British Columbia Hansard — 20160512am Hansard v39n8

20160512am-Hansard-v39n8

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fift h Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, May 12, 2016 Morning Sitting Volume 39, Number 8

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ........................................................................................... Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Suzanne Anton, QC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ................................................................. .........................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne, QC (BC Liberal) ...................... Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ..............................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton, QC Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Th ursday, May 12, 2016 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13043 Introduction and First Reading of Bills .............................................................................................................................. 13044 Bill M231 — Greenhouse Gas Reductio n Targets (Penalties) Amendment Act, 2016 V . Huntington Bill M232 — Cave Protection Act, 2016 S.

Fraser Bill M233 — Safeguarding Y oung People’s Future Act, 2016 G. Heyman Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 13046 Political system in Nepal S. Hammell Britannia Shipyard Historic Site and heritage society J. Yap Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education D. Eby Clayburn Village heritage site S. Gibson Domestic workers M. Elmore John Volken Academy addiction recovery centre M.

Hunt Oral Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13048 Housing aff ordability in Lower Mainland D. Eby Hon. M. de Jong Government action on housing aff ordability C. James Hon. M. de Jong Climate change and LNG development A. Weaver Hon. C. Clark Paid-donor plasma clinics J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake School district costs and funding R. Fleming Hon. M.

Bernier Tabling Documents ............................................................................................................................................................... 13053 Offi ce of the Auditor General, An Audit of Mid-Size Capital Procurement in Post-Secondary Institutions, May 2016 Offi ce of the Auditor General, Improving Budgeting and Expenditure Management in the Public Education System, May 2016 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 16-03, lobbyist: Gordon Quaiattini, March 30, 2016 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 16-04, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos, March 30, 2016 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 16-05, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos, March 30, 2016 Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13053 H.

Bains

Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 13053 Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016 L. Popham Hon. N. Letnick Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 13058 Estimates: Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services Hon. A. Virk D. Routley

THURSDAY , MAY 12, 2016 Th e House met at 10:03 a.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. N. Letnick: Today is Animal Protection Day in British Columbia. I invite everyone to come to the south steps to witness this announcement and to also thank the SPCA for all the hard work that they do. Speaking of which, we have the CEO for the BCSPCA, Craig Daniell, in the gallery with us. He’s very famil- iar with cats and dogs, and I hope we give him a good show through question period on how cats and dogs can get along really well.

Would you please make Craig very welcome. [1005] G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are Julie Upton-Raymond and her daughter Danielle Raymond of Maple Ridge. I think many members will be aware of Julie and Danielle because of the tragic death of Danielle’s sister Shannon Raymond as a result of a party bus inci- dent. Th ey have both been tireless advocates for greater regulation in this industry and greater protections for young people. In Danielle’s case, she has done this while pursuing her academic studies and has become a very, very capable and strong advocate, along with her mother.

Joining them today are Shannon’s uncle and aunt, Danielle’s uncle and aunt as well, Laurie and Kathy Upton of Victoria. Will the members please join me in making them welcome to this chamber. Hon. T. Lake: We’ve had many health professionals come and visit with us in the Legislature. Today we are joined by occupational therapists from British Columbia. Th ey work on the front lines of care. Th ey create innova- tion in areas like seniors care, dementia care, driver re- habilitation, return to work and productivity.

Joining us today are Alison Patterson, Andrea McNeill, Katrina Tilley, Sarabjeet Charchun, Sarah Sinanan, Charlene Gilroy, Sharon Campbell, Jeff Boniface, Nicole Matichuk, Lori Cyr and Giovanna Boniface. Th ey’ll be in the Rattenbury Room this aft ernoon, and I hope all members will take an opportunity to drop by and learn more about the great work of occupational therapists. Would the House please make them all very welcome. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, visiting us from the Tri-Cities are three members of the Nepalese-Canadian community. Th ey are Suresh Bhatta, Ramjee Parajulee and Chandrika Parajulee.

Th ey’re visiting the chamber for the fi rst time. Would the House please make them most welcome. D. Ashton: I ask the House to make welcome a won- derful group of kids from Holy Cross School in Penticton and some of the teachers and some of the adult chaper- ones. Please, again, would the House make them welcome. C. James: I have a number of constituents who are visiting in the gallery today, including individuals who provide exceptional public service for all of us working at the Ministry of Social Development.

Th e individuals in the gallery are Danielle Kavadas, Katarina Bogojevic, Tiffany Hamilton, Samantha Lawrence, Evon Soong, Bijan Forghani Soong and Kai Merriman. Would the House please make them very welcome. G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by my mother- in-law, Gwen Stead, who joined us yesterday; my lovely wife, Georgina; and my granddaughter Miss Kylie Plock. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. Workplace safety is one of our government’s top prior- ities. Employees deserve to work in a safe environment, and employers want to provide a safe workplace. It’s just good business.

In many cases, their employees are also their neighbours and their friends. I’m happy to introduce some friends of one of B.C. ’s top occupational health and safety organizations, FIOSA- MIOSA. FIOSA-MIOSA helps more than 3,000 B.C. com- panies deal with their challenges and opportunities specifi c to manufacturing in the food and beverage industries and sets standards for health and safety. Th ey’ll soon be changing their name to the manufacturing safety alliance. I’m pleased to introduce some visitors to the House today. Lisa McGuire is CEO of FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance of B.C.

Daneen Skilling is board chair, and nation- al environmental health and safety manager at Andrew Peller. Maureen Shaw is president of Act Th ree Consulting, and Rick Gibbs is director and president of Neutron Factory Works. Th ey’re in the gallery today, and I’ d like to ask the House to please make them feel very welcome. S. Hammell: I’ d also like to welcome some members of the Nepalese community who are visiting the House for the fi rst time. I’ d like to introduce Anil Pradhan, who is actually the president of the B.C. Nepalese society; Arpana Pradhan; and Meenu Dahal.

Would the House please make them welcome. S. Sullivan: Two very special guests here. One is Christine Elliott. She is a very engaged citizen, a lawyer and an avid long-distance cyclist. We also have Justin Semkuley, who is studying now at the U of T in commerce. [1010] 13043

British Columbia Debates13044 Thursday, May 12, 2016 I must also introduce my other very special guest, my love, my inspiration, my motivation, the one who makes it possible for me to be here at all. Lynn, thank you. Please welcome them all. M. Elmore: I’m very happy to welcome my parents here today. Joining us are Ken and Maria Elmore. Th ey’re on the Island visiting our Great Aunt Isabelle, who is 98 years old and still very feisty and going strong, and family friends joining us here. Madame Speaker, you may not know, but I hold my parents responsible for getting me into politics.

They might be surprised, since they are not interested in politics. Th ey were not enthused when I said that I was running. But I blame them, because my grandfather, my mother’s father, was the vice-mayor of his hometown for many terms. So I think it’s in the blood. It’s just terrifi c. Th ey’re a great source of inspiration and guidance to me, and very supportive now, here. I thank them for their support and ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome. L. Th roness: I have friends visiting from Chilliwack today. Casey and Jane Langbroek are here. Th ey’re life- time residents of Chilliwack.

Casey is an accountant. He was a city councillor for many years and works in all sorts of volunteer positions. Jane also has a political past. She used to work with our former MP Ross Belsher. She works now in insur- ance. Th ey brought with them two of their grandkids, Dylan Langbroek and Brett Bateman. Th ey’re both only ten years old, and they’re already interested in politics. I’m hoping that’s a good thing. Would the House please welcome the Langbroek family. S. Fraser: Joining us in the gallery today are Dr. Carol Ramsey and Paul Griffi ths.

I’ve had the pleasure of crawl- ing around deep underground in caves and caverns in this province. We have some amazing ones. Th ey’re here to witness the introduction of the Cave Protection Act today. Would this House please make Paul and Carol feel very, very welcome. Hon. N. Y amamoto: Y esterday was my chief of staff ’s, Kit Sauder, birthday, so his mother came over from White Rock to take him out for dinner. Today she is joining us for her very fi rst question period, despite the fact that her son has been in this building for several years.

Diana Carlisle is an investment adviser with TD wealth man- agement. I’ d like the House to please make them both feel very welcome. J. Darcy: I’ d like to join with my colleagues in welcom- ing the Nepalese delegation to the House today, and in particular Sheila Sinju from New Westminster. Welcome. I hope the House will join me in welcoming you as well. D. Barnett: Today in the House, I have a constituent. I don’t have the privilege to have that many very oft en. She was born and raised in 100 Mile House. She now lives in Williams Lake, and she works for the Terry Fox Foundation.

Would the House please welcome Karen McCormick today. B. Ralston: I’ d ask the House to welcome another member of the delegation of Canadians who trace their origin to Nepal. Would the House welcome Roshan KC, who is from my riding of Surrey-Whalley. R. Chouhan: I would also like to introduce another member of the Nepalese delegation who happens to be my constituent, Drona Rasali. Please join me to welcome him and all other members of the delegation to this big House, their own House. Welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M231 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION TARGETS (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 V .

