simons: Le conseiller municipal de Powell River, Russell Brewer, a reçu le Cornouiller d’or, un prix francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. Le prix est décerné par la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. Il célèbre le travail d’un fonctionnaire s’étant “distingué en matière de francophonie.” Franco-Manitobain d’origine, Russell Brewer réside a Powell River depuis 1998. Il est le président de la Société Métis de Powell River et a aussi été celui du Club Bon Accueil.

[Russell Brewer is a Powell River city councillor who was awarded the Golden Dogwood by the B.C. Francophone Federation for his unparalleled contribution to the French community of British Columbia. Born and raised in St. Boniface, Manitoba, he moved to Powell River in 1998, where in addition to being a city councillor, he’s the president of the Powell River Métis Association, the former president of the French club and le Club Bon Accueil.]

[French text and translation provided by N. Simons.]

As well, he’s a hard-working public servant in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. On behalf of all residents of the Sunshine Coast and this House, congratulations and our thanks for the hard work you do.

B. Ralston: I wanted to introduce three more members of the delegation from Surrey, advocates for public education — Jess Dhillon, Jennifer Doerksen and Erin Jones. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Weaver: There are two guests with us today from my riding. Scott Alexander is a history and social studies teacher at Oak Bay High School. An avid scholar of Canadian governance, he recently attended the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, a week of discussion and learning in our nation’s capital.

In addition, 2016 marks the second consecutive year in which one of Mr. Alexander’s students will be entering the page program in Ottawa, for which selection is highly competitive.

I’d also like to welcome Chris Wright. As of yesterday, Chris has finished his second-year exams as a student of the Island medical program, a UBC Faculty of Medicine program run in collaboration with the University of Victoria. Chris is a graduate of UVic and Oak Bay High, my alma mater, as well, and a former student of Mr. Alexander’s. Chris will be taking a placement this summer in Trail, and I wish him well. Would the House please make both Scott and Chris feel very welcome.

J. Shin: It really is the relationships that we develop and cultivate in and out of British Columbia that I think really empower us to champion together the initiatives that matter for the people we serve. So I join with all the members of the House, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, in welcoming the Seoul council once more. [Korean was spoken.]

Of course, I would be very remiss if I didn’t introduce Michael Chang, who has been to the House a number of times with these delegations, and I never took the opportunity to introduce him. I would like to finally welcome him and, of course, say thank you for all the work that you have done. Would the House please join me in making all of them feel very, very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, I’d like to introduce the remaining three British Columbians that have not been formally introduced today.

[1400]

There is a group of young people who for the past four months have toiled diligently. They are the interns that have worked with the government caucus. They have spent time within the public service. They have worked in a variety of capacities with the caucus. They have spent,

[ Page 13243 ]

, and will again spend, some time in constituencies with members. Both sides of the House benefit from the contributions of the interns.

These are very talented young people. I’d like to introduce them and thank them, at the same time: Jamie Cook and Megan Parisotto, who were working in communications; Alex Dauncey-Elwood, Heather Clifford and Mikayla Roberts, who have been working in research.

They are passionate, enthusiastic and have brought a refreshing energy. I have a feeling, as we frequently say when describing and thanking the interns that work with us, that we may yet see some of these young people again in a different capacity and maybe in one of these chairs.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M237 — PREVENTION OF

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (MINK FARMS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

L. Popham presented a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016.

L. Popham: I move that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

L. Popham: Mink bred for their pelts on B.C. farms should be protected by provincial animal cruelty laws. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to include the recommended best practices contained in the code of practice for the care and handling of farmed mink as recommended by the National Farm Animal Care Council.

This code was developed by Agriculture Canada with the collaboration of producers, government departments, animal welfare agencies, veterinarians and scientists. Scientific research findings are the basis for these standards. This code addresses animal health and welfare concerns, namely accommodation, food and water, care and supervision, health care, hygiene and sanitation, transportation of live mink and euthanasia.

I’m happy to support the work that’s being done by industry to improve the standards of care for farm animals. Bringing forward this legislation is acknowledgment of that good work.

I move that it be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M237, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, 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)

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: Well, I think I can speak for many of us here when I say that was one incredible meal. We have just enjoyed one of the many highlights of the spring session, B.C. Beef Day.

Taking place on the back lawn of the Legislature, B.C. Beef Day recognizes and celebrates the strong partnership between the province, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders, B.C. Association of Abattoirs and the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association.

I urge British Columbians to support a sector that provides our province with safe, high-quality and great-tasting 100 percent B.C. beef. It’s the best you’ll find anywhere in the world.

We need young ranchers, young business people and young leaders for continued success in the sector. The strong partnership between the B.C. government and the industry will ensure we reach our goal.

I am very proud that Williams Lake is the home of the first and only applied sustainable ranching certificate program in B.C., delivered through Thompson Rivers University. Students are gaining the expertise to build and sustain ranching operations in any region of the province, along with ecosystem management. Ranchers are great stewards of the land and also pay close attention to quality and humane animal care at every stage of production.

In 2014, the B.C. cattle industry generated more than $279 million in farm cash receipts. This is an increase of nearly 54 percent from the previous year. The sector employs thousands of British Columbians, and we will continue to work with them to develop it.

Buy local, and join in the celebration of our cattle ranching industry and B.C. beef.

[1405]

DELEGATION FROM SEOUL

B. Ralston: The Metropolitan Government of Seoul is the official title of the municipal government of that city. Seoul, Korea’s capital for over 600 years, is now a city with one of the largest metropolitan populations in the world — 25.6 million people. Seoul is known as a rising global city whose rapid growth has propelled it to its current status as the world’s fourth-largest metropolitan economy, with a GDP of $1.1 trillion in 2014, following only Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles.

Seoul became the capital of a sovereign nation in 1945 with Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule. The

[ Page 13244 ]

early years were traumatic. The Korean War, which broke out in 1950, reduced the city to rubble. After the war, Seoul began to transform into the huge, vast, modern metropolis that it is today.

The so-called miracle on the Han River — the Han being the river that flows through Seoul — brought economic growth, industrialization, democratization and modern public administration to the metropolitan region of Seoul at dizzying speed.

The Metropolitan Government has one mayor, three vice-mayors and 110 city councillors. As the capital city, it is more centralized than most cities and administers a wide range of services.

The member for Burnaby-Lougheed, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and I visited the council in November 2015 and are pleased to welcome the delegation from the council here today. Warm and cordial relations with the members of the government of Seoul will enhance our future relations.

On behalf of all members of the House, I’m pleased to welcome such an important delegation from the Metropolitan Government of Seoul here to British Columbia.

B.C. JADE DAY AND

DESIGN OF BLACK ROD

R. Lee: May 28 is officially proclaimed the third annual B.C. Jade Day in the province of British Columbia. Jade has been our official provincial gemstone since 1968, and approximately 800 to 1,000 tonnes of B.C.-produced jade are exported to global markets annually.

Jade is important to B.C.’s history, culture and, naturally, our economy. Jade is well-incorporated into our ceremonial traditions here in the Legislative Assembly. For example, the Black Rod is the ceremonial staff that is used when the monarch or the Lieutenant-Governor is present in the Legislative Assembly. The Black Rod was created in 2012 to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The midsection of the Black Rod features carving in B.C. jade done by Tsimshian artist and elder Clifford Bolton, one of the last hereditary chief jade carvers in B.C. Clifford talked to First Nations elders throughout the province before he decided on the message he wanted to convey with his carving. The carving depicts a man, a woman and a child. The man and women are patriarch and matriarch of British Columbia, while the child symbolizes hope for the future.

The man and women are joined by two eagle feathers, which are sacred symbols of power. A carved cedar rope symbolizes unity and the intertwining of the diverse cultures of British Columbia. This beautiful jade carving is at the heart of the Black Rod and signifies the reconciliation of B.C.’s First Nations people with the Crown. Sadly, Clifford passed away shortly after his carving was completed. However, his gift will remain with all British Columbians.

On B.C. Jade Day, let us remember the significance of this gemstone to the culture and history of our province, especially to the First Nations of British Columbia.

COMMUNITY GARDEN PROJECT BY

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA STUDENTS

C. James: By growing community from the ground up, a vacant lot on Yates Street here in Victoria will soon come to life as a community garden. It’s part of CityStudio Victoria and its learning-in-action approach for students from the University of Victoria this spring.

Students get course credit by working on practical neighbourhood opportunities together with their classmates, community members and the city of Victoria staff. “Growing Community from the Ground Up” is an intensive three-week course where students work in partnership with the Downtown Residents Association and the Greater Victoria Placemaking Network.

During the three-week course, students will learn about planning, public engagement, placemaking and policy. They’ll examine real challenges that arise and work at addressing them. They’ll learn about ways to build community, to manage urban ecosystems and to mobilize citizens.

