Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 23, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 122

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Doug Eastwood

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. D. Eby

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act,

Bill 22 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act,

Bill 21 — Class Proceedings Amendment Act,

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

Hon. D. Eby

Bill M213 — Local Election Campaign Financing Amendment

Act, 2018

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Administrative professionals

M. Elmore

Sikh community in Squamish area

J. Sturdy

Mission municipal forest and Zajac Ranch

B. D’Eith

Organ donation and Logan Boulet

G. Kyllo

Protections for tenants and North Vancouver

case

B. Ma

Volunteerism by Lois Boyce

L. Reid

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Surrey school district portable use

S. Cadieux

Hon. R. Fleming

Fishing industry and individual transferable

quotas

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Surrey school district portable use

M. Hunt

Hon. R. Fleming

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

T. Stone

M. Stilwell

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Housing

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

S. Sullivan

D. Barnett

D. Ashton

J. Tegart

J. Rustad

M. Stilwell

T. Shypitka

J. Sturdy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

D. Clovechok

Hon. K. Conroy

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m really pleased today to welcome some very special guests to the

Legislature — 55 administrative professionals who work for the Ministry of

Children and Family Development. They come from across the province, from as far

north as Fort Nelson, west as Prince Rupert and east as Cranbrook, as well as

throughout the Island and the Lower Mainland.

Administrative staff at the Ministry of Children and Family are known for

their professionalism, care and devotion to the children, youth and families who

walk through their office doors. They’re often the first point of contact — a warm

and friendly face that greets them by name. One youth said to me that he always

knew he was going to be okay when he heard that voice on the end of the phone when

he was calling.

Then there are also those that are working here in the ministry’s office,

in the provincial office in Victoria, that are particularly known for their

organizational skills, ensuring that executives and other staff are fully

supported in their professional needs.

I’m not going to introduce them all, because there are 55 of them. But

please join me in welcoming all of our colleagues from the Ministry of Children

and Family to the gallery.

M. Stilwell: Sometimes random encounters in life can turn into great connections. It was

in 2009, when I was in L.A. for a race, when I went to pick up my car rental that

had not yet been returned. I had to wait for it. In walked a man — who returned

the car late, I will say. We struck up a conversation, and we found many things in

common.

Many people will know my friend Danny Woodburn best from the iconic show

Seinfeld , where he played Kramer’s buddy Mickey Abbott. But not only

is Danny an actor and a comedian; he’s an activist for the disability rights

movement.

He sits on the Screen Actors Guild performers with disabilities committee

and sees the great importance of portraying positive images of people with

disabilities on screen. Involved in the American Association of People with

Disabilities, Actors for Autism and the Little People’s Research Fund, he has been

recognized for the change of attitudes and societal perceptions of not only people

with dwarfism but all people with disabilities — all this from a guy who

originally just wanted to be a veterinarian.

Danny is in town filming a movie, so it was a great opportunity for us to

get together to talk about disability policy and possible links for us to continue

to break down barriers and create a more inclusive society for all. He’s here

today with his wife, Amy, who is also a writer and a comedian. She shared her

french fries with me this afternoon, so she’s my new best friend.

I would like the House to please make them both feel very

welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome a gentleman from Illinois. He was

born in Delavan, Wisconsin. He’s a dual Canadian and American citizen. Tom Trott

has visited us here in B.C. because after a 30-year career in law — and currently

an adjunct professor of law at the University of Illinois and the University of

Chicago as well — he’s come to help us deal with the issues of mental health and

addiction.

His idea is a jail diversion program that would occur before a person is

booked or arrested. Most jail diversion programs happen after a charge so the

person receives a record regardless of the outcome. Mr. Trott is very concerned

about the well-being of people who are challenged in this way.

I’m very thankful that he would take the time to fly all the way here from

Illinois just to meet with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions — and on

such a special day. With the farewell to the Lieutenant-Governor, he was treated

to a special helping of B.C. politics, pomp and ceremony.

Tom Trott, thank you very much for coming.