Huntington presented a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Penalties) Amendment Act, 2016. V . Huntington: I move that the bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Penalties Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. V .

Huntington: Th is bill amends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to create a fi nancial penalty for members of the executive council who fail to meet British Columbia’s greenhouse gas emissions targets. [1015] It has been nine years since government announced that B.C. ’s reduction target for GHG emissions would be 33 percent below the 2007 levels by 2020. Th e climate leadership team predicts the target will almost certainly be missed. More importantly, should the LNG industry in British Columbia develop as government hopes, the reduction target becomes meaningless.

B.C. would then join the many jurisdictions around the world that have set emissions reduction targets which are inevitably aban- doned because of a failed commitment to show leader- ship in the fi ght against human-induced climate change. Th is pattern of failure has to stop, and we must intro- duce consequences that show failure to reach emissions targets is no longer an option. Th is bill would add accountability to our climate action policy and give teeth to B.C. ’s emissions target. It would

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13045 ensure that government representatives would face fi nan- cial penalty for missing the required emissions reduction. Th is bill relies on a salary holdback provision that is similar to that found in both the balanced budget and the carbon tax legislation. If emissions targets are not met, executive council will have their salary top-up held back in proportion equal to the emissions target they missed. Th is act is a small step forward in ministerial account- ability and would help return the public faith that this government intends to tackle climate change.

If govern- ment wants to consider itself a climate leader, it needs not only meaningful emissions reduction targets but also the policies to match. Th is bill helps fi ll that policy gap. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Bill M231, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Penalties) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. BILL M232 — CAVE PROTECTION ACT, 2016 S.

Fraser presented a bill intituled Cave Protection Act, 2016. S. Fraser: I moved that a bill intituled Cave Protection Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be introduced and now read a fi rst time. Motion approved. S. Fraser: British Columbia is one of the most eco- logically diverse regions in Canada. An important con- tributor to this diversity is its well over 1,000 documented caves. Th e caves of B.C. have been recognized world- wide for their wealth of natural, ecological and cultural resource values.

Caves are universally recognized as being the most fragile and vulnerable of our ecosystems. Th ey can be subject to human caused disturbances occurring direct- ly above them or sometimes taking place at considerable distance from them. Numerous caves in British Columbia have already been damaged through ill-planned land use related to a complete absence of appropriate legislation based on sci- ence. Because they oft en lack the natural restorative pro- cesses that occur on the surface, cave environments can easily be overwhelmed by human caused disturbances.

Given B.C. ’s rich and valuable cave heritage, one might expect that British Columbia would protect caves at all forms of government. Th e truth is that except for caves in parks, in ecological reserves and in several specifi cally designated land areas, B.C. has no real means to protect caves on Crown or private property. B.C. currently off ers far less protection than is available in other jurisdictions. Th ose jurisdictions are watching. It is time for British Columbia to follow international ex- ample and expert scientifi c advice. Th is bill is being re- introduced as a non-partisan means to do just that.

Th at being said, I fi rst introduced this bill back in 2010. Th is government never brought it forward, ignored the science of the day, and here we sit, six years later, with no legal impediments to damaging these most fragile of eco- systems. Th is legislation is informed by science, scientists and the experts. I have the formal written support of the experts in this province, in this country and around the world. Let’s do the right thing this time. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for a second reading at the next sitting aft er today.

Bill M232, Cave Protection Act, 2016, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. BILL M233 — SAFEGUARDING YOUNG PEOPLE’S FUTURE ACT, 2016 G. Heyman presented a bill intituled Safeguarding Y oung People’s Future Act, 2016. G. Heyman: I rise to table a bill intituled the Safeguarding Y oung People’s Future Act, 2016. I move that it be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. G.

Heyman: In 2014, I introduced a version of this bill in the hope it would be supported by both sides of this House in order to protect young people. Th e party bus industry has grown in B.C., and too many operators ignore or abet fl agrant and dangerous use of alcohol and controlled substances. [1020] Even when drinking takes place off the vehicles, un- safe behaviours occur. Alcohol is oft en the principal rea- son for a party bus excursion. Fights are routine, young passengers have fallen from unsecured doors, and others have been left in unsafe and isolated locations following assaults.

Worse, two 16-year-olds, Shannon Raymond and Ernest Azoadam, lost their lives as a result of party bus excursions. As a result of tireless advocacy by Julie and Danielle Raymond, demands of local elected officials and in- creasing publicity, the minister in 2015 introduced one condition outlined in my bill. He required a special au- thorization licence, which allows for greater scrutiny. But the death of 23-year-old Chelsea Lynn Mist James last January highlights the need for greater monitoring of safety conditions.

British Columbia Debates13046 Thursday, May 12, 2016 Th e driver’s job is to concentrate on the road and traf- fi c. A second safety monitor could monitor dangerous conditions and advise the driver. Miss James, a teaching assistant, fell out of the party bus as it made a turn. Th e bus, with the driver unaware of the circumstance, fatally struck her as it passed. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reported in 2014 that more than a dozen people in the U.S. and Canada had been killed and many more injured while aboard party buses in the previous four years.

Washington then adopted legislation to pro- tect young people from risks associated with this industry. Th is bill seeks to enact protections for young people — indeed, all party bus passengers — through safety re- quirements, training and monitoring. It’s time for strong- er action enshrined in law. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill M233, Safeguarding Y oung People’s Future Act, 2016, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) POLITICAL SYSTEM IN NEPAL S. Hammell: In the aft ermath of a devastating earth- quake last April that killed almost 9,000 people and left millions displaced, Nepal has been working hard to re- build and reunite the country.

Aft er 2½ centuries as a monarchy, last September Nepal adopted a federal con- stitution for the fi rst time in its history through an elected Constituent Assembly. Th is group has become the members of the federal legislature. Th e federal legislature is made up of 601 mem- bers representing over 30 political parties. Complicated, wouldn’t you think, but understandable when you realize how ethnically diverse Nepal is. Nepal is made up of more than 125 ethnic groups and 90 diff erent languages — sounds a little bit like the Surrey school district.

Now, as they create seven distinct provinces, the people of Nepal should have more of say in how they are governed. But to add another layer of complication, Nepal is a geographically diverse country, with northern Nepal hav- ing eight of the ten tallest mountains in the world, while the south is fertile and humid. To the west, vast areas of subalpine, coniferous forest are home to hundreds of unique species of fl ora and fauna. Such a diverse country needs to have a diverse leader- ship model, and they are taking major steps to do that.

The transition from a centralized country to a feder- al model poses many challenges, and Nepal is being helped by groups such as the Ottawa-based Forum of Federations. Having been there and having met so many wonder- ful Nepalese people, I am confi dent that the country of Nepal has a very bright future. BRITANNIA SHIPYARD HISTORIC SITE AND HERITAGE SOCIETY J. Y ap: I rise to talk about one of Canada’s national historic sites, Britannia Heritage Shipyard in Steveston, which was fi rst built in 1890 as the site of a salmon can- nery and was later used for the construction and repair of fi shing boats.

Th is shipyard was not just boats and buildings but a historic and multicultural village consisting of canneries, boatyards, stores, residences and bunkhouses.

Its diverse heritage tells us stories of the Chinese, European, First Nations and Japanese workers who turned this waterfront into a thriving community. [1025] Th rough visiting the boatyards and bunkhouses and interacting with artifacts, we can imagine in vivid detail the daily lives and living conditions of these people and learn how diff erent ethnic communities worked together to create innovative maritime vessels, such as the legend- ary MV Fleetwood, a powerful rum-runner boat built in the 1930s, which, it is said, could reach speeds of 40 knots and easily outrun any law enforcement vessel.

Th is century-old village was built on pilings and con- nected by boardwalks and needs to be preserved and protected. And it is, thanks to the city of Richmond and the volunteers of Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society. Th ey arrange tours and host activities, such as learning Morse code and how to tie diff erent boating knots, and cultural activities that include drinking Japanese tea in the Murakami House and trying a dish of fi sh and rice in the Chinese bunkhouse. Th ese interesting programs let visitors experience a bygone era when fi shing and boat- building were fl ourishing industries on the Fraser River.

I know you will join me in thanking the board mem- bers who have made Britannia the amazing cultural and community asset that it is. Kudos to the chair, Loren Slye, and to directors Dan Baxter, Kerry Hassan, Eric Fisher, Carl Hibbert, Andy Hobbs, David Chin, Simon Fawkes, Ann Phelps, Jesse Nakatsura, Niels Andersen, Rob Hayman, Terry McPhail, Kirby Graeme and Jack Scoular. PARENT ADVOCACY NETWORK FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION D. Eby: In June of last year, a group of parents with children in Vancouver public schools came together to make a commitment to improve Vancouver’s public edu-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13047 cation system through engagement, advocacy and public outreach. Th ey’ve called their group the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education. It’s a grassroots, non-partisan coalition of parents that now has representation in over 70 Vancouver schools and parent advisory councils. Th e children of PAN’s mem- bership attend schools from across the city.