[1410]

UVic students will develop a plan for the Yates Street site, and they’ll present their ideas to city staff. They’ll design and deliver a public engagement event and will be evaluated on their contributions.

Building on the success of CityStudio Vancouver, CityStudio Victoria looks at innovative ways cities are co-created. An empty storefront at 742 Johnson recently became the new home of CityStudio Victoria. This classroom space is also being used by Camosun College and Royal Roads.

To see the vacant lot on Yates Street become a community garden and to have the neighbourhood engaged in that planning is a wonderful example of true public policy in action. Congratulations to UVic, the city of Victoria, all the people who put this initiative together and those who contributed their time to participate. It’s a fabulous way to learn and share and to bring the community together to grow something exciting from the ground up.

CRAFT BREWERIES AND

ALE TRAIL INITIATIVE

L. Reimer: I’d like to rise today to highlight a growing industry in my constituency of Port Moody–Coquitlam and in the province. Several weeks ago it was announced that Port Moody’s brewery row will be added to the B.C. Ale Trail initiative, which is a provincewide program aimed at highlighting our province’s craft breweries as a world-class tourism destination.

[ Page 13245 ]

The program will develop local Ale Trail tours for participating regions, as well as videos, on-line promotional tools and a web-based marketing platform to showcase the craft beer scene and surrounding businesses and attractions. These new breweries that are opening up all across the province generate jobs, foster innovation and drive tourism to record levels.

When thirsty British Columbians and tourists reach for a pint, they are increasingly reaching for one brewed right here at home. Port Moody is home to a number of outstanding craft breweries, such as Yellow Dog Brewing, Moody Ales, Twin Sails Brewing and the most recent, Parkside Brewery.

Last Thursday I had the pleasure to attend a fundraiser for the Rotary Club of Port Moody called the Search for the Perfect Pint, where many of these beers were tasted. Over 500 people attended. Several months ago I attended another craft beer festival in Coquitlam. Again, it was so well attended that the organizer, John Gerum, had to add an extra evening.

I applaud my Port Moody brewery row for teaming together to contribute funds towards the B.C. Ale Trail initiative, which encourages craft beer aficionados to arrive thirsty and leave inspired. I’m incredibly proud to see these breweries putting British Columbia on the map as a world-class destination for craft beer. The growth and success of this great industry is a testament to the fact that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well here in British Columbia.

CEDAR ROOT GALLERY

M. Mark: It is my privilege to shine a light on a small business in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that has been in operation since the 1990s. The Cedar Root Gallery is located at the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre. It is a Haida-owned and northwest coast–operated retail store. In fact, it is the only indigenous-owned and -operated retail store in Vancouver, and it’s truly a family affair.

The Bell sisters and their 83-year-old matriarch mother, Mona, are from the village of Masset in Haida Gwaii. Tamara Bell is an artist, film-maker and executive producer of over ten television programs on the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Nadia Bell is a law student graduate from the University of Toronto.

Cedar Root Gallery supports over 100 indigenous artists. The gallery also works with the Native Education College’s aboriginal tourism program by offering practicum positions for graduating students.

The gallery serves 10,000 customers per year. Some of their celebrity customers include Murray Porter, Sandy Scofield, Steven Seagal and Adam Beach. You can purchase such items as Haida bath salts, soaps, sprays and Haida shell jewelry created by Mona and Tamara Bell, along with scarves, ties, purses, blankets and carved silver and gold jewelry from local First Nations, along with those very fashionable sunglasses.

Tamara and Nadia’s primary focus is to foster and support respectful relationships with northwest coast artists who create authentic and affordable products for the community to enjoy. Steeped in tradition and infused with contemporary gift items, Cedar Root Gallery has something for everyone.

I would encourage you to stop by the gallery, visit Mount Pleasant on your way home or to downtown. You’ll be amazed with the selection that this small grassroots business has to offer.

[1415]

Oral Questions

COURT CASE ON

VIOLATION OF ELECTION ACT

J. Horgan: It was an interesting day in the Vancouver courthouse on Main Street. Mainland Communications, a numbered company operated by one Mark Robertson, the director of field operations for the B.C. Liberal Party, and Brian Bonney, the political operative hired by the Premier, pled guilty to violating the Election Act.

Now, this may be inconsequential to others who are facing serious charges at B.C. Liberal HQ, but I think for most British Columbians it’s quite disconcerting to have political operatives violating the fundamental act that governs fair and free elections here in British Columbia.

In fact, it was the special prosecutor, Mr. Butcher, who was making his case with respect to the importance of fair elections in the courtroom, and he spoke at some length about the imperative for the public to have confidence and faith in our elections when they happen. But what troubled me the most…. When he was wrapping up his presentation to the judge with respect to Mainland’s failure to disclose, he said it was part of “a broader scheme, not an inadvertent error.”

My question is to the Attorney General. Can she inform the House and British Columbians what the broader scheme might have been?

Hon. S. Anton: When there are allegations made against government, a special prosecutor is appointed. That special prosecutor works closely with police, to give police advice during the course of an investigation. That happened in this case. The special prosecutor approved charges, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, and laid charges, as we heard yesterday.

As to what the special prosecutor was referring to as to these facts behind those charges, as to the allegations in those charges, that is a matter for the police investigation, as I said — helped with legal advice by the special prosecutor and, in the end, the laying of charges by the special prosecutor.

[ Page 13246 ]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Charges were laid against Mr. Bonney for breach of trust — very serious charges. Charges of breach of trust have already been laid against the head of the B.C. Liberal Party in another jurisdiction. Charges have been laid against George Gretes, who formerly worked for the Minister of Transportation, for misleading an officer of the Legislature. But the Mainland Communications issue is closed. They pled guilty, and they have been sanctioned for their efforts.

What I don’t understand — and I think what British Columbians would like to know — was the reference that the special prosecutor made before the judge that this was a broader scheme, not an inadvertent error. That speaks to something far deeper and far more sinister.

I would argue that perhaps all members of this House and certainly all British Columbians would want to know — before we go to the polls again — just what the special prosecutor was referring to.

Hon. S. Anton: As the member well knows, there is a matter before the courts. I don’t know if the Leader of the Opposition is hoping that I should comment on that, but that matter is before the courts. It is with the courts. It is not for this chamber to debate the matter, to discuss the matter. We leave it to the court.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: The matter of Mainland Communications is no longer before the courts. It’s been acted upon, and a guilty plea was entered, accepted, and a fine has been rendered. So this is not before the courts; it was before the courts.

I can appreciate the confusion with the Attorney General and all members of the B.C. Liberal party at this point in time. It’s tough to keep track without a scorecard of just who’s charged with what, in what court, in what jurisdiction.

But with respect to Mainland yesterday — case closed, guilty as charged. Liberal operatives still employed by the B.C. Liberal Party — guilty of violating the Election Act. Former aide hired by the Premier — guilty of violating the Election Act, through their company Mainland Communications.

Now, the breach of trust charge which the minister referred to…. Of course, if you read the Criminal Code it reads as follows: “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

[1420]

That’s a serious charge which is before the courts. But we had the assertion yesterday from the special prosecutor, with respect to a court case that has now concluded, that it was not an inadvertent error but, in fact, part of a broader scheme.

I would ask you, hon. Speaker, through to the Attorney General…. As we wind down this sitting of the Legislature, can she give an assurance to the people of British Columbia that they will have a full rendering of what that broader scheme is before we go to the polls again next year?

Hon. S. Anton: The statement which the member is referring to was made, I assume, by the special prosecutor yesterday. There is a matter still in the hands of the special prosecutor. I will not be commenting on that.

INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL

OUTREACH STRATEGY

C. James: Yesterday I asked the Attorney General whether government staff cooperated fully with the special prosecutor’s investigation. Her reply was that this “is not a matter that I have knowledge of” — because the investigation was conducted by the RCMP. Could the Attorney General tell the House why she failed to issue any specific instructions to government staff to tell them to cooperate fully with this investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: The investigation is done by the police. The work that they do is confidential to them. It’s not a matter that is discussed. What I can say…. It is my expectation that every member of government would cooperate fully with any investigation and with any questions that might be raised by the police.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The Attorney General says the matter was solely in the hands of the RCMP. If that’s the case, I’d like to ask this of the Attorney General: has she or her staff received any communications from the RCMP or the special prosecutor with respect to government’s cooperation in this investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me outline the lines of communication. The special prosecutor is appointed. He works with the RCMP. His reporting relationship is to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the criminal justice branch. That is the reporting relationship. The communications of that do not come to myself. They remain with the criminal justice branch.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL COSTS IN

BREACH-OF-TRUST COURT CASE

L. Krog: Yesterday we asked the Attorney General whether taxpayers were paying for Mr. Bonney’s legal

[ Page 13247 ]

bills. The Attorney General said she did not know. She’s had 24 hours to consult with her staff. Can she now tell the House whether taxpayers are, indeed, paying for Mr. Bonney’s legal bills?