Tributes

DOUG EASTWOOD

J. Thornthwaite: I have sad news to pass on to the House. A very good friend to many here

in the precinct, Doug Eastwood, died this weekend, tragically. He was a

lifelong Liberal and known to many of us for his work with the Attorney

General, the member currently for Prince George–Valemount. He was her special

assistant.

[1:40 p.m.]

Everybody that knew Doug had very, very fine thoughts about him. He

always had a smile on his face, always wanted to live life well. He was an

accomplished lawyer, a QC, and an accomplished volunteer with the LGBTQ

community as well as the recovery community. He will be sorely missed by people

in this House. I just wish everybody to wish all of the prayers and hope to his

family at this difficult time.

Hon. D. Eby: I would just like to join my colleague and, on this side of the House,

recognize the contributions of Mr. Eastwood and his tragic, sudden and

unexpected death.

Certainly, our thoughts are with his family and friends. Everyone who

had the opportunity to work with him in the Ministry of Attorney General had

nothing but wonderful things to say about him. He will be very deeply missed in

a professional and a personal sense.

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: On that sombre note, I rise to introduce to this House my…. I was going to

say long-serving constituency assistant, but I suppose I will say long-suffering

constituency assistant. Cathy Gibbs is joining us today. Cathy has been a

constituency assistant since long before I was an MLA. She was a constituency

assistant going back to Lynn Stephens’s time as the MLA for Langley.

Not only is she my constituency assistant, but over the years, we’ve become

very, very dear friends. She is visiting with us today. Would the House please

make her very welcome.

D. Ashton: There are four individuals that I would like to recognize today from Shaw

Communications that are in the gallery. They do a really wonderful job of filming

Voice of B.C. , which is a show, as we all know, broadcast throughout

British Columbia and readily taken up in many households. They also do an

incredible job filming our constituency reports. If we do make a mistake, they can

fix it in the mix. I would just like to welcome the four individuals from Shaw

Communications here today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I also have two people from my constituency that I’d like to introduce

today, Sean Allen and Daina Morrison. They are also friends of our son Ben. I

wanted to congratulate them, because, as I believe, they are proof that Victoria

is truly the city of love. While they were here this weekend, Sean got down on one

knee. It was actually at Mystic Beach, in the Premier’s constituency. He got down

on one knee and popped the question, and Daina said yes. So please join me in not

only welcoming them to the Legislature but on congratulating them on their

engagement.

N. Letnick: After hospitals and doctors, the third-biggest expense item in Canadian

health care is drugs. Today we have three great people that have come to talk to

members of this House about some of the issues surrounding PharmaCare: Louise

Gillis, president of the Canadian Council of the Blind; Gail Attarra, chair of the

national biologics and biosimilars working group and president of the

Gastrointestinal Society; and Dr. Ganive Bhinder, executive director of the Better

PharmaCare Coalition. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: We have some special guests up in the gallery here today. Pat Danforth, who

is the chair of the Disability Alliance B.C., Jane Dyson, a member of the Order of

British Columbia and the executive director of the Disability Alliance B.C., and

Giovanna Bonifice, who is the managing director of the Canadian Association of

Occupational Therapists, are all here to join us today. Please help me make them

feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: I’ve got a few introductions today. First off, I would like to introduce

one of my staff members from the Ministry of Agriculture and her two kids who are

visiting. Georgina Hodson is here with her daughter Presley, who is 11 years old

and attends Bayside Middle School in Brentwood Bay, and her son, who is nine years

old, named Paul. He attends Deep Cove Elementary School in North Saanich.

Georgina’s kids are here to learn about all the great work we’re doing in the

Ministry of Agriculture. I want to let them know how grateful I am that they lend

me their mom and she can be part of our team. Welcome them to the chamber,

please.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’d also like to talk about the guests that are here from Shaw. Now, I

don’t know if anybody knows this, but our guests from Shaw have never, ever

attended question period before in all their years of covering us. I just want to

mention who they are: 14-year Shaw TV legislative bureau volunteer for the

ever-popular Constituency Report , who lives in Saanich South, Linda

Veroote and Voice of B.C. and Constituency Report volunteers Ben

Kerr and Thalia Wilson. They are accompanied by Shaw TV producer Jason House and

the Victoria bureau chief, Kristina Verruyt. Kristina has worked arm in arm with

Vaughn Palmer on the Voice of B.C. for many years. We wish Kristina and

her colleagues well in the future.