Despite geo- graphical separation, these parents are united by their deep commitment to their children and the rights of all children to a high-quality public education as a way to reduce income inequality and improve opportunity for all of B.C. ’s kids. Th e group meets at least once a month and is highly engaged in issues related to public education.

Parents Andrea Sinclair, Maggie Milne, Jennifer Stewart, Amanda Hillis, Erica Jaffi , Corine Wilems, Gili Avrahami, Melanie Antweiler, Rayana Guerin, Heather Legal, Makeesha Fisher and Alan Patola Moosmann spend their time or- ganizing on a shoestring budget to ensure local families are informed on the latest issues. By sharing the latest research and information about public education with parents directly, PAN is highly effective in ensuring parent discussion and feedback about provincial and school board policies that aff ect Vancouver schools and students is informed and relevant.

Th eir latest project is a toolkit for parents that will in- clude fact sheets, a glossary of terms for letter writing, on- line tools and resource lists, event planning information, helpful hints for social media, help on how to make great petitions and how to write letters to the editor. PAN members have met with every Vancouver school board trustee; attended rallies with other concerned parents, teachers and students; and written considered and thoughtful letters to their local MLAs as well as the Minister of Education.

In a time when we’re all concerned about less engage- ment in our political system, fewer people voting, few- er people engaging in community debate, the Parent Advocacy Network is a welcome movement away from that trend. Th ank you to the many members of the Parent Advocacy Network for your commitment to ensure B.C. ’s public school system provides a high-quality public edu- cation to every B.C. student. CLAYBURN VILLAGE HERITAGE SITE S. Gibson: I want to take this opportunity to speak about a historical treasure in my constituency of Abbotsford-Mission, just east of Highway 11.

For well over 100 years, Clayburn Village has served as an important reminder of Abbotsford’s history. Located at the foot of Sumas Mountain, Clayburn was the fi rst com- pany town in the province. It was built by the Clayburn Co. to provide its workers with housing and other services. It was the discovery of high-grade clay in the area and the demand for bricks to build a growing British Columbia that gave the Clayburn Co. its boost and brought the village into being. Th e company was founded in 1905 by Charles Maclure, one of B.C. ’s pioneers.

Later on there was a road, Maclure Road, named aft er him, a major artery in our commun- ity. Th e quality of his product became known around the world, being marketed as far away as Mexico and Hawaii, before the factory was dismantled in 1931 due to falling demand. Clayburn Village is a reminder of Abbotsford’s excit- ing entrepreneurial and shared heritage.

Many of the buildings are still standing in the village and have been designated as national historic sites, a testament to the craft smanship of our province’s early pioneers and the importance we place on preserving history. [1030] Clayburn Store is a delightful place in the village where you can get a delicious treat and British tea and a scone. I would encourage all members of our house to come out to Clayburn Village — it’s only about an hour from Vancouver — and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the community. I’m very proud to represent the Clayburn community here in our Legislature. DOMESTIC WORKERS M.

Elmore: Th ey care for the things we value the most: our families and our friends. Th ey care for your chil- dren, provide essential support for seniors, and they al- low people with disabilities to live with dignity at home. Domestic workers perform the home care work that makes all other work possible. Y et for many years, they’ve laboured in the shadows, and their work is not valued. Th ere’s an international campaign underway to change that.

International Domestic Workers Day, on June 16, celebrates the 2011 passage of the International Labour Organization’s convention 189 for decent work for do- mestic workers. Th e convention represents a historic step towards domestic work being recognized like any other profession, and it works to establish fundamental labour protections. Th is international treaty acknowledges domestic work- ers as equal to any other wage earners.

Convention 189 brings domestic workers international recognition and dignity, where previously they were unrecognized and undervalued, though they number millions in the world and are mostly women. Th e majority are racialized and are mothers, themselves, who left their own families. Although they contribute much to our economy, they do not enjoy the same rights and benefi ts as other workers. Domestic workers perform the lowest-paid work in any labour market, and they ex- perience poor and even abusive working conditions. Th e protection of domestic workers’ rights should not rely on the compassion of employers.

It must be guaran- teed by governments. Th ey should have a path to perma-

British Columbia Debates13048 Thursday, May 12, 2016 nent residency and open work permits in order to live, work, study, access social benefi ts and be fully protected. Th ey deserve dignity, respect and basic labour protections. Twenty-two countries around the world have already signed onto convention 189. It is time that Canada also ratifi es it and for B.C. to enact legislation to protect these vulnerable and valuable workers. JOHN VOLKEN ACADEMY ADDICTION RECOVERY CENTRE M.

Hunt: I rise today to recognize an exceptional insti- tution doing great work in my community to help people aff ected by addiction overcome their illness and change their lives. Th e John Volken Academy fi rst opened its doors almost 15 years ago as WelcomeHome. Last April it unveiled a fantastic new facility in Surrey that accom- modates 150 students undergoing treatment for drug and alcohol addictions. The academy’s treatment program centres around establishing a therapeutic community where all students are considered equal in their individual fi ghts to over- come addiction.

Whereas other institutions oft en depend upon treatment through pharmaceuticals such as meth- adone, treatment at the academy operates through a hu- man support system. Students assist and encourage each other to conquer their illness, growing and changing as a group as well as individuals along the way. Th e academy is also committed to giving its students the skills and knowledge they need to lead rewarding and meaningful lives post-treatment.

Students progress through six levels of advancement towards graduation and are given increased opportunities, responsibilities and leadership positions to build their confi dence and abilities during treatment. Additionally, students who show inter- est in furthering their education have the opportunity to enrol in on-line courses in their area of interest through universities in Arizona, Washington state and British Columbia, including a certifi cate in agritech and horti- culture recognized by the University of the Fraser Valley.

I would like to thank the Volken Academy for all the work it has done and the lives it has changed by off ering a message of hope. Th is treatment regime has allowed students to conquer their addiction, improve themselves and, in so doing, realize their full potential to lead mean- ingful lives. [1035] Oral Questions HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN LOWER MAINLAND D. Eby: When the amount of the Premier’s $50,000-a- year stipend finally became public, the Premier had a strong defender, and I’m not talking about the leader of the B.C. Green Party. Peter Brown, longtime B.C.

Liberal Party fundraiser, couldn’t see any problems with the Premier taking home $300,000 over five years from donations made to the B.C. Liberal Party. Now that same Mr. Brown just sold his mansion in Vancouver for $31.1 million, $5.6 million over the assessed value. He sold it to a student. Now, when hard-working families see that the very person defending the Premier’s stipend making tens of thousands of dollars in donations to the Premier’s B.C.

Liberal Party, selling his home for $31.1 million to a stu- dent, all while the Finance Minister says, “Nothing to see here in the Metro Vancouver housing market, ” they ask the question: is this government wilfully blind to what’s happening in the Metro Vancouver housing market be- cause their donors like it that way? Hon. M. de Jong: Let me off er up for the member, and members, something that I am eminently familiar with, out in the part of the province that I call home, the east- ern Fraser Valley.

I can name at least six families who have made this decision, whose children, or child, may want to attend the Vancouver Film School or UBC. Th ey make the decision to purchase a home for that child, and it represents an investment. Well…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. M. de Jong: Th ey make that decision as a family, and it represents an investment and a home for that child to live in. Now, the members…. Th e member appears off ended by that notion. Beyond that, I would suggest that it’s time for the member to get beyond the generalities. We’ve in- creased the property transfer tax.

I’m not going to com- ment on any specifi c transaction, but I can tell members this: on a $31 million purchase and sale, the property transfer tax is now, as a result of the increase that was in- cluded in the budget, nearly $1 million. Now, the member, as he is entitled, presumably doesn’t think that’s enough. If he wants to be taken seriously, why doesn’t he stand up — because he’s got another crack at it — and tell us what he thinks is enough? Tell us how much the vacancy tax that he would propose to impose is go- ing to be.

Tell British Columbians how much the specu- lation tax that he keeps talking about is going to be. Stop lurching from idea to idea in abstract, and give British Columbians some specifi cs. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. D. Eby: I was hoping, for the fi rst time since I’ve been here, that the Premier would stand up and talk about her commitment to providing student housing.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13049 Now, this Finance Minister says: “No problem. No problem in Metro Vancouver’s housing market. ” But a new study, released yesterday, says that couples between the ages of 25 and 35 years old in Vancouver have the low- est discretionary income of anywhere in Canada, so low that it’s actually negative. Couples in the same age group in Victoria have the third-lowest discretionary income of anywhere in Canada. Choosing to live in almost any other city in Canada means an extra $10,000 or more in discretionary income. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. D.

Eby: I don’t know. Is this a joke for the government? Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. D. Eby: As long as the donors are happy, hon. Speaker. [1040] To the Premier, who needs $240,000 a year to live in Metro Vancouver, how can she defend two of the three lowest-discretionary-income cities in Canada being in British Columbia? Hon. M. de Jong: It is regrettable that the member ap- pears to want, merely, to deal in the abstract and not pro- vide actual facts, actual…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon.