Hon. S. Anton: Twenty-four hours, 48 hours, a week, two weeks — the policy does not change. The policy is that indemnities are granted and approved by senior staff. They are not a political matter. They are a matter of privacy to the indemnity holder, and they are approved by staff. We don’t want politicians deciding who should get an indemnity.

I think there are members on the other side of the House who are familiar with this process. It has not changed in the last 24 hours. It’s a matter of privacy for the holder of the indemnity. What I will say, in a general way, is: if you’re charged with a criminal offence and you receive an indemnity and you are found guilty, then you will be obliged to repay the indemnity. That is the policy.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, that may have been the policy, but Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, $6 million of taxpayers’ money later, found that it wasn’t quite the policy, was it?

Just to assist the Attorney General, let me read to her what the government indemnity policy actually says: “An employee is eligible for coverage as a party in a proceeding only if the employee’s involvement in the proceeding arises from conduct that occurred in the performance of employment.”

[1425]

I’ll remind the Attorney General. Even the deeply flawed Dyble-Henderson report concluded that while serving as communications director for the member for Richmond-Steveston, Mr. Bonney did more work for the B.C. Liberal Party than he did for the taxpayers. Can the Attorney General explain how government would even consider picking up Mr. Bonney’s legal fees in these circumstances?

Hon. S. Anton: I will try again. This is a process independent of government. Any indemnity process is a process independent of government. These matters are not brought to the political arm of government. They remain with senior staff. That is the general policy. Any indemnity granted is a matter of personal privacy to the recipient of the indemnity. That’s how the system works.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

FOR TRANSGENDER PERSONS

S. Chandra Herbert: The federal government just introduced legislation to explicitly protect transgender Canadians in the Canadian human rights code — an explicit protection, I might add, that is not written into the B.C. human rights code. The federal Liberals, New Democrats, Green, Bloc and even Conservative members support explicit protection in the Human Rights Act.

Conservative leader Rona Ambrose said: “I do think the specific recognition and codification in law is important. I know that it means a lot.”

Does the B.C. Liberal Minister of Justice believe that the Prime Minister, the parties, every party’s members who say they support this legislation and will vote in support of it are wrong? Should there not be explicit protection written into the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Hon. S. Anton: We always, of course, follow with interest what the federal government does. But what I can say to transgendered persons and, indeed, to all of British Columbians is that transgendered persons are protected under the British Columbia human rights code.

I speak to transgendered people. I know a number of transgendered people. I acknowledge that they face challenges. There are two, in particular, that I would observe. One is that they do face challenges in society, and I thank the organizations like the Trans Alliance and others who raise awareness of those challenges.

The second challenge they face is that fostered by persons such as the member for Vancouver–West End when he suggests that the only way your rights can be protected is if you have a good lawyer. That is complete rubbish. Transgendered persons’ rights are protected under our human rights code of British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION

OF SCHOOLS IN SURREY

R. Fleming: Surrey schools are bursting at the seams from overcrowded conditions. I visited Katzie Elementary School — built for 500 students, already stuffed with over 900 students. It’s a school where students sat in desks in a makeshift hallway classroom until the fire marshal shut it down.

I’ve met with parents, some of whom are here with us today, whose sons and daughters attend high schools built for 1,200 with over 2,100 students in them. An entire generation of parents and kids in Surrey has seen school overcrowding get worse, not better, under this government.

My question to the minister is this. When will he and his government do more than just take the income and the property and the sales taxes from growth and from hard-working families in Surrey and start building more schools in Surrey neighbourhoods where these families live?

Hon. M. Bernier: Since 2001, we’ve invested $337 million in Surrey on 55 projects and 12 site acquisitions, creating 8,500 new seats. The member opposite also knows that we recently announced Clayton North secondary,

[ Page 13248 ]

which is going to increase another 1,870 seats to Surrey, with that and other projects in the last year.

[1430]

One of the things that we do is continually work with the school districts to make sure that we look at the opportunities, to make sure that when they bring forward their objectives, we work with them. This is what I met with the parents today to talk about — how that great relationship is going to meet the needs of the Surrey school district. It is also going to materialize into future projects that this government, because of our strong economy, is going to be able to announce.

Madame Speaker: Member for Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Education talks about the few new schools that his government has built. The problem that he needs to understand is that these schools, on opening day, are already over capacity, with dozens of portables on site. If Surrey parents had a new school for every time his government promised to build one, things might be different.

But here’s the record of this government. In 2002….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: They don’t want to hear the record. Here is the record.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

R. Fleming: In 2002, the then Education Minister, now the Premier, brought in a school capital freeze that halted school construction in Surrey, British Columbia. From 2006-12, the Ministry of Education actually refused to approve any district annual capital facility plans. That’s why thousands of Surrey parents can’t send their kids to their local school, even though it might be right across the street from their house. They have to drive miles from home because it’s the only school space that’s open, and it’s likely to be a portable.

The problem for Surrey families is only going to get worse next year. So my question again to the minister is this. When will he and his government finally get a school capital plan together that involves more than the Premier, a TV camera and another empty funding promise for Surrey families?

Hon. M. Bernier: I’m going to correct the member opposite. When you look back at the 1990s, we had over 300 portables. We’re down to under 300 now — 280 portables. It’s because of the investments we’re making.

I need to correct the member opposite because, obviously, he thinks he can just say whatever he wants without any of the facts. So let me correct the member opposite. I’ll give you some examples: 2010, Woodward Hill elementary, $15 million; 2011, Adams Road Elementary, $12 million; 2013, Sunnyside Elementary, $15 million. The list goes on and on.

I could look in my binder to find the list of what the NDP did in the ’90s. Unfortunately, all my pieces of paper have something on them. I don’t have a blank piece of paper with me.

B. Ralston: The biggest school district in the province and one of the shortest lists from the Minister of Education.

The Minister of Finance has said that his solution to the housing problem in the Lower Mainland is to increase supply. However, overcrowding in Surrey schools has become so serious that the Surrey school board felt it had no choice but to vote in favour of a motion requesting that the city place a moratorium on development in three of the fastest-growing neighbourhoods in Surrey. The motion, passed unanimously by the board, called on the city to halt development in the Clayton, Grandview–South Surrey and Newton areas until the school board receives more capital funding from the province to build additional schools.

To the Minister of Education, when will he realize that he cannot increase supply by building houses without building schools for children who will live in those houses?

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the things we talked about is that Surrey is a booming municipality. We have 6,500 more students coming to the province of British Columbia because of the strong economy that we have here in B.C. — the amount of people that are coming to B.C. for opportunities, for jobs. Because of that, because of our strong economy, that’s why we’re able to make these investments that I was talking about.

[1435]

If the NDP were in power, we would not be able to do the investments that we’re able to make. And since he actually…. The member opposite wants me to go on, and thank you for the opportunity. Why don’t we talk about Katzie Elementary School, $15 million in 2014; Panorama Ridge, $10 million; Clayton North, $55 million? These are all investments that we’re able to make in the province of British Columbia because of the strong economy we have. And because of that, we’re going to be making more investments and more announcements in Surrey to help the families, the students of British Columbia, specifically in Surrey.

[ Page 13249 ]

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, 7,000 students in portables in Surrey — there are more students in portables in Surrey than there are students in 35 of B.C.’s school districts, including the minister’s district of Peace River. The Surrey school district is forced to service these portable classrooms by taking $4 million a year from their operating funds — operating money designated for the classroom, operating money that could be used to hire as many as 45 teachers.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he tell this House why, in his world, it is okay for 7,000 students to spend year after year in portables in Surrey?

Hon. M. Bernier: You know, this is why we want to continue making investments in Surrey. We’re going to continue to be doing that because of our strong economy. But I just want to remind the members opposite, specifically those few that are from the Surrey area…. I’m going to quote Mayor Hepner. “This is not a new challenge. In fact, right now we are dealing with way less portables than we had in the 1990s, quite frankly, by almost 100.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. M. Bernier: It sounds like I almost have to repeat that one, Madame Speaker. They weren’t paying attention here. So 100 less portables in Surrey.

If the members opposite were also listening at the very onset, with all of the investments that we’ve made, we’ve added 8,500 seats to Surrey. We’re going to continue to make those investments. I’ve mentioned that to the members opposite. I assume that — just assuming here — when we make those announcements in the recent future, they’re going to be elbowing their way to the front to be in the picture.

H. Bains: With the answers that we have heard today again from this minister, these parents will be leaving these chambers again knowing how out of touch this minister is from reality. Just prior to 2013, the Premier and the Minister of Education came to Surrey, did a big photo op about plans to address overcrowding in Surrey schools. It was another political announcement, another election promise that was never honoured. That’s why four years later we’re talking about the same problem right here.