Lastly, I want to thank everyone who participated in B.C. Book Day today.

This was the fifth B.C. Book Day that we’ve had in the Legislature. Thank you to

the Speaker for allowing us to do it once more. It was a joint project by myself

and the Deputy Speaker, the MLA for Richmond South Centre. It was a great success.

I have seen everyone carrying their bags of books out of the hall.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just in the nick of time, joining us in the gallery are 38 Grade 11

students from Belmont high school, in my constituency of Langford–Juan de Fuca.

They’re joined by Cathy Davis, their teacher. They’re here to watch our democracy

in action. I have to confess, in the foyer before we began the proceedings this

afternoon, I did play it up a little bit. I’m expecting the best game we can get

from the opposition and the Third Party, and we’ll do our level best to respond in

kind. Would the House please make the kids from Belmont very, very

welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: Today we will also have a group of grade 5 students, staff and teachers

from John Knox Christian School, from Burnaby-Lougheed, visiting the Legislature.

They’ll probably join us during the middle of question period. I hope they will

enjoy their visit, and I ask the House to please make them feel very

welcome.

J. Tegart: I’d like to acknowledge family and friends of the Lieutenant-Governor,

Judith Guichon. I’m honoured that she lives in my riding. They’re in the precinct

today, and I hope everyone will wish them well and also wish Judith

well.

A. Wilkinson: An episode in recent days has called attention to the fact that we must

recognize the role of citizen engagement in our democracy. We all know that our

democracies are built on maximum citizen engagement, which occurs at election time

to select the people in this room and in Ottawa. It occurs through government

consultations, which, of course, are ongoing whenever an issue arises. It occurs

through the media and the contact that the people in the gallery make with our

citizens and that they make with the media.

be involved in democracy. Protest is a long-standing and essential component of

this and sometimes takes the form of civil disobedience. This is a long-standing

provision, and components of it are protected by

section 2 of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms of Canada.

There is a democratic space for these protests. We, of course, recognize

the front lawn of this building and of the House of Commons in Ottawa as protected

spaces for that democratic expression. Marches through our streets are often

enabled and protected by the police, because that’s their role in a democratic

society.

Of course, protests inside this chamber are discouraged to the point of

being prohibited, because this chamber provides a safe space for discourse between

the elected representatives.

Are there limits on protest? Yes, there are. The destruction of property is

not permissible, criminal code offences are not permissible and, certainly,

violation of court orders is not permissible. When the news came out that the

Premier’s home had been subject to a protest, this crossed a line.

We all recognize that there’s a need for that kind of activity in the right

kind of space, but any kind of attempt at intimidation or harassment of an elected

official — and especially not of someone who leads government — is simply

inappropriate, impermissible, and I think it’s up to all of us to condemn that

kind of activity. The Premier and his family are entitled to the quiet enjoyment

of their home, where he must contemplate his next step and prepare for question

period. [Applause.]

[1:50 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018.

This bill will make a number of changes to the act to help keep vehicle

insurance rates affordable for B.C. drivers, to enable motor vehicle insurance

rates to be more fair and to bring ICBC to a more financially sustainable

position and end its state of financial crisis.

The bill also provides for a framework to support enhanced care for

people injured in vehicle accidents so that they get the help they need to

recover from their injuries. In keeping with our February 6, 2018, announcement

on ICBC vehicle insurance product changes, this bill will introduce provisions

limiting the amount a claimant can recover as damages for pain and suffering

from a minor injury and provide a legal definition for a minor

injury.

The bill will allow for an expanded list of health care providers that

ICBC must pay as accident benefits and allow government to set the amounts that

can be recovered for those services. To ensure that the amounts recoverable are

fair, the minister responsible will be required to initiate a review of the

amounts payable for the provision of health care as accident benefits every

five years and to table the results with the Legislative Assembly.