M. de Jong: Y ou know, it’s not the first time I have heard the opposition propose tax increases for British Columbians and not want to tell them how much. Th at, of course, is what they are proposing. But look, back to good news. StatsCan…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Th is House will come to order. Proceed. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks, Madame Speaker. StatsCan has posted their numbers for the coun- try in terms of economic growth and, for 2015, has confi rmed that British Columbia has not only led the nation again; we are almost three times the national rate, at 3 percent economic growth.

I know that the Minister of Jobs was talking about that yesterday when she spoke at the Canada’s Building Trades…. I’m sure members of the opposition who were there would’ve heard…. Oh, of course, they weren’t there, because they weren’t invited. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Members. Please continue. D. Eby: Th ank you, hon. Speaker. Th is minister has a lot of questions. He’ll have a lot of time to ask questions when he and his government are sitting on this side of the House aft er the next election.

We hid our secret agenda in a private member’s bill that the government can call any day if they’ d like to pass it. According to this Finance Minister, everything’s under control. Everything’s normal. So a normal real estate market for this government is one where a student can scrape together $5.6 million over the assessed value and pay $31.1 million for a house in Vancouver. Now, that’s a market where the average 25- to 35-year-old in Metro Vancouver has negative income. If this is all-systems-nor- mal for this government, I don’t know what information it’s going to take to convince them otherwise.

Th e Finance Minister says he’s going to study the mar- ket himself, personally, and let us know if he sees a prob- lem. Well, what information in his study will convince him that there’s a problem with aff ordability in Metro Vancouver’s housing market? Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t want to leave an incorrect impression. I quite enjoy the exchange with the dauphin of the NDP . Interjections. Hon. M. de Jong: Well, now I am troubled, Madame Speaker. [Laughter.] Look, there is, clearly, a market dynamic at play that I think is of concern to people in, particularly, one part of British Columbia.

Th ere seem to be emerging two theories around approach, and I have acknowledged this openly. [1045] I and the government believe that, primarily, where the focus should be is on improving supply and reducing some of the pressure that accrues from having way more people looking for a fi nite product. Th e opposition, from what I can gather, takes a very diff erent view. Y esterday the member’s colleague from Mount Pleasant, in very clear terms, described it as a de- mand problem. It seems that the opposition, given the chance, would address that in the way the NDP tradition- ally addresses that.

Th ey would raise taxes and create an

British Columbia Debates13050 Thursday, May 12, 2016 economy that discourages people from coming to British Columbia. We think that’s the wrong approach. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY C. James: I’ d like to let the Finance Minister know that this side of the House will always stand up for aff ordabil- ity for families in British Columbia. Th at is what we are going to stand up for. Most students I know are trying to fi gure out how to pay off student loans. Th ey aren ’ t trying to fi gure out how to take out a $9.9 million mortgage on a $31 mil- lion house.

Th is housing crisis is not simply in the Lower Mainland, as the minister has said. It’s actually right here in Victoria as well. According to the Vancity report, Victoria is the third-worst city in the country when it comes to aff ord- ability. Very few families can aff ord to buy a house. If they do, they have little left over for their basic monthly expenses. My question is to the minister. How can the govern- ment believe that this is acceptable? Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member, I presume, pur- posely chooses to ignore the steps that the government has taken.

I regret, by the way, that the member and her col- leagues seem to dismiss the importance of collecting sound data. I realize the opposition, historically, doesn’t want to be burdened by the facts. Maybe that is why they decided to stop collecting the information in the 1990s. We think, on a matter of this importance, it is valid and legitimate to want to collect information. I was unsuccessful with the member’s colleagues, but I invite this member…. She is, apparently, advocating an approach to this that is rooted in tax increases. So stand in this place, this public forum, and tell British Columbians.

If the 3 percent additional property transfer tax that the government added in the last budget is not enough, what would the property transfer tax be under the NDP? If they want to create a speculation tax, tell British Columbians in what circumstances and at what rate that speculation tax would apply. If they want to tax people who buy condos and whose strata councils pre- clude rentals, tell British Columbians what the rate on the vacancy tax would be. Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supple- mental. C.

James: If the minister wants to do a bit of research, go back and read the bill that was tabled by our leader in the Legislature, with solutions coming forward. It’s not just market housing that is unaff ordable for young couples, for families, for seniors. As this report tells us, Vancouver has the highest rent in this country, paired with a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent. Th e rental vacancy rate in Victoria is 0.06 percent. For fam- ilies who choose to rent rather than buy, even if they can fi nd a place to rent, they’re struggling to make it month to month. My question, again, is to the Finance Minister.

Whether it’s trying to buy a home or fi nding a place to rent, hous- ing is a basic need that is out of reach for so many people in our province. When will this government act to ad- dress what is a crisis? Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure I could have made a better argument than the member just did for the fact that what we have is a supply issue in British Columbia. Surely everything she has just said points to the fact that what governments at all levels need to do is fi nd a way to expedite the construction of the thousands of units of housing that are… Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon.

M. de Jong: …languishing in applications and zoning departments. Interjections. [1050] Madame Speaker: Just wait, Minister. Please continue. Hon. M. de Jong: I’m actually gratifi ed to know that at least one member opposite, from Vancouver, acknow- ledges that as part of our robust economy, homes are be- ing built in record numbers. Th at’s good news for the construction sector and good news for families.

But there is more that can be done, and I think the hon. member has made an excellent case for how governments must work together to ensure that the supply of housing grows and that those options exist for British Columbians that want to fulfi l the dream of home ownership. CLIMATE CHANGE AND LNG DEVELOPMENT A. Weaver: I had so many questions I wanted to ask today, but unfortunately, the Premier’s estimates ended early. I guess the Leader of the Offi cial Opposition was afraid, as I was scheduled to be up on the Premier’s es- timates today. So let me pick just one of these questions. Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13051 A. Weaver: Last week the Premier commented on the wildfi re situation in Fort McMurray. Remarkably, she used the disaster as an opportunity to point out the im- portance of investment in the oil and gas sector. A couple of weeks prior, the Premier told a group in Fort St.

John: “If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fi ght climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fi res burning out of control. ” While the scientifi c community has understood the link between global warming and the increasing occur- rence of large wildfi res for quite some time, the Premier’s statement is utterly bizarre. It’s about time that this gov- ernment level with British Columbians and point out that developing an LNG industry in B.C. is simply not com- patible with climate leadership. My question to the Premier is this.

How can the Premier continue to talk about showing climate leader- ship while at the same time completely undermining the climate policies put in place by the previous administra- tion and using every opportunity to promote fossil fuel development in this province? Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member’s questions, given that I didn’t get that opportunity yesterday. And thanks to the member for the question. He and I, there is no doubt…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. C. Clark: Th ere is no doubt that the member and I have a fundamental disagreement about this.

He’s stated his case, and now I’ll state mine, and that is to say that around the world today, there are 1,000 coal plants on the books, ready to be built, 150 of them in and around Beijing, in China. Th e only way that those coal plants will be prevented from being built is if they have an al- ternative source of energy. And that energy needs to be a transitional fuel that is already in production around the world, which we can get there. But here’s the problem. We all want to move to renew- able energies, and we would all, ultimately….

I know Canada has committed to the international commit- ment of trying to get off fossil fuels altogether. We are not there yet. And the challenge for humanity today is: how do we make sure that we prevent those coal plants from being built? How do we minimize the GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced in the processing and production of that energy? British Columbia can play a vital

part in that by pro- ducing the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, by produ- cing it in the cleanest method that anyone does around the globe, by shipping it to places like China, displa- cing much dirtier fuels with this very clean and im- portant transitional fuel and, at the same time, creating over 100,000 jobs over 30 years for British Columbians — which I know the members of the opposition, every single day, will stand up and oppose. [1055] Madame Speaker: Th e member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental. A.

Weaver: Th is government has got its own Climate Action Team, and they noted: “New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012. ” In fact, we’ve weakened or repealed a number of these existing policies. Th e government really can no longer claim leadership and, frankly, have lost credibility on the climate leader- ship fi le. Th e province has a legislated goal to reduce carbon emissions from the current 62 megatonnes to 43 megatonnes by 2020, and 13 megatonnes by 2050.

One single LNG plant would add 15 megatonnes, and every British Columbian would have to provide negative emis- sions by 2050. My question to the Premier is this. Will she commit to- day to abandon this government’s reckless and desperate attempts to land a hypothetical LNG project via a gener- ational sellout and, instead, commit to aggressively in- crease the price on carbon and begin the transformation of our economy towards a low-carbon future, or instead, will she continue to do her part to commit the youth of today to a desperate future of species extinction and geo- political instability? Hon. C.