These parents made a long journey from Surrey today so that they could finally meet with the minister face to face and could ask him to address the serious overcrowding in Surrey schools. My question to the minister is this. Why won’t he commit to these parents here today to finally address the overcrowding in Surrey schools and, for once, put children’s education ahead of your politics?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

[1440]

Hon. M. Bernier: I take exception to that comment, because I put education before everything. The way I’m able to do that, to make these investments in the province of British Columbia, is the strong economy that we have. If the members opposite would stop saying no to every single economic project, we would be able to materialize more money coming to this province for those investments.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Bernier: I was very fortunate to meet with some of the parents from Surrey earlier, and I hope the parents realize, after that meeting, that we’re committed to making further investments. We’ve made amazing investments over the years.

One of the things I hope I left them with was the fact that they realize how education is important to myself, important to this government, and most importantly, we’re going to continue to make investments in Surrey, where it’s muchly needed.

DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER FROM

MOUNT POLLEY MINE INTO QUESNEL LAKE

G. Heyman: Recently the Environment Minister authorized Mount Polley Mining Corp. to discharge untreated mine effluent into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake. Iron and zinc discharge levels were also allowed to exceed the mine’s permit specifications.

In 2014, area residents were badly let down by this government’s failure to properly monitor mine conditions, and they say the lake still hasn’t recovered from the 2014 tailings breach that dumped 25 million cubic metres of tailings and wastewater.

This government and this Environment Minister have once again turned their backs on Cariboo residents.

Why did the minister allow the mine to release untreated wastewater instead of maintaining adequate water treatment facilities?

Hon. M. Polak: The very first thing I want to do is point out that not only are ministry statutory decision–makers making decisions around the permitting and management of the mine, but they are doing so together around a principals table with First Nations from the Soda Creek Indian Band, the Williams Lake Indian Band and members from the broader community.

That’s important because this disaster impacted all of those communities, and we made a commitment to ensure that we would be working together with them when it came to these important decisions.

[ Page 13250 ]

When it comes to this bypass of the water treatment facility, I can advise the member that this is not water that exceeds the water quality guidelines that are laid out in the permit. In fact, it is water that has resided in Springer Pit long enough for settling to occur. It is an important decision in terms of protecting the safety and health of the water in the area because of the risk when a freshet occurs and the need to manage water such that it doesn’t migrate down below the surface and into groundwater.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on supplemental.

G. Heyman: Once again, the minister is saying that dilution is the solution, but that is cold comfort to residents of the area who have communicated with this government about their concern about untreated wastewater.

Last year Mount Polley Mining requested and received a treated-water discharge permit for levels that the ministry knew were 25 percent higher than the capacity of the water treatment unit — 25 percent higher. And now, with the minister’s blessing, excess untreated water will spew more waste into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake, which is still recovering from the 2014 breach.

A second water treatment unit — which should have been built in the first place to handle permitted wastewater level — would cost $2 million. But instead of investing in the treatment unit, the mine’s owners donated almost $1 million to the Premier’s Liberal Party.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Why won’t the Environment Minister require the mine to properly treat the wastewater that it is discharging into Quesnel Lake?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: Decisions with respect to permits of this nature are made by professional civil servants — in this case, together in consultation around a principals table that involves the leadership from the Soda Creek Indian Band, the Williams Lake Indian Band and members from the broader community.

The suggestion — from someone who at a certain point in his career, I believe, headed a public sector union organization — that those decision-makers would be influenced by a political donation, I find particularly offensive.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Martin: I would like to make some brief comments. Millar College of the Bible is seeking authority to grant degrees in theology in British Columbia in support of the operation of a Bible college in Salmon Arm.

The bill provides the college with the ability to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates in theology. The bill also provides provisions relating to the College of the Bible as registered as an extraprovincial society under the Society Act.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills met considering the proposed private bill and asked questions of the solicitor of the association. I am pleased to note the recommendation for this private bill to proceed was unanimously supported by the committee.

L. Krog: As vice-Chair of the committee, I just want to extend my gratitude, as well, to all the members of the committee on both sides, including the member for Delta South.

It was an interesting educational experience for all of us to deal with this particular kind of proposal. We discovered, much to our edification, that this is the only way these institutions can, in fact, receive this kind of accreditation.

I want to express my thanks for the excellent presentation from ministry staff and the time taken by the member for Shuswap to assist in its passage as well.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much to both of you.

The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I seek leave to present petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

G. Holman: I want to present a petition today — “Raise the rates; leave our bus pass alone” — signed by over 400 constituents of mine in North Saanich, to bring back the $45-per-year bus pass for people with disabilities and eliminate the new $52-per-month bus pass fee.

M. Mungall: I also rise to present a petition. I have here 1,772 signatures calling on the government to end the bus pass clawback, making today’s presentation roughly around 2,100 signatures calling on this govern-

[ Page 13251 ]

ment to finally do the right thing and end this bus pass clawback.

J. Darcy: My petition, signed by people from across British Columbia, calls on the B.C. government to pay for insulin pumps for people over the age of 25 for those patients for whom it is considered medically necessary. The signatories to the petition indicate that Alberta and Ontario have no restriction on insulin pump coverage and that having a financial restriction, in fact, means that this denies medically necessary care to those who can’t afford to pay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee of Supply, to begin with, in this chamber — continued estimates of the Ministry of Finance. And in

Section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.

[1450]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $178,497,000 (continued).

D. Eby: The minister has been in the media and in this place defending the inaction of this government around the inflows of international speculative capital into our residential housing market that are making housing unaffordable. Unfortunately, during question period, we don’t really get a chance to go through in detail exactly why it is that we continue to ask the government to take action. I’d like to take the opportunity to go through a few of the reasons why.

I’m going to start off with an open proposal made by 28 economists from the Vancouver School of Economics — these are professors at UBC — two SFU professors in urban economics and 15 Sauder School of Business economists who say that they think we should be taxing the international money coming into our housing market. They say that doing so could “provide significant benefits to Lower Mainland communities” and that their proposal is “a feasible and economically meaningful response to the rising tide of global financial flows into B.C. residential real estate.”

There’s the Conference Board of Canada’s report released yesterday or today. The days blur together.

“It seems clear to us that outflows of wealth from China have at least some influence on the greater Vancouver housing market. In previous research on this issue, standard tests find significant correlations between China’s real GDP growth and three important market yardsticks — namely, existing home sales, existing home price growth and total housing starts.

“By contrast, local employment growth is significantly correlated to none of these, and the five-year mortgage rate related only to resale variables. This could mean that a substantial portion of greater Vancouver real estate purchasers do not need local jobs to buy a home and that many do not need a mortgage to buy a new home. The broad statistical conclusions we reached in 2013 remain valid.”

Then they say: “This leads to the question about what can be done.” They offer two potential solutions. One is to place restrictions on non-residents’ ability to buy homes. At the same time, housing supply could be boosted.

[1455]

You’ll note that the Conference Board of Canada doesn’t say: “Do nothing.” They say there are a couple of options available, both of which, they seem to be suggesting, should be approached.

Then CIBC:

“There is a clear sense of urgency among many Chinese residents to send money out of the country, given the risk of a large-scale devaluation of the yuan. But the main focus of those real estate agents” — these are international agents that focus on Vancouver — “was on QDII2, qualified domestic individual investor 2, a pilot program that…allows individuals with net financial assets of at least 1 million yuan to invest up to 50 percent of those assets in foreign markets.”

They talk about how, with the 20 percent depreciation of the loonie relative to the Chinese currency, “Toronto and Vancouver look very attractive.” Accordingly, the consensus among these international real estate agents was that “the next few years will see even more foreign money entering Canadian real estate markets.”

Then the CIBC deputy chief economist says that while we wait for better data, “we can start dealing with the speculative aspect of foreign investment” through regulation and taxation.

Royal Bank of Canada chief economist Craig Wright: “Whenever you get to these high values in housing, you’re vulnerable to shock. The shock one worries about most in housing is interest rates, to some degree, but…employment.” That’s under the headline: “Housing in Vancouver, Toronto ‘dangerously unaffordable’ says Royal Bank of Canada.”

Business in Vancouver . Jock Finlayson, vice-president, chief policy officer for the Business Council of B.C.:

“How do you grow a global-scale company in Metro Vancouver if your employees, particularly your employees in the age where they start families, can’t afford to live here?

“Looking ahead, I am fearful of a hollowing out of corporate Vancouver.

“Vancouver has the highest income inequality.

“That has to do with the structure of employment…. There’s a segment of the population that is very affluent, many of whom aren’t even working, and that’s, obviously, driving up housing costs.

“This disequilibrium between median household income and the cost of living, particularly the cost of housing, is the single biggest problem we have in the region.”

[ Page 13252 ]

That’s Jock Finlayson from the Business Council of B.C.

How is this being covered in the business press? Canadian Business magazine headline: “How Vancouver’s runaway real estate became a national problem.”