The bill will also provide that certain medical and wage-loss benefits

received by a claimant must be deducted from a damage award in a vehicle claim

and that a person who pays or provides that medical or wage benefit cannot

recover from the at-fault driver or their insurer.

As well, the bill will allow for an increased limit for medical and

rehabilitation costs, to be retroactive to January 1, 2018, and provide the

appropriate regulation-making authorities for future product and rate premium

design changes, including the announced enhancements to accident

benefits.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 22 — CIVIL RESOLUTION

TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act,

2018. This bill grants the civil resolution tribunal jurisdiction over claims

arising out of the use and operation of a motor vehicle. The jurisdiction will

be limited to a prescribed monetary amount, which will be up to $50,000. The

bill also grants the tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over whether an accident

claim involves a minor injury and over accident benefit

entitlements.

The bill makes further amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

in order to improve on the processes in place since the tribunal began

resolving strata property disputes in June of 2016. In addition, the proposed

legislation expands the jurisdiction of the tribunal to include disputes

related to societies as well as housing and community service cooperative

associations. The proposed legislation is based on the existing legislative

framework for strata property and small claim disputes.

Currently cooperative associations and non-profit societies have to

resolve their disputes in the B.C. Supreme Court, which can be very costly.

These organizations, which typically operate with limited budgets, will gain

better access to justice by accessing the dispute resolution and adjudication

services of the civil resolution tribunal.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — CLASS PROCEEDINGS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018. This

bill amends the Class Proceedings Act to expressly provide for

multi-jurisdictional class proceedings — that is, class proceedings that

involve both residents and non-residents of British Columbia. The provisions

are based on the Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s Uniform Class Proceedings

Amendment Act of 2006.

[1:55 p.m.]

The bill includes amendments that will provide consistency and clarity

relating to the process for the certification of multi-jurisdictional class

proceedings. Provisions of the bill will require that representative plaintiffs

in similar class proceedings commenced elsewhere in Canada be given notice of

an application for certification and an opportunity to make submissions at the

certification hearing.

The bill also sets out objectives and relevant factors to be considered

by the court in determining whether to certify a multi-jurisdictional class

proceeding as well as authority for orders of the court relating to these

proceedings.

To provide a more effective way for as many potential claimants to be

included as class members, the bill will change the class proceedings framework

as it relates to persons who do not reside in the province. Rather than

non-residents having to take steps to opt in to a class proceeding in British

Columbia, they will be included as a class member unless they choose to opt

out.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2018

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 24, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2018. This bill amends the following statutes: the College and

Institute Act, the Infants Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the

Property Law Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, the Procurement Services

Act, the Business Corporations Act, the Societies Act, the Riparian Areas

Protection Act, the Capital Region Water Supply and Sooke Hills Protection Act,

the Islands Trust Act, the Library Act, the Local Government Act, the Cultus

Lake Park Act and the Vancouver Charter. This bill also makes consequential

amendments to a number of other statutes.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, introduced,

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — LOCAL ELECTION

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Local Election Campaign Financing

Amendment Act, 2018.

T. Stone: I move that a bill intituled Local Election Campaign Financing Amendment

Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and now read for the first time.

The purpose of this bill is very simple: to close a loophole. Last year

we supported legislation to take big money out of politics. The spirit was

clear — cap political contributions to the amount of $1,200 and only allow

contributions from individual British Columbians — but inconsistent wording has

opened a back door at the municipal level.

The Local Election Campaign Financing Act refers to “campaign

contribution,” which was already defined in the act as “funds exclusively for

campaign use.” This confusion has caused Elections B.C. to recently determine

that contributions from unions and corporations will continue to be allowed and

that there are no contribution limits on money raised for operations at the

municipal level, basically, for anything that’s not a direct campaign

expense.

This bill would remove this confusion and bring the Local Election

Campaign Financing Act in line with the provincial campaign finance

legislation.

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

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M213, Local Election Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2018,

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

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS

M. Elmore: As the Minister for Children and Family Development mentioned in her

introductions, 55 administrative professionals from the Ministry of Children

and Family Development are with us in the gallery today. They’ve joined us

because this week, in workplaces across Canada and around the world, we

celebrate administrative professionals week, with Wednesday, April 25,

designated as Administrative Professionals Day.