Clark: I have to say that was such a long ques- tion that it might have been more suited to the estimates process than question period. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to do that today. I will say this. Th e investment in British Columbia for LNG so far is not hypothetical. Th e $20 billion invested in boots on the ground in our province is not hypothetical. We remain the only jurisdiction in Canada and in North America that has the highest and broadest carbon tax. We are well out in front of any province in this country, any state in the United States, by a long shot.

We continue to maintain the only carbon-neutral government in Canada. We are working to build Site C, which will be a source of clean, low-cost energy for gen- erations to come, despite the opposition of the members across the way. We are poised to make the biggest con- tribution to fi ghting climate change that Canada has ever made, with the export of liquefi ed natural gas. I know that the forces of no across the way, in the NDP , oppose every step of the way the creation of an LNG in- dustry and the jobs that would come from it for all of those working people around the world.

But at least they can admit that while we’re putting…. If they don’t want to put people to work, they should at least join us in wanting to fi ght climate change by exporting this cleanest fossil

British Columbia Debates13052 Thursday, May 12, 2016 fuel on the planet and displacing those dirtier sources of fuel that will otherwise inevitably be built. PAID-DONOR PLASMA CLINICS J. Darcy: Tens of thousands of Canadians have joined with victims of the tainted blood scandal to urge govern- ments right across this country to ban pay-for-plasma clinics. Th ere is a very real fear that these paid clinics will hurt the safety and the security of Canadian blood and put it at risk, yet this Health Minister, for reasons unknown, has taken an aggressive position in favour of pay-for-plasma clinics.

Now, Canadian Plasma Resources, a division of a giant pharmaceutical company, has a clinic operating in Saskatchewan, and they’ve announced that they expect to double their production in Canada very soon. To the Minister of Health, is he aware of specifi c plans for a private corporation to open a pay-for-plasma clinic in British Columbia? Hon. T. Lake: Th e member is absolutely wrong. I am ideologically neutral on the issue. Th e member is…. Interjections. Hon. T. Lake: Th e members are just wrong.

We have said we recognize that currently 70 percent of the plas- ma protein products that save lives in Canada come from paid donors — not in Canada, but in the United States and in Europe. [1100] Th e idea of becoming more self-suffi cient in plasma proteins for Canadians actually seems like a pretty good one. Canadian Blood Services is unable to meet the need through the voluntary system we have.

If we do not ac- knowledge that paid plasma is necessary to save lives, then I want the hon. members to stand up and say today, to patients who need that valuable product, what they would do when that source is no long there. Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J. Darcy: Th e minister is just dead wrong on this, be- cause the CEO of Canadian Blood Services has been crystal-clear that just because there’s a Canadian blood operator doesn’t mean CBS would be buying it from Canada. He’s just wrong about that. Let’s be clear about how Canadian Plasma Resources got started in Ontario.

First, they spent money to set up clinics. Th ey didn’t bother to seek federal approval before they started operating. Th en they went ahead with col- lecting blood without the okay from the province. Safe-blood advocates and the Ontario government worked for two years to shut them down. Now it seems this company may be trying the same tactic in B.C. We know that both the minister’s offi ce and the Premier’s offi ce have met with lobbyists acting for Canadian Plasma Resources.

To the Minister of Health, has this company given him any indication if they plan to press ahead with a pay-for-plasma clinic in B.C., and what was the minis- ter’s response? Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I want to make it clear that the Canadian Hemophilia Society, a very important pa- tient advocacy group, says that paid plasma donation is not a health risk. Th at argument has been laid to rest by all levels of scientists and government organizations. Th e member still refuses to tell this House what she would say to patients that don’t have the life-saving medi- cation that they need.

And she hasn’t said that she doesn’t think it’s hypocritical that we get paid plasma to save lives today from the United States, from Europe, rather than Canadian sources. Health Canada regulates this area. In British Columbia, we want to make sure that critical medicines are available for British Columbians. SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING R. Fleming: Saanich school district — and every school district — has told this government that provin- cial cuts and downloading of costs are forcing our school system into defi cit. Saanich has stable enrolment. Th ey’ve already made a decade of cuts.

Th ere is no low-hanging fruit. It’s clear that the Liberal’s so-called administrative savings are, in fact, cuts to the classroom, and the min- ister knows it. It means fi ring teachers and learning as- sistants, eliminating counsellors, cutting mental health programs and hitting parents with more fees to make up for B.C. Liberal underfunding of education. What is striking about this situation is how utterly un- necessary it is.

If the minister were to cancel his cuts and do one other thing — fund the Telus Internet contract — Saanich school district and every other district in British Columbia could balance their budgets. Osoyoos could save its high school. Communities like Kersley could keep their local schools instead of putting fi ve- and six- year-old kids on buses for hours a day starting next year. My question to the minister is this: will the minister fi nally stand up in this House and stand up for invest- ment in our kids’ education?

Or does he still think that his government’s $230 million tax cut for millionaires is more important than an investment in education? Hon. M. Bernier: Just to set the record straight, I met with the Saanich school district. I really want to thank them for the work that they are doing. In fact, they had a meeting just last night, and they announced at that meeting that they’re going to be able to put forward a balanced budget. [1105]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13053 When you look at what’s going on around the province, when you look at the fact that we have record funding — $5.1 billion going into the education system, a $100 mil- lion increase this year…. We continue to work with the school districts right around the entire province to make sure — why, hon. Speaker? — that money, record funding money, is going into the classroom. It is going into pro- grams.

It’s going to help the students in the province of British Columbia achieve what we all know in this House, that the members opposite don’t like to admit to, which is the great outcomes that we have that are known globally as some of the best in the world — what we’re getting in our education system in the province of British Columbia. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports.

Auditor General report, An Audit of Mid-Size Capital Procurement in Post-Secondary Institutions ; Auditor General report, Improving Budgeting and Expenditure Management in the Public Education System. Offi cer of the Registrar of Lobbyists Investigation Report 16-03, lobbyist: Gordon Quaiattini; Investigation Report 16-04, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos; Investigation Report 16-05, lobbyist: Dimitri Pantazopoulos. Petitions H. Bains: Th ese are the petitions by manufactured home owners asking for better protection when the park owner decides to develop the land and gives them evic- tion notices. Hon. J.

Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. J. Rustad: With us in the gallery today are grades 11 and 12 students and the chaperone from the Houston Christian School in my riding. Joining them is their prin- cipal, Clint Endacott. Will the House please join me in making them welcome. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s Committee of Supply and the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services; and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act. [1110] Committee of the Whole House BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (GENERAL) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 11:12 a.m. On

section 1. L. Popham: Th e proposed legislation is around chan- ges to the Agricultural Land Commission and the pow- ers that it has. Th e changes, to me, are quite interesting. I wonder if the minister could explain to me: why is he putting forward this amendment now? Hon. N. Letnick: I’ d like to thank the hon. member for the question and also introduce the staff that are with me. Linda Bates, our legislative specialist, and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Derek Sturko, are here to assist with answering the questions.

Probably a couple of years ago, maybe even three years ago, the commission was discussing doing a boundary review in parts of the province. We, as a government, supported that by providing them with extra resources. Actually, between three years ago and today, since I’ve had the privilege of this role, their budget has gone from $1.9 million to $4.5 million. Part of that increase was to work with local communities to do boundary reviews in some areas.

Th e timeline of the boundary reviews talked about do- ing a pilot project in the East Kootenays to begin with and, as the pilot project came to fruition, taking the learnings from that pilot project and applying them to other areas as it expanded out of the Kootenays and further north. During the pilot project, we heard from local residents who were going to be excluded from the agricultural land reserve that they wanted to stay within the reserve.

We also received submissions, verbal and written, from mem- bers of the House on both sides suggesting that, indeed, those citizens should be respected in the sense that if they don’t provide consent to getting their land removed from the reserve, they shouldn’t have to be forced out. [1115] Government considered all the input that we’ve re- ceived over the last couple of years and then made a de- cision to do exactly that. Th at’s how we got to today — to ensure that if someone is going to be getting their land removed from the agricultural land reserve, they need to provide their consent before that can happen.

L. Popham: Given all the input that the minister re- ceived, what were the variety of reasons that people want- ed to stay in the agricultural land reserve?

British Columbia Debates13054 Thursday, May 12, 2016 Hon. N. Letnick: Th e number one concern that people had was the impact on their property taxes. L. Popham: Given that that was the majority of the reasons, the minister decided at that point that people should have the choice to stay within an agricultural land reserve that is governed by a commission whose mandate is to protect agricultural land and to encourage farming — that they should be allowed, by choice, to override a com- mission decision to stay in the reserve for tax purposes. Hon. N.

Letnick: Actually, the way it works is if they don’t give consent, the commission doesn’t have the op- portunity to review their fi le and make a decision to re- move them from the reserve. So they’re not overriding the commission. Th ey have to provide consent fi rst. Th e other piece, besides property taxes, is the school tax issue as well. L. Popham: From my understanding, if you have land within the agricultural land reserve, your school tax pay- ment is 50 percent of the going rate? Hon. N. Letnick: Y es. Th at’s correct. L. Popham: Okay.