“What is unique about Vancouver’s real estate bubble is the unwillingness of the authorities to do anything about it. Governments in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are all trying to slow the rush of international capital into housing markets….

“The remarkable thing about all the reporting and analysis of the Vancouver housing market…is its consistency. Everyone comments on how authorities such as CMHC are only now starting to gather data on the extent to which international buyers are responsible for price escalation, an inexcusable example of bureaucratic inertia and old-fashioned Canadian complacency. Writers and commentators present entirely logical arguments for why a tax or a regulation aimed at levelling the playing field between regular homebuyers and the world’s ultra-rich would be an entirely reasonable response to what is clearly an unusual situation.”

Everyone from academics — a group of 45 economists from both leading schools, universities in British Columbia — to bank economists, deputy chief, chief economist, the business press, the lead economists for the Business Council of B.C. are all calling not for collecting data and doing nothing but for government involvement in this file. They’re open, as am I — if the minister brings a proposal forward, I’d be glad to have a look at it — to different approaches to dealing with this problem, but not one of them is saying do nothing.

Can the minister please explain why his answer is, “Let’s watch and see what happens,” instead of actually taking action on this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: he is certainly correct about one thing. This is a far better forum than question period necessarily is to have an exchange of ideas and, perhaps, to canvass the approaches that he would advocate or that the government would advocate and intends to follow.

I’ll take advantage of his question, then, to offer some thoughts. I guess I must begin by observing that I disagree pointedly and profoundly with the observation or the assertion that the government is or has done nothing.

[1500]

Now, the member may disagree with what the government has done. The member may believe that it will not have an effect or the effect that he is seeking. I’m hoping, during the course of the exchange, that I will be able to discern in clearer terms what effect the member is seeking by virtue of government intervention into the marketplace.

I don’t say that to be mischievous or meddlesome, because I think it’s a fundamentally important question. What is it that the member believes should be the objective of further government intervention into this matter? Is it to drive the cost of homes down from where they are today, which is clearly elevated, clearly heightened from what it was a month, a year, three years ago? Is that the objective?

Is it to halt the rise in housing costs? I think that, too, is an area that it is legitimate to explore in terms of the conversation we’re going to have. But to suggest that nothing has been done in the face, for example, of the single largest change in property taxation policy that is now in effect and flowed immediately from the budget is, I think, inaccurate — and that’s, I guess, the kindest term I would use.

I mentioned in the brief exchange we had the other day in question period that as a result of that change about 25 families, individuals, per day now buy a new home for which they don’t pay property transfer tax. That transaction has immediately become more affordable to the tune of upwards of $13,000, depending on where that home is priced.

We can track this and do, obviously, through the returns that are provided. It’s over 2,200 families that have benefited from that single change. We are also able to track the numbers of families who have entered the market in the last four months as first-time homebuyers. How are we able to do that? Because, of course, on the property taxation documentation, in order to qualify for the exception, they self-identify.

So 50 families per day are entering the housing market in British Columbia. This number applies across British Columbia to over 7,000 families, individuals, purchasing a home for the first time between January and May. The assertion that it is impossible for people and families to enter the housing market flies in the face of the hard data that we actually have in that respect.

We have other data that is of assistance in considering some of the ideas that have been advanced, and if I have, at some point, conveyed anything other than interest in those ideas, then I regret that, because every idea is worthy of consideration. I confess to having views of my own. Some of that is informed by data that perhaps others do not examine or haven’t studied.

For example, when we talk about the notion of a speculation tax, or some people call it a flipping tax…. Better be careful how you say that, I guess. There’s more than one flipping tax. But I think members know what I’m referring to: a speculation tax or a tax on flipping real estate.

We actually have sound data on the number of transactions that that would apply to, because we are able to track through, again, the property transfer tax return exercise when a transfer in ownership takes place within a year or within two years, and we’re able to estimate on that basis.

[1505]

As people have advanced these ideas, what I have suggested is that we be clear on the objective. In the case of the speculation tax, at any of the rates that have been suggested, the amounts involved would be very modest — very modest indeed.

I also gather from the ideas, in the form that they have been presented, that this additional tax would be

[ Page 13253 ]

imposed on folks who are transferred — whose employment changes, and they are forced to relocate within the stipulated period — or who, because their family circumstances change, are forced to relocate. These are people who would find themselves captured by a new instrument of taxation because of how it has been defined and how it would be applied.

The alternative is to create exemptions, and that is very possible. But for each exemption that is created, the number of transactions that would be captured by the measure shrinks even further. Again, what I have not heard, in the course of the discussion that has taken place, is the intended consequence of a taxation instrument like that. The suggestion that it would….

It seems clear from the evidence, in the jurisdictions where it has been tried, that it does nothing to reduce the cost of housing — nothing. If that is the objective, then perhaps it bears emphasizing that the experience in those jurisdictions runs counter to what people are purporting to be the objective here.

The member has referenced, in his initial remarks, some of the studies. Ironically, in the most recent one, the Conference Board report for the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, he went to precisely the same page that I did and the quotation around the questions of what is to be done.

There is another recurring theme in all of these studies. And these are, I think, thoughtful individuals who are presenting their analysis of the issue, their analysis of the market. The author, Mr. Tal, of the CIBC report — I must say that in his report I was intrigued by the methodology — said: “In order to get a better understanding of the market, I attended a dinner with over 20 real estate brokers and agents who deal exclusively with foreign buyers…. I asked many questions, and after a few bottles of wine, I got some answers.”

I’m not criticizing the methodology; I might want to participate in it, in fact. But he does make the point. On the basis of his dinner and conversation, he concludes that flipping is not the main motivation. He again acknowledges — and this is a theme that is consistent in virtually all of the reports and papers and suggestions: “We do not have all the information we need, and we have to accelerate the process of collecting that information.”

He does, in fairness, offer the suggestion that the member referred to — about how, even though flipping is not the main motivation, he is drawn to the notion of a tax on foreigners who invest and later sell. He is certainly entitled to that view.

What I have tried to offer — and where I think the member does…. It would be fair for him to suggest he encounters hesitancy on my part. It is to take a step of this order of importance in the absence of some firm data. Because the anecdotal information runs the gamut, in terms of the influence that foreign capital is having — and foreign investment. To what degree is that foreign investment actually investment by Canadian citizens or permanent residents?

[1510]

I do think it is legitimate, before taking a step of that magnitude, to be able to point to some data that says: “Here we are acting on the strength of this factual information, which points out that X percentage of the market, X percentage of the purchases are deriving from this source in these circumstances.” I think that is a responsible position to take. It is not to diminish in any way the challenge that exists, particularly in and around Vancouver, in terms of the opportunity that people have to access housing.

I think today we see a good example of the two dimensions to this issue. We got the report from the Conference Board for the board of trade and another report, that I suspect the member will get around to mentioning, from the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which speaks to another dimension of the housing issue.

We talk about affordability of housing, and then there’s the question of affordable housing, which tends to involve, in many instances, those in the lower income streams having the opportunity to access housing, co-op housing and rental housing. That presents yet another series of challenges.

There does, on balance, hon. Chair — and then I’ll let the member have at me again — seem to be two broad schools of thought about how to deal with this. One says that in the tension that clearly exists right now and is playing out in the way we see in terms of elevating property and housing prices…. It is to take steps that would reduce demand. Some jurisdictions have done that. That’s one approach.

The other, which the member will know I have tended to favour, is for us collectively to take steps that would increase the supply and provide a broader range of options to those wishing to get into the housing market.

Ultimately, in a complex market, the answer may be a combination of the two. In taking that step, I think it behooves us to at least be in a position, in defending that step, that hybrid approach of taxation and supply, to be able to say we made that decision on the basis of hard data. As the member knows, we are now in the process of, in a concerted way, collecting that data.

I’ll stop there and let him continue.

D. Eby: The minister has said a lot in 15 minutes. Here’s what I think the two schools of thought are. One is that there’s a problem, and one is that everything’s fine. I think I know where the minister falls. Despite his various objections…. I think I can overcome the objections about…. If you tax the money that’s coming into the real estate market from people who are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia, either it’s a problem or it isn’t.

If you tax it and there’s no issue there — you don’t generate any revenue from it, you don’t affect the hous-

[ Page 13254 ]

ing market, there’s no consequence, and it just sits there — it’s a useless tax. But if you do put the tax in place and there is international speculation in our housing market — if there is money coming into our housing market from people who don’t pay their worldwide tax here; and it is a problem — then you generate revenue from the tax that you can put into affordable housing initiatives.

I’m trying to find the downside of the proposal put forward by the 45 professors of economics — the 45 PhDs in economics that brought this proposal forward. I’m trying to find the downside, why the minister will not act, because it has the dual effect of gathering, without debate, the data about how many people are buying real estate in the Lower Mainland but are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia. I think that’s really the key point.