[2:00 p.m.]

This is a wonderful opportunity to show our appreciation and respect for

administrative professionals and to highlight the significant contributions

they make each and every day to the public service, non-profit agencies and

businesses throughout the province. We value our administrative professionals

for their organizational skills, attention to detail, dependability,

professionalism, creativity and so much more.

As MLAs and ministers, we know very well how essential admin

professionals are to our day-to-day work. They handle tasks from scheduling to

communication to correspondence to organizing our offices. Without them, our

lives would be extremely difficult.

While we have designated this week for showing appreciation for the

administrative professionals in our lives, I know that you will all join with

me in acknowledging that these essential people deserve recognition and praise

throughout the entire year.

SIKH COMMUNITY IN SQUAMISH AREA

J. Sturdy: As part of Sikh Heritage Month, I would like to acknowledge the

contributions the Sikh community continues to make to Squamish and the entire

constituency of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky — and has for over a century. You

only have to attend the annual Squamish Sikh Festival celebrations held each

year in June to see how vibrant and significant the Sikh community is in the

region. The annual celebration honours the martyrdom of the Sikh leader Guru

Arjan Dev ji. It includes teachings and a street parade from the temple to

Squamish downtown’s main street and culminates in a glorious sharing of food

with the whole community.

Sikhs first arrived in Squamish in the 1890s. The mills were hiring, and

the young men could easily find work in Squamish and at the mill on Green Lake,

in Whistler. In the late 1950s, the rail line and the first version of the Sea

to Sky Highway finally connected Britannia and Squamish with West Vancouver and

the Lower Mainland by land, rather than only by water. Increasingly, Sikh

families began to settle in Squamish, attracted by jobs in forestry, mining and

the railway. The community settled around the waterfront area in what is now

downtown Squamish.

The Sikh community diversified and continued to play an important role

in the development and growth of Squamish. Even as automation reduced job

opportunities in mills, Sikhs ventured into commercial and retail businesses,

including a pharmacy, a hotel, a hardware store, transportation companies,

construction and other retail. Many families, even today, also send many

workers daily into Whistler, working especially in the hospitality industry.

They bring a strong work ethic and dedication to community in their approach as

business owners and their involvement in the local community and local

government.

The Sikh society was incorporated in 1980, and the temple was opened in

downtown Squamish in 1983. It remains the hub of the Sikh community

today.

I’d like to thank the Sikh community of Squamish for their contributions

to the strength and the diversity of the Sea to Sky.

MISSION MUNICIPAL FOREST

AND ZAJAC

RANCH

B. D’Eith: For 60 years, the district of Mission forestry department has managed

the Mission tree farm licence 26, also known as the Mission municipal forest.

Now, this forest area is approximately 10,000 hectares, about 12 percent owned

by municipality and 88 percent provincial Crown land. All of the profits from

the forestry go back into the municipalities to support programs and

amenities.

The municipal forest is located in the northern part of Mission,

generally surrounding the Steelhead area, and north of Stave Falls, along the

western shore of the Stave reservoir.

Yesterday, on Earth Day, Dave Heyes, the manager of forestry business,

and Bob O’Neal, director of forestry, hosted a special event celebrating the

60th anniversary of the municipal forest. Councillor Carol Hamilton and I were

honoured to plant the 4.5 millionth tree in the reforestation program, a

program that will ensure that the forest will continue to provide for another

60 years and beyond.

The forest industry works in tandem with the public and the public use

of the park and Stave Lake. The municipal forest trails provide hikers with

incredible outdoor experiences.

Also, within the forest, is Zajac Ranch for Children. This is really a

jewel within the forest. In the summer months, Zajac Ranch provides camps for

children, youth and adults with chronic, life-threatening or debilitating

conditions. I toured this incredible facility with Mel Zajac, the visionary of

the camp, who is now in his 80s and as excited and active as ever, expanding

and improving this amazing facility.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’re very lucky to have such a wonderful asset in my riding, providing

forestry revenues, jobs, tourism, hiking, camping, boating, all working

together in balance.