If the Agricultural Land Commission assessed property and showed that it had absolutely no agricultural value, with this legislation they would still stay in the agricultural land reserve regard- less of a boundary review and, by doing so, would pay only 50 percent of school taxes and a reduced amount of property tax? Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to repeat the process as per the proposed legislation. Th e Agricultural Land Commission, as they’re doing their boundary reviews, would come into a community and identify potential lands that they believe might be removed from the agricultural land reserve.

Th ey would then seek the consent of those property owners — if they would consent to be considered for those decisions. If the property owners provide their consent, then the Agricultural Land Commission would go about doing its work to determine the agricultural values of those parcels. If the commission does not get the consent, the property owner would not be subject to that review through the boundary review. L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what the value of these lands would be to an agricultural land reserve, given the reasons why we know the reserve was established?

What would add value to the reserve in allowing these properties to stay in it? [1120] Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I want to reiterate that the purpose of the amendment to the legislation is to pro- vide property owners the ability to have their choice as to whether or not to be considered for removal from the agricultural land reserve. Th e commission still has their independence, to make sure that they continue to protect agricultural land throughout British Columbia, but when they’re doing these specifi c boundary reviews, we are listening to those property owners from that area.

Quite frankly, as I said to the media yesterday — which I’m sure the hon. mem- ber has had a chance to see — we have two local MLAs, from both sides of the House, expressing their opinion that these citizens should have the opportunity to provide their consent, in a trial run in a place in the Kootenays, a pilot project.

Th ereby, I would suspect, as the boundary review con- tinues throughout many parts of the province, we would have a continuous story from local property owners, some of whom would not want to have their lands in- cluded in this review, where the local MLAs — again, on both sides of the House — would be coming to the min- ister of the day saying: “Why are you doing this?” I thought, and I still do believe, that it’s in the best inter- est of agriculture that the Agricultural Land Commission focus on those properties and that the property owners provide consent to have their lands considered for re- moval. L.

Popham: Well, that’s an interesting answer. Maybe the minister could remind me of the purpose of a bound- ary review. Hon. N. Letnick: Th e purpose of the review is for the land commission to refi ne the boundaries of the reserve. As the member knows, when the original boundaries were created back in the early ’70s, they were done with a wide brush. Th is provides a little more articulation as to where the boundaries should be. L. Popham: In establishing new boundaries through a boundary review, what is the purpose of doing that? Is it to increase the value of the agricultural land reserve?

Is it to make the agricultural land reserve more defensible? I’m wondering how the option to stay in the reserve without any agricultural value fi ts into the idea of spend- ing money on a boundary review by government. [1125] Hon. N. Letnick: We believe that the boundary review will help the ALC in continuing its mandate. As the mem- ber knows, there are applications on an annual basis for exclusions and inclusions into the land reserve. By doing the boundary review and tightening up the boundaries of the reserve, that should help reduce those applications.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13055 L. Popham: My

interpretation of a boundary review is this. Once a boundary review is completed, that bound- ary review is a decision. Th ose are the decisions that have been made. It’s one decision on the boundaries that are being reviewed. Th e value of doing that is that we don’t continually have one-off applications that add weight onto the work- load of the commission. Th e money that’s invested in a boundary review is really to take the place of having con- tinual application processes.

Th e properties that have no agricultural value should be coming out of the agricultur- al land reserve, and properties that do have agricultural value go back into the agricultural land reserve. On the Elk Valley boundary review, the proposal was to exclude 1,437 hectares of land and to include 739 hec- tares of land. Th is means that there was 1,437 hectares of land that were within the boundary review that had no agricultural value.

When an application comes into the Agricultural Land Commission, the problem that we’ve seen over the years is that there is an increasing number of applications, be- cause the highest and best use for agricultural land is development, in some people’s minds. Th ere are a lot of other uses for agricultural land. Th e Agricultural Land Commission, with its mandate to protect the agricultural land, is stuck, because it’s a constant pressure to remove land from the ALR for other purposes.

If we do not shore up the boundaries and fi ne- tune the boundaries, then we are asking for this continual application process to continue. Th ere’s something that I’ d like to point out, and it’s something that I’ve heard in the media — that there has been a tie to farm tax status for properties in the agricul- tural land reserve. Y ou do not have to be in the agricultur- al land reserve to get farm tax status. Y ou can be outside of it. Y ou have to meet a certain amount of productivity to be able to get farm tax status, which gives you a reduc- tion in property tax.

If you stay in the agricultural land reserve, you’ve never farmed, your farm has zero agricultural value, you’re still receiving tax benefi ts for being in a reserve that is spe- cifi cally put in place as a land use tool to preserve agri- cultural land. I’m going to ask the minister again. What is the value to the agricultural land reserve of keeping land in that has no agricultural value? Th is decision of his — does it have anything to do with agriculture? [1130] Hon. N. Letnick: I’ d just like to remind the member that the review is a process.

Th e decision on the bound- aries isn’t done in a single decision of the commission. It’s done on a case-by-case basis, based on a particular parcel or parcels of property. [R. Lee in the chair.] What we are saying with the proposed amendment is that if you’re not going to give consent to have your property removed from the reserve, then the commission should not be reviewing and removing your land from the reserve. We’ve also said that we are doing this pri- marily because of the objections by the property owners in the pilot area because of the impact from school taxes.

It is important to remember that the commission can and will probably continue to hear applications on farm use, on exclusions, on inclusions, even in areas where they’ve already done boundary reviews. Property owners may want to include their land in at some point. Others might want to exclude. Others might want to do non-farm use, like a mechanic shop or a tax offi ce or something else that the commission, in its independent wisdom, determines is appropriate for the land. I made it very clear what this is about. It’s been, I as- sume, supported by some members of the opposition. At least, I know one.

It’s also supported by the government to make sure that if the commission has an intent to re- view the boundaries of the reserve, if they are going to do that, they get permission — consent is probably the better word — or consent from the individual property owner to have their land considered for exclusion. L. Popham: I’ d just like to have it on record. Does the minister believe that keeping land in the agricultural land reserve, with absolutely no agricultural value, threatens the defensibility of the reserve? Hon. N.

Letnick: Once again, the process is that the property owner has to give consent before the commis- sion determines whether or not the land has agricultural value. Th e member is presuming a conclusion which has not occurred. We are talking about consent prior to the commission making any determination. L. Popham: While looking on the website, I saw that there are two reviews that are almost complete. What happens to that work that’s been done? Hon. N. Letnick: Th at’s under

section 3, the transi- tional provisions. L. Popham: Well, then, let’s put it in the context of sec- tion 1. If work has been done and properties have been assessed…. I think we both know they have been. I think we know there has been ongoing work being done. So if there has been…. What the minister is saying to me today is that the commission absolutely has no mandate over the agri- cultural land reserve in an area that’s having a boundary review. Th ey have no mandate over that. Landowners, individually, do. So the commission cannot weigh in on agricultural value. How they do that is they look at it in a scientifi c way, and they use soil classifi cation to do that.

British Columbia Debates13056 Thursday, May 12, 2016 Th e Agricultural Land Commission, who we’ve given the power to protect our agricultural land in this prov- ince, is not allowed to weigh in on the scientifi c agricul- tural capability of a piece of land unless a property owner says they can do it, even though they’re inside the agri- cultural land reserve. [1135] Hon. N. Letnick: Th ere are two parts to the pro- cess. I’ll just go through them. In the case of what’s happening currently, the review of an area would be done. Parcels would be identified, and then public hearings would be held.

Th at’s all we have so far in the areas that were in the pilot, so no decision has been announced yet. In the future, if this amendment passes, the review would be done, parcels would be identifi ed, hearings would be held, and then the landowner would be asked for consent if they wanted to be considered for a decision. Again, no decision would be done prior to their consent. I’m only speculating, but I would imagine that the ALC, if this is passed, would actually go to the parcel owners when they’re identifi ed and ask for consent at that point, but that would be up to them.

Just to repeat, for the ones that have already been done, the review has been done, parcels identifi ed, hearings held, but no decision has been made on those yet. L. Popham: Th e minister said that one of the main rea- sons that somebody who had a piece of land that had no agricultural value would want to stay in the reserve was to avoid paying school taxes. Could the minister tell me how much that would be? Hon. N. Letnick: Land in the ALR, farmed or not, receives an exemption from school tax of 50 percent of the assessed value of the parcel of the land.

If the land in the ALR is farmed, it receives additional 50 percent tax credit for school taxes payable. Land not in the ALR but farmed receives a 50 percent tax credit for school taxes payable only. All dwellings, buildings on the land, regard- less of whether it in the ALR or not, pay the full school tax amount. L. Popham: Th e minister must have done some analy- sis on how many properties this would pertain to. Can the minister tell me what he’s learned? [1140] Hon. N. Letnick: We have two areas in the Kootenays, area B and area E.