[1515]

It’s not: are you a permanent resident, or are you citizen? Are you from here, or you from there? Is your family originally from…? Who cares, right? Are you paying your worldwide tax in British Columbia? If you are, have at ’er. If you’re not, you’ve got to contribute. You’ve got to pitch in.

I think the core issue here is whether or not the minister recognizes that there’s a problem. Let me point to a study on it. It is, unfortunately, dated, because it’s based on 2011 census data. But according to Statistics Canada, 25,000 households in Vancouver are paying more on housing than they have in income. That’s 10 percent of the households.

Let me give you an example of a few of the neighbourhoods we’ve got here. Dissemination area 59150581, Arbutus Ridge, between Arbutus and Macdonald streets: the median dwelling value, $1.98 million; the median income from all sources declared for tax purposes, $19,993; average house price, $2 million; average income for tax purposes, $20,000.

South Granville: average dwelling value, $1.8 million; average income for tax purposes in British Columbia, $13,572.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Coal Harbour area, around the Fairmont Pacific Rim: 62 percent of households say they have lower income than their shelter costs. The average income in that area is $14,293. The median is just $943 a year for the people who own properties there.

Now, the minister might stand up and say: “Oh, there are a lot of retirees. Maybe they’re living on their savings.” In greater Toronto, the rate of people declaring lower income than their shelter cost is 5.9 percent. In Montreal, it’s 5 percent. In Victoria, it’s 5.4 percent. In Vancouver, it’s 10 percent. It’s double.

We’ve got a lot of people buying really expensive property that aren’t paying worldwide tax in British Columbia. I think this is maybe the core of the concern, and that is certainly the core of what the proposal that came forward from those 45 economics professors deals with. It doesn’t matter — citizenship, permanent resident, whatever. Are you pitching in?

The question to the minister: has he studied this phenomenon? Does he have better stats than I do about income declared by British Columbians — worldwide income declared on their income tax forms — as compared to the value of the property that they’re purchasing and that they own in British Columbia? Can he share additional information beyond the dated information that’s available through the 2011 census data?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member asked a specific question about data, and I should say this. I’ll say it on the record. He anticipated, correctly, that I would. Yes, there is a phenomenon in a market like Vancouver. It has long been the case where there are individuals who are asset-rich and in income, much poorer, fixed-income seniors being a classic example of that. We are an older society in British Columbia. Not the oldest — the Maritimes are demographically older than us. But we are an older society, so that is a phenomenon with which we are not unfamiliar.

[1520]

The member seems intent on wanting to characterize this as a case of a government and/or a minister who doesn’t believe there is an issue and doesn’t believe there is a problem and a challenge. That is categorically not the case.

I clearly understand that in a particular part of British Columbia, there is an issue. When you see the proportion of listings to sales, it is clear that that is presenting upward pressure and causing issues. But the data that the member does not have and that I do not have at the moment is that which entitles us to say that the market is being influenced to this degree, to X degree, by the influx of true foreign capital and foreign purchases and speculative foreign purchases.

We got — ironically, not from Vancouver but from the Victoria Real Estate Board…. I think the member would agree the pressure that we see in Vancouver is having a ripple effect elsewhere. It certainly seems to be the indication here in Victoria.

The Victoria Real Estate Board does apparently track the origin of buyers. I’m told it is a self-reporting mechanism, so it doesn’t account for 100 percent of transactions. But of those where there is a self-report….

For 1,700 transactions in greater Victoria in the first quarter of the year, the Victoria Real Estate Board reported that the vast majority of Victoria buyers are from within the local Victoria marketplace — 73 percent from Victoria, compared to 70½ percent last year; 8 percent from the Lower Mainland, compared to 7½ percent last year; 4 percent from Alberta, which, oddly enough, is down from 5½ percent last year; and 1 percent from the U.S., which is roughly comparable to last year.

[ Page 13255 ]

Those numbers, to the degree that they are accurate, would lead one to suggest that the market in Victoria — in the capital region, at least — is not being influenced by the phenomenon of vast sums of true foreign capital investment in the marketplace. So it is not a case of wanting to ignore or deny that there are issues that accrue from rapidly escalating property values.

The reports that the member has referred to, by the way — some of them, at least, and certainly the one for the Conference Board — go to great lengths to point out that this is a symptom of a very strong economy, of a whole range of other advantages that have developed here in British Columbia and on the west coast and that are attracting people to our jurisdiction.

It doesn’t diminish the importance of the challenge or our need to respond to it. It does, I would suggest, make it incumbent upon us to take steps that do not put in jeopardy the value that British Columbians have accrued in the most important asset most people will ever own and to do so in a way that does not put at risk the enviable record of economic growth that we have established for ourselves — leading the country, in fact, in that respect. So there are some additional thoughts for the member.

I should say, finally, that there is a series of ideas. The member has referred to one that involves the imposition of an added tax on every property in the jurisdiction that would be covered and then an application process for exemptions based on certain criteria.

[1525]

The member is an advocate of that approach to utilizing that instrument of taxation, of increasing everyone’s taxes and then asking them to apply, on the basis of a set of certain criteria, for an exemption from that tax increase. I’m not sure that is the best approach to take with respect to affordability, but the member is clearly quite taken with the approach.

D. Eby: I’m going to leave the ridiculous political suggestion aside that we would be collecting additional taxes from every British Columbian and then refunding them through the income…. That is the most inefficient, ridiculous implementation of a private member’s bill we’ve put forward that I could possibly imagine. It is comments like that and it is the attitude of this minister towards a serious issue that prevent us from making progress on it.

I want to hear that minister stand up and tell British Columbians on the record whether he thinks it’s a problem that people who are not paying their worldwide taxes in British Columbia are buying property. Here’s why I want to ask that question. It’s because the people who work hard and pay their taxes here to support the social systems that make this place a wonderful place to live are wondering why they can’t afford to buy property on the wages they earn.

There is a very reasonable belief, backed up by the Conference Board of Canada, CIBC and 45 economics professors, that it is flows of capital from people who are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia that are driving this housing market, at least in part.

Will the minister stand up and say, “Yes, I agree that this is a problem,” that people who are not paying their worldwide tax in B.C. are buying housing in the situation of a deflated loonie, with money that’s earned in a jurisdiction where they don’t have to pay the same level of taxes, and competing with people who are paying their taxes, building the schools, building the parks, building the communities that make it an enviable place to live? Does he think that’s a problem? Does he think they should have to pitch in like everybody else?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that for decades, governments of various political stripes — with varying degrees of success, I might add — have sought out people and encouraged them to come to this province and to this country and to make investments in a broad range of economic endeavours, including in the real estate sector. That is not a policy, an approach to economics, that is unique to this government or a government of any political stripe.

The member, in response to a circumstance that has arisen, that is of concern — it is of concern particularly in one part of British Columbia — is suggesting that the government should adopt a significant change in policy relating to how we tax those who come to British Columbia and make investments. And there may well be merit. But he seems genuinely offended that I would respond to that by saying: “Before we take that step, let us clearly understand the degree to which that is influencing market behavior.” There is nothing I can say, apparently, that is going to change his mind that that represents a responsible approach to this.

I say this not to be argumentative, but for him, this conversation apparently revolves exclusively around taxation policy and the question of curtailing demand — in this case, international demand. He is far less concerned than I am about other steps we can take to increase — and significantly increase — the supply of housing that would be available to domestic purchasers.

[1530]

To the extent that that is a piece of this puzzle, or a piece of this equation, that the member does not believe is important, then he and I will simply disagree on that point.

D. Eby: Where is the supply that the minister is talking about? Where is the initiative to create affordable housing in Metro Vancouver? Where is that housing that I can tell people about who are making the decision — young people — of whether or not to stay in Metro Vancouver and invest their time and energy instead of moving somewhere else? Where is it? Where is that initiative?

I’d love to hear the minister’s suggestion about workforce housing. I’d love to hear the ways he’s going to build

[ Page 13256 ]

additional rental housing for people who are out working in greater Vancouver. I’d love to hear that.

I haven’t heard word one. So to be scolded for failing to support supply from the same minister that brings forward not a single initiative to build affordable housing…. He says that by providing relief for first-time homebuyers from the property transfer tax he’s somehow helping the situation for those families. They are in bidding wars with ten or 15 other families for housing. If he wants to increase supply — wonderful news. Tell me how he is doing that.

But just as important is this question of the difference between investment — constructive, productive investment in building multiple-family housing or in business or in mining or in forestry or in agriculture or in manufacturing in British Columbia — and investing or rent-seeking, as the term that economists use, where you park your money in residential housing.