ORGAN DONATION AND LOGAN BOULET

G. Kyllo: It’s my pleasure to rise today on the occasion of National Organ and

Tissue Donation Awareness Week. Right now more than 600 British Columbians are

in need of an organ donation. Registering as an organ donor can help to save

the life of someone who is in desperate need of help. It’s estimated that a

single donor can save up to eight lives.

While more than 90 percent of British Columbians support organ donation,

sadly, only 20 percent of British Columbians are registered. One organization

that is making an enormous impact on increasing organ donation in our province

is the Kidney Foundation of Canada, B.C. and Yukon division. Their advocacy

work and awareness campaigns for organ donation are truly

commendable.

Now, the recent tragic bus crash of the Humboldt Broncos has brought

increased attention to the life-saving value of organ donation. Humboldt

Broncos defenceman Logan Boulet, at the young age of 21, was wise beyond his

years and had taken the selfless initiative to register as an organ donor and,

in his death, gave the gift of life, helping to save the lives of six others.

Logan’s heroic action gives voice to his selfless and benevolent

nature.

Anyone may register, regardless of their medical condition, and there is

no age limit — young or old. In fact, the oldest organ donor in Canada was 93

years old. Decisions to register and donate organs to others is a powerful

life-saving gift, and I encourage members of this House and all British

Columbians to take action and register with B.C. Transplant at

register.transplant.bc.ca.

Heroes aren’t born. Like Logan Boulet, heroes are registered.

PROTECTIONS FOR TENANTS

AND NORTH VANCOUVER

CASE

B. Ma: I rise today to talk about a number of tenants who have come to my

office in recent months. I’d like to talk about Cheryl, who is a long-time

resident of North Vancouver. She’s been living there for 17 years. Actually,

she’s been living in North Vancouver for many decades, but her current home is

a 600-square-foot unit in North Vancouver where she’s been residing for 17

years.

About two years ago, the rental building was sold to a new landlord. The

new landlord went around to every tenant in the building and told them that

they all had to sign new fixed-term leases. Now, she was on a month-to-month

lease, and she knew her rights. She said: “No, I will stick to my

month-to-month lease.” Some of her other neighbours did sign new fixed-term

leases.

One year later the landlord went around, room to room, and demanded that

those on a fixed-term lease accept a 20 percent increase on their rent, or else

they would be vacated because they were using a fixed-term lease and vacate

clause. Cheryl, however, was on month-to-month, and she declined to accept a 15

percent increase. Three months later she received an arbitration notice. The

landlord had applied to increase her rent by 43 percent, using a provision at

the time that was known as the geographic market rental increase

provision.

She went to battle in arbitration, and with the help of our office and

some advocates, she won. This was about two years of the landlord attempting to

increase her rent. She has been successful in fighting back each time. Then,

three months later, she received another notice. They are now attempting to

evict her so that they can turn the unit into a caretaker unit.

I guess I tell this story because sometimes there are landlords out

there who are trying very hard to get rid of low-income renters. I would like

the opportunity to thank the House today. Every single one of these stories

that we have told has actually been addressed somehow with the partnership and

cooperation of everyone in this House. I want to thank them all very

much.

VOLUNTEERISM BY LOIS BOYCE

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to the late Lois Carson Boyce, who has been

affectionately referred to as the Rolls Royce of volunteerism, not only in our

community of Richmond but nationally as well.

Lois passed away on February 27 at the age of 99. She was one of

Canada’s most decorated volunteers, dedicating her time, energy and talents

towards a number of causes, most notably environmental, social and seniors

issues.

[2:10 p.m.]

She amassed an incredible volume of awards, certificates and photos with

dignitaries thanking her for her tireless work. Among her many achievements was

the prestigious Golden Jubilee Medal awarded to her by the Governor General of

Canada. Locally, Lois earned the Richmond Chamber of Commerce Community Service

Award in 1998 as well as the Richmond Volunteers Are Stars Award in 2006 and an

Ethel Tibbits award in 2010 honouring her contributions as a Richmond pioneer

and a long-serving member of the community.