In area B, 440 acres have been identi- fi ed for exclusion, out of the total area of approximately 4,200 acres. So 440 acres out of 4,200 acres. And in area E, 395 acres have been identifi ed for exclusion, out of a total area of 5,000 acres. L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: if those prop- erties identifi ed for exclusion were excluded, how much school tax would that add up to? Hon. N. Letnick: Again, it’s “possible exclusion, ” not “exclusion, ” and we don’t have that information. L. Popham: I’m surprised the minister doesn’t have that information, because this legislation is….

It’s not an agricultural amendment. It’s a tax amendment. So I would expect that a thorough analysis of the tax implica- tions would have been done. So I think it’s a reasonable question to ask: how much school tax would be collected if these properties were ex- cluded aft er they were found to have no agricultural value? Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll just try to answer the question directly without trying to editorialize and go back and forth on the comments as the member tries to keep slid- ing in. Otherwise, we’ll be here all day. Just to answer the question directly, this is not a reduc- tion in taxes.

Th is is maintaining the status quo of taxes. Th is is mostly about the principle — the principle of be- ing able to provide consent if your land is going to be removed from the agricultural land reserve or, for that matter, if you are applying to have your land included or excluded. If you are applying, you provide consent, be- cause you are making an application. What we’re saying here is that the land commission…. If they’re going to be making a decision to remove your land — which they haven’t yet — they should seek the consent of the property owner. L.

Popham: If the commission does its review and it identifi es properties…. It has to analyze the properties, because if it doesn’t analyze the properties and look at the soil capability, then there would be no reason to ap- proach a landowner one way or the other. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Th ey have to have had some analysis before they ap- proach a landowner. Y ou wouldn’t approach them just to say: “Can we analyze your land?” Th ere are soil classifi ca- tions. I don’t believe it’s done lot by lot, but it might be. I think that there is quite a thorough review of the… Let’s use the Elk Valley boundary review.

Th ere’s some know- ledge that we have. Th e agricultural land…. I think maybe this is a good time to review the history of boundary reviews. Okay? So the minister can get comfort- able, because it’s quite an extensive history. I think, by the end of this, the minister will have a hard time defending his choice of legislation today, because I think what he’s doing is that he’s creating a tax shelter, in a way, within an agricultural land reserve. But we’ll have that discussion. [1145]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13057 For those that are following this discussion, it goes all the way back to 1972. Th e minister knows this, I know. Th e agricultural land reserve wasn’t established then, but there was a land freeze that took place, and a year later the Agricultural Land Commission Act was adopted. At this point, there was a huge analysis of our province.

We didn’t have the technology to make it that accurate, but we did a fairly thorough analysis of our soils in British Columbia, and we came up with — compared with the rest of the province — a very small percentage of land that you would classify as having agricultural potential. Now, the confi rmation of the ALR happened between 1974 and ’75. What the result of that was, was 4.7 mil- lion hectares of land in our province that was identifi ed. Compared to the rest of our province, that’s not that much. We have a very small amount of agricultural land that has agricultural capabilities.

Within that land, within that zone — the agricul- tural land reserve — there was obviously property that should have been included an d should be excluded. So a tool was brought in to try and identify those proper- ties and make the agricultural land reserve fully about agricultural production and agricultural potential so that the commission that was overseeing this could fulfi l its mandate of protecting agricultural land. Th ey started to do a fi ne-tuning program. Th is was the beginning of boundary reviews.

Th is fi ne-tuning program would allow the commission to go in and use their agrologists and look at it scientif- ically and kind of rejig the boundaries to make sure that we were dealing with agricultural land. We have a huge province. Some of these areas you needed to do walk- throughs on, and they started to do that. Unfortunately, that process is very expensive. Th ere has always been a matter of underfunding this fi ne-tuning process, other- wise known as a boundary review. In 2008…. We’ll fast forward.

Th e boundary reviews were done up to about the ’90s, and then the money ran out, but there was some good work done there. Y ou have to remember that at that point, we were still dealing a lot with the original maps that were drawn back in the ’70s — around the establishment of the agricultural land reserve. Th ese were paper maps that were kept in the building in Burnaby, paper maps where things were drawn and redrawn. To look at these maps today….

Although we’ve moved most of our information — probably all of it, at this point — into computer systems, the value of these maps and the work that was done couldn’t be more ob- vious than by going to the commission and looking dir- ectly at these paper maps. Th e fi rst time I took a look at them was probably eight years ago. Th ey were starting to be tattered and obviously overworked and overworn. Th ey’re a document that I believe should go into the ar- chives as something that we can be proud of in our history. Y ou can see the work that was done.

Y ou can see where properties were assessed and evaluated for having agri- cultural capability. Th is was really important work and, you know, that sort of got put on hold, because there wasn’t any more funding. Th en in 2008, the Agricultural Land Commission start- ed working with the regional district of East Kootenay, and a boundary review was started again. Th is was initi- ated to review ALR boundaries in the Fernie area. Th e ALC had to withdraw from active participation in the review due to budget constraints.

We tried to start the process up again in 2008, but unfortunately, there wasn’t enough funding to do it. At that point, because it was established and there had already been a conversa- tion started about a boundary review, really it started a process of landowners thinking about their own agricul- tural capacity on their land. The applications that started to flow into the Agricultural Land Commission made it obvious that in- itiating reviews on your own property rested with the landowner and the application process.

Th e application process within the Agricultural Land Commission has become more and more burdensome for the commission. It’s like it got turned into an application machine, instead of a commission that protects agricultural land. [1150] I think it’s pretty clear that the application process, without having active boundary reviews in place, is not an effi cient method of reviewing whether or not our land has high agricultural capability. Th e application process is not the way to do it.

A strict boundary review, based on scientifi c data of soil classifi cation, is almost like taking away all the need for those applications and establishing one decision made by the commission. We have a commission in place. We’ve got commis- sioners all through the province. We’ve got a CEO. We’ve got a chair. Th is is supposed to act as an independent commission. Th e minister, I believe, is making decisions around the Agricultural Land Commission that take away its independence. Th e minister is interfering with the commission with this sort of proposed legislation.

We only need to go back to our very recent history. In 2009, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association provided recom- mendations to the Premier regarding boundary reviews. I know the minister has a very good relationship with them, as do I. Th ey, in 2009, from their Ranching Task Force, recommended to make sure that a boundary re- view was done, and that was a way to make the agricul- tural land reserve stronger. In September of 2010, the Auditor General came out with a report that was all about the Agricultural Land Commission.

In this report, they had recommendations on how to improve the strength of the Agricultural Land Commission, make it stronger and make it work with the mandate in mind. Th ey did say that there was underfunding, and it was unable to fulfi l its mandate because of chronic under- funding. But the fi rst recommendation that they put out

British Columbia Debates13058 Thursday, May 12, 2016 was this: “We recommend that the commission ensure the ALR boundaries are accurate and include land that is both capable of and suitable for agricultural use. ” Th is is a recommendation from the Auditor General, and I think that’s a pretty fair analysis of what should hap- pen. If we have an agricultural land reserve with the man- date to protect agricultural land and encourage farming, you would think that all the land in that reserve should have agricultural capability. Th at was back in 2010.

Now, not very long aft er that, we had a review of the Agricultural Land Commission that was done by the commission and headed by then chair Mr. Richard Bullock. Within that review, which I can tell you is about 120 pages long…. Th is was an exten- sive review, an internal review of the Agricultural Land Commission and how it can work more eff ectively. Within that review, there’s a whole

section on bound- ary reviews. Th is is, I think, really where we get to the meat of the issue. Th ere was a recommendation that more funding go into boundary reviews. Why is that? It’s be- cause you need an agricultural land reserve that has de- fensible boundaries. And that’s where it is. If we are taking a position that we are not able to re-es- tablish the lines and make sure that everything in the re- serve has agricultural capability…. If we’re not doing that, we’re leaving all of these holes, little doughnuts, through- out the reserve that are not defensible.

So when some- body puts an application to do something else, it takes money from the commission. Th ey’ve already identifi ed it as not having agricultural capability. Th eir tax structure is based on land that should be farmed, but the capabil- ity is not there to do it. When you look at that, that happened in 2010. Now, unfortunately, the government held this report for quite some time because they didn’t like the news that came out of that report. It showed that they were neglecting a commission, and they should have been funding it prop- erly.

Th e Auditor General and the chair of the ALC both weighed in on the same thing. Reports aft er that came out in 2012, 2013, 2014. Th ey all alluded to the fact that a boundary review was import- ant, very important, so that the integrity of the agricul- tural land reserve was there. Th e Chair: Noting the hour, Member. L. Popham: Th ank you, Mr. Chair. I reserve my right to continue debate. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 11:55 a.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Madame Speaker: Th is House, at its rising, stands ad- journed until 1:30 this aft ernoon. Th e House adjourned at 11:56 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY , INNOV ATION AND CITIZENS’ SERVICES Th e House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair. Th e committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $491,997,000. Hon. A. Virk: Good morning to all. I’m pleased to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. First of all, I’ d like to introduce my senior ministry sup- port team members that are here today. We’re joined by deputy minister John Jacobson, to my left , and associate deputy minister Sarf Ahmed. We have assistant deputy minister Dave Morel. We have assistant deputy minister Colin McEwan. We have assistant deputy minister Ian Bailey. We have assistant deputy minister Beverly Dicks.