If this minister is standing up and saying that he’s encouraging international “investors,” speculators, to park their money in the number one luxury real estate market in the world — which is Vancouver, by the way, more than Sydney, more than Hong Kong, more than London or Manhattan — then I think he should say that on the record. Is he encouraging international speculators to park their money in greater Metro Vancouver housing? He should be really clear about that. Then we can draw a very clean line as opposed to smearing everything together and saying: “Oh, you’re opposed to investment and business. You’re opposed to investment in construction.”

No, no. We’re talking about existing residential housing. Is he encouraging international speculators to park their money in housing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t think, in the course of these discussions over the years with the member and others, I have endeavoured to put words in the member’s mouth or in the mouths of his colleagues. I’ll ask that he extend the same courtesy to me.

He has said that he would be supportive of efforts to address the supply of housing. I will take that as a minor victory in these proceedings. He then says and signals again: “Ah, but I see no evidence of that.”

He chooses, apparently purposefully, to ignore the single largest investment in social and affordable housing contained within the budget — $355 million. Now, for the member to say, “It’s not enough. I want more. I think there should be more” — I accept that. I accept that form of criticism. But to dismiss as inconsequential, and to describe as empty, hollow and nonexistent the largest investment ever, I think is disingenuous on a magnificent scale.

To dismiss as inconsequential a step that is designed to encourage the construction of more homes — not by providing funding to the developers themselves, or the builders, but to the people who purchase those homes, to the tune of up to $13,000…. To dismiss that — well, I’ve already said the member and I disagree.

What more can we do? I believe, and I’m endeavouring to verify this, that in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, there are proposals for thousands of new housing units — thousands — and they languish in planning departments, awaiting approval.

[1535]

There is important work to be done by planning departments. I understand that. But when that work takes three, four or five years, it delays the construction and availability of those homes to those who would want to purchase them and are able to purchase them.

I wonder — I don’t have this information — what the impact would be at a time when there are only 2,000 housing units on the market if, in the span of a number of months, we could double or triple that. The private sector wishes to build them. The proposals are there. We can augment that at the social and affordable housing today with social and supportive housing. We have already made a sizeable commitment on that front.

But I didn’t enter into this discussion wanting to poke anyone in the eye. I think there is a difference of opinion. I regret that the member continues to feel that there is inaction. It may not be the approach that he is most comfortable with. I regret that he doesn’t want the government to wait to verify empirically what the impact of this investment is on the marketplace. I mean, I disagree with that approach, but I understand it. I understand that’s the approach.

I understand this. I understand that he represents a part of British Columbia where this problem has revealed itself most acutely, and I respect that. The housing landscape of Vancouver is changing. I think that is true. I think there is trauma associated with that. I think there is a role for government through that transition. I accept all of that. But I regret that the member continues to believe that I do not see this as important or urgent. Most assuredly, I do.

D. Eby: I have a regret too, which is that we’re out of time, because there are so many things that the minister said that deserve response. I just wanted to read into the record some questions that were passed on to me by community members that the minister is welcome to respond to in writing.

“How, in your opinion, does our housing market experience differ from Sidney, Singapore, Hong Kong and Auckland, where these governments find it prudent to restrict international speculation in their housing market, but we don’t?”

“How do you expect to attract tech jobs when young people can’t afford to live near their work?” “What incentives — tax or otherwise — will the minister put in place to encourage housing developments, including rental, that are actually affordable to Metro Vancouver’s workforce?”

[ Page 13257 ]

“Based on record personal debt levels and negative discretionary income for young people, what percentage of mortgage holders in B.C. would be in financial distress if interest rates decreased 1 percent?” “What share of GDP growth in B.C. is directly attributable to residential real estate?”

“What report stats has the government commissioned on the impact of high real estate prices on non–real estate local businesses in the CRD and Metro Vancouver areas?” “On the minister’s new forms, is he requiring disclosure of citizenship residency of all directors of companies that buy real estate in B.C.?”

“What share of the benefit of the property transfer tax cut does the minister actually believe goes to buyers versus sellers in a market with limited supply and very significant international demand?” “How is the minister working with CRA to identify tax evaders in relation to the real estate market? How many reports to CRA? How many requests to CRA for information?”

I thank the minister’s staff very much for all their assistance to him during this process, and I pass the minister on to my colleague, who I understand is waiting in the little House for him.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1540]

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Madame Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. M. de Jong: Forthwith. For the information of members, the estimates for the Ministry of Finance will continue momentarily in the Douglas Fir Room. And in this chamber, I call debate on Private Bill 401.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — MILLAR COLLEGE

OF THE BIBLE ACT

G. Kyllo: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

G. Kyllo: This private bill will give Millar College of the Bible the authority to grant degrees in theology in British Columbia in support of the operation of the Bible college located in the area of Salmon Arm. The bill provides the college with the ability to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates in theology. The bill also includes provisions relating to the management of personal information.

The Millar College of the Bible is registered as an extra-provincial society under the Societies Act.

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P r 401 — MILLAR COLLEGE

OF THE BIBLE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

L. Krog: I just feel it incumbent upon someone in the opposition to stand up and explain. The reason this process is undertaken is because this is such an unusual approach, and the fact that the opposition won’t be asking questions during committee stage of the bill is simply to confirm that this particular bill has already received significant scrutiny in the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

In the circumstances, staff of the ministry of post-secondary education appeared and provided advice to the committee, so there will be no opposition to this bill.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

G. Kyllo: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 13258 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — MILLAR COLLEGE

OF THE BIBLE ACT

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, reported complete without amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. T. Lake: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 23, intituled the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND

MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:48 p.m.

section 1.

K. Corrigan: I’m actually just wondering if perhaps the minister wants to do some introductions of staff first. I’ll just take my seat.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Joining me are the assistant deputy minister, Claire Avison, and Mary Shaw.

K. Corrigan: When we were in second reading stage of this bill…. The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act requires that public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia create sexual violence and misconduct policies and some procedures around that. When we were discussing that, I went into a great deal of depth, which I won’t do now, but certainly expressed real concerns about the level of sexual violence that occurs on our campuses in British Columbia and across Canada. We’re certainly not unique in British Columbia.

We’ve had some pretty high-profile cases, as well, of sexual assaults and sexual violence at our campuses in our colleges and universities, so we are certainly going to support this bill, but I do have some concerns that I will express through committee stage. This, for the vast viewing audience, is a chance for me, as the opposition spokesperson for Advanced Education, to ask questions on a section-by-section basis in a fair amount of depth — to ask the minister, who will, with the assistance of his staff, be able to answer a lot of the questions I have.

[1550]

I want to just thank the great number of people that provided me advice and expressed interest in and had concerns or — certainly, in many cases — supported this piece of legislation. I particularly thank the many student groups that I contacted and that talked to me about it — organizations like the UBC Alma Mater Society, the student society of my alma mater, Kathleen Simpson, and Ashley Bentley of the Sexual Assault Support Centre at UBC, Glynnis Kirchmeier and Randy Singh, the UVic Student Society and, certainly, Simka Marshall and others from the Canadian Federation of Students.

I spoke to a lot of organizations — faculty organizations, as well — and administrators about this because it is such an important bill.

The first question that I want to ask the minister is: what consultation happened in advance of the framing of this bill?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite requests information on the consultation process. In the development of this piece of legislation, all of our post-secondary public institutions and their student associations were contacted and sent a link to the appropriate materials. We requested their feedback, and we received feedback from a substantial number of them.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear. Was that consultation and that request for feedback provided to those student groups and institutions prior to the bill being tabled in this House, or was that after the bill was tabled?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The consultations occurred between the time of the tabling of the private member’s bill by the member from Oak Bay. The date I have on that…. I don’t have that date, actually — and before the government bill was developed by legislative counsel.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns…. I don’t want to mislead. The student groups that I’ve spoken with that represent, umbrella organizations that represent, thousands and thousands of students across British Columbia at many institutions are very pleased about this legislation and supportive of it. But one of the things that they express a concern about is that they had hoped that this legislation would be part of a much larger dialogue about sexualized violence across society.

The reason I’m asking about the consultation that happened is that many of the student groups and others talked about the process that happened in Ontario, whereby a sexual violence plan with funding of around

[ Page 13259 ]

$41 million was put in place prior to the piece of legislation requiring sexual violence policies in post-secondary institutions. It was coupled with fairly comprehensive legislation in a whole range of other areas.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain why that work — looking at a plan, figuring out how to fund that plan and figuring out how to unroll a plan that was comprehensive and resourced — did not happen in British Columbia.

[1555]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The genesis of this bill was that across Canada, in recent years, there have been highly visible and prominently reported episodes of totally unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour and events in places including Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, Lakehead University, Brandon University and some of our institutions here in British Columbia.

Now, given the rising profile of this issue…. We know that these acts have been inappropriately performed for decades, but it has become a social movement to recognize the importance of these and to deal with it. So in light of that emerging social consensus that this had to be dealt with, a number of student bodies and other groups made their positions clear earlier this year.