Her most recent work in our community was around local seniors care

initiatives, including Richmond City Centre Community Association and the Safe

Communities alliance. Because of her, residents of Richmond Centre now have a

community centre and much more.

Family, friends, dignitaries and many members of the community gathered

this past Saturday to celebrate Lois’s life, her kindness and her spirit of

giving. Lois Carson Boyce was a huge force in Richmond, and she will be

missed.

Rest in peace, to our iconic Islander. Her legacy lives on in the many

projects and lives she touched in her 99 years.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

A. Wilkinson: I’m sure the incoming government figured out very quickly that school

boards are required to balance their budgets. This is an essential component of

our government system. Of course, they’re required to present their budgets to

government seven days from now, on April 30.

The question obviously arises. On February 28, the Premier stood and

said that groups such as government agencies and non-profits would be kept

whole from the employers health tax. This represents a major cost to school

districts, with no alternative revenue source. The question is simple. To the

Premier, when does he intend to keep his promise?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, the Leader of the Opposition, for the question.

I’m very proud of the fact that on this side of the House, unlike the other

side of the House, we made a decision that we will eliminate medical services

premiums in 2020 for all British Columbians.

We are also ensuring that we are fiscally responsible. We are bringing

in resources for health care through an employers health tax. We are in

discussions with groups and organizations. The implementation does not begin

until January 1, 2019. Those discussions are going very well.

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

A. Wilkinson: It appears that the Minister of Finance’s standard lines have not

changed since February 28. So we have to ask: with seven days left before the

Surrey school district has to present a balanced budget, how will they make up

their $21 million deficit they’re incurring because of the employers health

tax?

We have a Premier who held out that this is not going to be a problem.

He reassured all the school districts that they’d be okay. And lo and behold,

broken promise yet again.

The obvious question — and not to ride on the Finance Minister’s

coat-tails — is: will he keep his word, tell the Surrey school district they

need not run a deficit and provide for the students for which he campaigned in

the election, rather than break his word yet again?

Hon. C. James: I will remind the member, as the Surrey school board knows and as all

school boards and others who are paying medical services premiums know, they

are saving 50 percent as of January 1 this year because we reduced medical

services premiums by 50 percent. We also recognize that there will be some

costs on January 1, 2019. We are in discussions. Those discussions are going

well.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, here we have more dodging and weaving from the Finance Minister.

The Surrey school board reports it’s paying an extra, incremental $7 million

next year because of the employers health tax. The Finance Minister says: “Oh,

don’t worry about it. They’re going to have their MSP payments reduced.” Well,

she seems to have forgotten already that next year is the double-up year, with

both MSP premiums and the employers health tax, a double hit to school

districts.

These school districts all around the province need answers in the next

four business days, not rhetoric from the Finance Minister. Are they running

deficits or not?

The question goes directly to the Premier. Will he instruct his Finance

Minister to make school districts whole so they can get on with the business of

teaching children, not fighting with the Finance Ministry over their

budgets?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Well, to hear the other side stand up and talk about educating children

is unbelievable in this House. That side, the old government, did everything

they could to ensure that children didn’t have smaller classes, that students

didn’t get the support they needed.

We have invested record investments in education because we believe in

public education in this province. The other side may have trouble

understanding what it’s like to work with others, but we are working with

others. We are working with school boards. We are having those discussions. We

will have a resolution. We will make school boards able to continue the kind of

good work that they’re doing in educating students around this

province.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

S. Cadieux: Well, how about another broken promise — portables? The Premier and his

Education Minister both made a clear promise to eliminate portables in Surrey

in four years. It’s their promise, not mine. The Premier promised: “We have to

have a total removal of these portables over the course of the next four years.

We need to start reducing them by half in the first two years.”

My question is to the Education Minister. Is he on track to reduce

portables by half next year?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for her question. It comes just a few days after

Surrey education leaders were right here in Victoria to meet on this very

issue. Of course, this member will know the progress that our government has

made in such a short period of time, just since Labour Day. In fact, 90 days

ago she tweeted about it and said, “Glad to see the government moving forward

on these much-needed projects,” including a new 655-space elementary school in

her constituency.