In the gallery, as well, executive lead Susan Stanford and a number of other senior members of the team that are here in a support role. I thank them, fi rst of all, for all the work that they do, not only today but every single day in this ministry all across the province. [1115] Th e things they do on the technology side of the portfolio, the work they do on the innovation side and then the work they do on the citizens’ services portion of the portfolio — I think it’s excellent work and it’s yeoman’s service. My ministry’s operating budget has increased by 3 percent, compared to the 2015-16 restated budget.

Th is represents an increase from $479 million to $491.9 mil-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, May 12, 2016 13059 lion. It includes funding in 2016 and 2017 to support the economic stability mandate and the operating costs of two new government-owned facilities. Th e ministry’s capital budget for 2016-2017 is $204.6 million. My ministry’s role in government is to support busi- nesses, citizens, government ministries and the broader public sector organizations. My ministry’s mandate is to grow B.C. ’s technology sector, champion innovation and enable the delivery of cost-eff ective, accessible and responsible services.

Our technology and innovation budget has been increased by $840,000. Th e impact of technology today cannot be overstated. We depend on technology in our daily lives to communi- cate, to establish relationships and to learn to conduct business. It drives all sectors of our economy. In some ways, one can say that every company is a tech company. From life sciences to clean tech to the resource sec- tor, technology advances that are being created in B.C. are changing lives around the world. I don’t think that point can be overstated.

Th e discoveries and the com- mercialization of technologies from our small province, our 4.7 million people, have the potential to change lives on the other side of the planet. Th ey are, and they will continue to do so. Th is past January we released our B.C. technology strat- egy, which represented our vision for British Columbia’s tech sector in every region of the province. We also host- ed an inaugural B.C. Tech Summit, which welcomed over 3,500 people to the Vancouver Convention Centre from all over North America and parts of the world.

It was an unprecedented gathering of entrepreneurs, academics, business community, students and government offi cials. I’m pleased to let you know that the plans are now underway to host our second B.C. Tech Summit next year. Get your tickets early because they’re going to fi ll up very quickly. B.C. ’s technology sector continues to grow faster than the overall provincial economy, and I’m excited to see us continue to build on that momentum. I am now ready for any questions that you may foster. D. Routley: I appreciate the introduction from the minister and thank the staff equally.

Th e member for Vancouver-Fairview will deal with the tech side of the fi le when he returns, but I’m going to encourage him to really look into technology creating relationships. I think it’s a big expansion of scope for the provincial government to enter that business. When the minister talks generally, he’s referring to his mandate letter — at least loosely. Could the minis- ter outline the steps he’s taken to fulfi l elements of his mandate letter? [1120] Hon. A. Virk: Th e member opposite will certainly see that there are 13 items in my mandate letter.

Each item, when a mandate letter is received, is analyzed. A plan is developed to put those items into action. I can report that on all 13 items, they have been either completed or are well into the progress phase. D. Routley: Have there been fee increases in the min- istry in this past year? What would those be, and how much revenue is being generated by those? [1125] Hon. A. Virk: If I understand the question correctly, in terms of fee increases — have there been fee increases in the past? — the answer is no.

If the question is: in terms of estimates of budget, will there be fee adjustments in the year to come…? Th e answer is that in November of 2016, the societies will be able to fi le records such as in- corporation applications, constitution and bylaws on line, which is a signifi cant improvement in the effi ciencies on how they can fi le. Th ere is a change in fee structure for societies from $25 to $40 that will come into eff ect in November of 2016. But it’s hard to take that in concrete terms, that increase, be- cause also, there are other fees that will be eliminated or reduced as a result of that.

Th ere has been considerable public consultation on that. Th e ability of societies in this day and age to actually fi le changes on line is a positive benefi t. Y ou would have society directors that would change addresses or other- wise, and they’ d have to fi le this continuously. But if you can do that on line, there are increased effi ciencies pro- jected as a result of that. Th e second part of the question, if I understand it cor- rectly, is if there is revenue. Th ere have been, as I said, no fee increases in the past.

Th ere are some projected to in- crease the technology effi ciencies in November of 2016. D. Routley: Th is fee increase for the on-line registration that societies will be able to take advantage of represents just about a doubling of the fee. What is the projected total amount that will be collected in the next year? [1130-1135] Hon. A. Virk: The projected incremental revenue collected is estimated — and I stress estimated — at $356,565. Th at’s to off set the increased cost of moving to a technology-based platform. Th e current operating procedures by which a society….

Th ese are run by very dedicated volunteers across the province. To prepare a paper copy, type that out or hand- write it, put a stamp on it, deliver it and put it in the mail- box certainly doesn’t meet the expectations of society. To move to a platform where volunteers can do this from the luxury of their own home on an electronic device…. Th e idea here is to go to current standards. It’s going to result in increased effi ciencies and increased use for societies. As I said before, there were consultations with the so-

British Columbia Debates13060 Thursday, May 12, 2016 cieties so they could understand the movement to this platform. At the same time, also, there are other fees that the societies paid in the past that will be removed. [1140] D. Routley: I assume that number, $356,565, refers to the margin between what was previously collected and what’s anticipated to be collected. Th en, if the fees are going to bring in that much this year, is that amount expected to grow over coming years? Is that amount ex- pected to be a consistent amount? How does that refl ect the increased costs?

Can the minister outline what in- creased costs there are in switching to this system? Hon. A. Virk: For the information of the member, there are some 27,000 societies in British Columbia. I’m only speculative, I guess, that the number may slightly go up or slightly go down. British Columbians continue to form societies. Sometimes societies cease to exist, and the societies exist to provide services. In terms of: do I expect the revenue to grow or change? I would suspect the law of averages — that it would stay fairly neutral because the number of societies is at that level. Some may come, and some may go.

I expect the rev- enue will be fairly close to that number that’s estimated, as we move forward. D. Routley: Well, if the amount is going to stay the same, roughly, then we’re looking at $20 per registration increased, and we’re looking at $350,000 per year.

So over a ten-year period, it’s $3½ million plus infl ation, I im- agine, and the potential for increased fees. [1145] I’ d just like to know how that refl ects any cost the government is trying to recover, because the presump- tion is that going to an on-line system would, in fact, over time save money for government — not having to handle as much paperwork, for one thing. So it seems counterintuitive that there would be a fee increase. It seems more reasonable, in fact, that there would be a fee decrease, or at least that fees could be maintained at a stable level.

If the service that’s being off ered saves government money, maybe not over the short term…. But just how can the government justify continuing in the long term to support such a huge rise in a fee? Hon. A. Virk: First of all, for the information of the member, there has been no fee change for 15 years. Th e $40 fee for societies is consistent with similar standards, on average, across the country. It allows for faster regis- tration and allows for greening of how we report. It’s important to remember that it is about $1 million to develop this system.

Th ese fees are deemed to be reason- able to recover costs of delivering the system. In fact, the cost of delivering the system and the anticipated revenue is actually considerably less than the system. Also, for the member’s information, currently over 30 percent of societies are actually paying, already, $40 or more per year, because there were $15 fi ling fees for change of address or change of directors. So it’s import- ant to note that over 30 percent of societies were already paying over that $40 for registering and/or keeping up with the paperwork on the society.

Noting the hour, I move that this committee rise, re- port progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Hansard Reporting Services Director Robert Sutherland Manager of Reporting Services Christine Fedoruk Publishing Supervisor Laurel Bernard Editorial Team Leaders Janet Brazier, Karol Morris, Robyn Swanson, Glenn Wigmore Technical Operations Offi cers Pamela Holmes, Dan Kerr, Yvonne Mendel Indexers Shannon Ash, Julie McClung, Robin Rohrmoser Researchers Liz Belsten, Mike Beninger, Mary Beth Hall, David Mattison Editors Kim Christie, Deirdre Gotto, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Linda Guy, Barb Horricks, Bill Hrick, Jessica Hutchings, Jennifer Kaddoura, Catherine Lang, Paula Lee, Donna McCloskey, Bob McIntosh, Anne Maclean, Claire Matthews, Jill Milkert, Lind Miller, Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Amy Reiswig, Murray Sinclair, Antoinette Warren, Heather Warren, Arlene Wells, Kim Westad Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker.

Printing Agent Crown Publications, Queen's Printer for British Columbia PO Box 9452 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V7 www.crownpub.bc.ca Daily and annual Hansard subscription information is available from Crown Publications. www.leg.bc.ca Access to on-line versions of the offi cial report of debates (Hansard) and webcasts of proceedings is available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160512am-Hansard-v39n8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160512am Hansard v39n8
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	55361ac67cb3b61e36cc6ea03c7a97b4eb7669c4

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).