Some of our institutions have been working on sexual misconduct and violence policies since the middle of 2015. More recently, events at UBC led to a fully fledged process to develop their own internal policy on this issue. That report is to come out in June.

In the midst of that atmosphere of increasing concern and recognition of the fact of this problem and the need for institutions to have a framework to deal with it, the private member from Oak Bay raised this issue in his private act, which mirrored the Ontario act. He then came into contact with ministry staff and with me, and we sorted out the best approach to come out with a bill that would reflect the British Columbia statutory framework and to be an effective tool for requiring our public post-secondary institutions to rise to the occasion and produce these policies in a very timely fashion.

That is the genesis of this. That is why, roughly two months to the day after the introduction of the private member’s bill, we find ourselves here on the edge of passing legislation which will bring to fruition this requirement that our public post-secondary institutions deal with this issue in a forthright manner and come up with a policy framework to protect the safety and the interests of students and others who find themselves subject to these dreadful acts in the campus environment, and potentially beyond the campus environment, so that we can move into this new era with a much more fulsome recognition of the state of the problem and the need to deal with the problem.

Now, I’m sure the question will arise, but I will presuppose the question that our private institutions, of which there are roughly 200 or 300, will also be required to develop a policy framework related to this. But we are in consultation with that sector to sort out exactly what that will look like, because they are truly diverse in character — from residential universities that are private, with thousands of students, down to tiny little schools, such as flight schools with a couple of students.

So we have to be sensitive to their geography, to their resources and to their student profiles so that we can come up with something that’s actually workable, rather than an unworkable framework which proves to be honoured in the breach because it’s simply not pragmatic.

However, for our public post-secondary institutions, we expect to have a fairly comprehensive framework for this, and we’ll be working with them to come up with best practices in this space which can be adopted by all of our 25 public post-secondary institutions around the province as the baseline from which they must not divert. When they adjust those policies for their particular circumstances, whether they’re in Dawson Creek or downtown Burnaby, they will then have moved beyond those best practices into highly specific practices and policies for their own institution.

K. Corrigan: Well, there are those that say that what happened was that the government got scooped by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and then rushed into action. And that’s fine. It doesn’t matter, because the result is that we have a piece of legislation that is supportable.

[1600]

But if that is the case, then I go back to my earlier concern that in Ontario, there was a lot of preparatory work and a $41 million action plan that’s based on “the advice and input from diverse communities” — I’m quoting from Hansard — “advocates, professionals and front-line workers who support survivors, from the courageous survivors themselves and so many others.”

That action plan — which is called It’s Never Okay , and it is Ontario’s sexual violence and harassment action plan — preceded any legislation. It was part of a comprehensive plan and package of legislation which provided protection in the workplace against sexual violence and harassment.

By amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it provided for a similar act to this one, requiring a sexual violence policy at post-secondary institutions — both public and private, and we’ll get back to that. It removed the limitation period for all civil proceedings based on sexual assault and, in certain cases, sexual misconduct or assault. It amended the Residential Tenancy Act. The overall…. There are six acts, altogether, to ensure safer workplaces, safer homes, safer campuses and strong legal protections for survivors.

So while I am supportive of this act, I am concerned that it was put together rather hastily in response to the

[ Page 13260 ]

fact that there was a private member’s bill and that the groundwork, which so many people have called for in a whole variety of areas, has not been done and that we have one stand-alone act. Really, what we need to have is a comprehensive plan and legislative approach that will really change the culture and the protections against sexual violence in British Columbia.

I’m concerned in a similar way with this act. One, it is not comprehensive enough, does not cover the whole gamut. Secondly, again, so much is left to regulation, so we don’t really know what the guts of the act are going to be, although I have some concerns about the specific limitations. I’m wondering if the minister has any comment on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite may remember that our Limitation Act was changed to provide no limitation for sexual assault civil claims about 20 years ago, and so that aspect of the Ontario legislation has been dealt with long ago.

Sexual harassment and other sexual improprieties are broadly addressed in the human rights code in British Columbia. This act, as I said, was designed to move in a fairly expeditious way to recognize the widespread public sentiment about this — including student sentiment — that things had reached the point in British Columbia where the universities and colleges were not in a position to respond in a substantive way to these issues, and certainly not in a consistent way.

So we in the ministry, and thinking in terms of the Legislature, thought that this would be an opportune time to step into this space to take advantage of the efforts being made at UBC and to be able to impose or require the policy framework all around the province so that whether a student is at Thompson Rivers University in Williams Lake or at College of the Rockies in Cranbrook or at the UBC Point Grey campus with 54,000 other students, those students would all have the assurance that they were going to be protected by a policy at the university or college which was responsive to their needs and reflected the current environment and the current standards in this field.

That is what is being developed by the universities and colleges right now.

[1605]

The member queries whether there should have been wider effort and more funding to develop this process. That is, in fact, happening at the universities and colleges, and we will take advantage of that to make it uniform across the universities and colleges.

This is actually, I would suggest, a very efficient way in which to gather the best practices from our various institutions, promulgate them amongst all the institutions and bring this into effect in a timely fashion. We’ve received numerous positive remarks from student activists and sexual-violence-activist bodies saying that this is timely and effective and that they are pleased to see that we’re moving ahead so expeditiously.

If we had engaged in the widespread consultations that the member opposite suggests, including issues such as workplace harassment, this would have taken years. Instead, we’re getting this done in two months.

K. Corrigan: The minister is correct that it did take many, many months, if not years, in Ontario. The belief was that it was appropriate to have a comprehensive look at society and at legislation to see how, as an action plan for the whole province, they could amend a series of acts and come up with a comprehensive plan.

Now, the minister just mentioned that the resources essentially are already there in the post-secondary institutions. I guess this is an appropriate time, then, to ask: are any extra resources going to be provided to post-secondary institutions so that they can develop and implement a sexual violence policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ministry staff, including the two very able staff people here with me today, are involved in a process that is, essentially, a network across our 25 public post-secondary institutions. The heavy lifting is being done by UBC at this point. It’s, by far, our largest institution and has, by far, the biggest budget. And they have internal legal resources and other resources that are not so widely available in the other institutions.

That could be considered the first draft of a provincewide policy that would reflect best practices, but we are waiting for UBC to bring that policy into play in June, and that will be circulated for comment from, obviously, the various student bodies, the student activist bodies, the civil society activist groups. And there will be ample opportunity for consultation around that UBC policy.

We will, of course, be watching that with great interest, because our goal, as I said earlier, is to take that policy and meld it with the policies that are already in place at a couple of other institutions, come up with the very best practices amongst those institutions and then say to all of our institutions: “These are the proposed best practices. You are autonomous academic bodies, but this would be highly desirable if you were to amend this to suit your local circumstances.”

One can consider, perhaps, that in Dawson Creek there may not be a tertiary care hospital that is available for appropriate forensic services for a young woman who’s been the subject of a violent sexual assault. That student may

[ Page 13261 ]

have to be flown to Prince George for those services. I don’t know. Each institution is going to have to take into account their local resources and their local circumstances and adjust the content of the policy accordingly.

Similarly, policing resources are very different in this province. We think of the University of Victoria in Saanich, which would be in connection with the Saanich police. UBC, of course, has a very independent RCMP detachment that deals with allegations of crime there. Then in Burnaby, it’s a different RCMP detachment, etc. The institutions have to adjust the policy to match their local policing environment and to match their local medical and health-related resources and services.

Then, of course, they take into account something that is very, very important, which is their local civil society activist body resources. In metropolitan Vancouver, there will be, as the member knows very well, a number of very capable resources that are, largely, focused on women’s health and women escaping violence. Those are very capable bodies which can be called upon and relied upon for not only advice but also for services in dire circumstances.

[1610]

Those may be helpful to institutions with access to them, but that is not going to be available in Fort St. John. So the institutions are going to have to adjust to local resources and circumstances. We look forward to providing them with the baseline best practices and seeing their response in terms of modifying those best practices to suit local circumstances so that the ministry can be satisfied that they have met the expectations here.

The reporting structure is to the board of governors, in keeping with the legislation reflecting our universities, but at the same time, we in the ministry will be keeping a close eye on these developments to make sure that the institutions are meeting the reasonable expectations of the ministry as they take the best-practices approach, modify it to local circumstances and come up with an up-to-date, effective and clearly transparent and useful policy.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think the minister’s answer is a good illustration of the concern that I and many other people in the province have about what having this stand-alone legislation without other supports and investments and legislative changes — what the concerns are. Essentially, what it seems to me the minister is saying is that the sexual assault policies on campuses are going to be framed according to what local resources they have instead of saying: “We as a province are going to tackle this issue of sexual violence in a comprehensive way, and we’re going to provide the resources.”

The minister talked, for example, about how the policing and health resources are different in different communities, and therefore, a small community like the communities that Northwest Community College, for example, serves might not have the same kinds of h