I would direct her to read an

article in her own newspaper. The headline

is: “Surrey Trustee Praises…Portable Meeting with B.C. Minister of Education.”

I would welcome the member, as she has given this government praise, where her

government has failed before, on creating thousands of new spaces now in a

short period of time in Surrey, to come to the next announcement, when our

government has an opportunity to make one.

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

S. Cadieux: I will celebrate the elimination of portables if this government does

meet its promise. But to this date, they have not done so. The NDP promise was

to eliminate portables and to be halfway done in two years. We’re one year in,

and it’s a broken promise. Families in Surrey are getting the opposite of what

was promised. In fact, they’re getting 11 additional portables this

year.

Again to the minister, how many portables will he reduce next

year?

Hon. R. Fleming: I hate to correct the member. We are not one year in, but we are a

strong nine months in. We’re just getting started. We’ve announced hundreds of

new spaces, thousands more to come.

I find it curious that the opposition members, who have failed to look

after the students and families of Surrey for so many years and who’ve

disappointed Surrey families year after year while the number of portables

doubled under their watch, now show such impatience for our government, when

we’ve already announced hundreds of millions of dollars of capital funding to

deal with their backlog. We’re acquiring sites — because that government didn’t

even buy the land to build the schools on — and we’re funding schools and new

additions in Surrey.

That’s what our government is doing. That’s what the school board has

praised our government for doing. That’s what the mayor of Surrey has said that

she expresses satisfaction for — for finally being engaged by a government on

this joint initiative. That’s what parent groups are saying in Surrey as well.

I’ll listen to those stakeholders any day, before I take lessons from a group

that systematically failed families in Surrey for years.

[2:20 p.m.]

FISHING INDUSTRY AND

INDIVIDUAL TRANSFERABLE

QUOTAS

A. Olsen: We have the opportunity to build one of the most innovative and

successful 21st-century economies of any jurisdiction in the world, yet some

would have us chase Kinder Morgan to the bottom of the barrel. Aside from the

risk it poses to our coastline, the Kinder Morgan pipeline does almost nothing

to build sustainable, well-paying jobs in our province.

Frankly, our province would be better off addressing the challenges

facing other industries, such as the fisheries industry. Once-vibrant coastal

communities that hummed with activity are increasingly shuttered. The jobs have

moved out of these communities. In many cases, they’ve moved right out of our

country.

In 1985, the coastal fisheries employed 20,000 people in B.C. By 2015,

that had fallen to 5,000. At the heart of this issue is the system of the

individual transferable quota that many in this industry have said privatized

our natural resource. The quotas are now more valuable than the

fish.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The maritime provinces

have engaged the federal government in a process to transition away from the

individual transferable quotas. When will B.C. be doing the same?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the member for the question. I know the member understands

that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for maintaining and

sustaining sustainable harvests on behalf of British Columbians, as well as

Canada. We are glad to be hearing about the federal changes to the Fisheries

Act. We’re also doing our job, making sure that B.C. is represented at the

table. We’ve been working hard at that.

As well, we sponsored the Fisheries for Communities Gathering this year.

We sponsored it for $40,000. This was a place where people from all of our

communities throughout our coast could get together and talk about what they

want when they think about B.C. fisheries. We also sponsored a B.C. Young

Fishermen’s Gathering, which brought together 50 young fishers from across the

province and talked about their future in the fisheries industry.

This is an investment in our future. It’s very, very important that we

represent B.C.’s view at the federal table, and we’ve been doing

that.

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

A. Olsen: The vision of a 21st-century economy cannot just be urban-centric. We

need to talk about the opportunities we’ve had in this province to create good,

well-paying employment that harnesses our resources and the natural innovation

of British Columbians. The future for the natural resource industry and

countless communities right across our province lies in adding value, not just

simply exporting raw product. We’re currently doing the opposite.

Last week at the wild salmon forum I hosted in Vancouver, I was told

that a large Chinese company recently purchased over $50 million worth of these

individual transferable quotas in British Columbia. The fish are harvested

here, sent to Asia for processing and packaging and then shipped back to us.

This must change. The minister said that we trust DFO to manage a sustainable

fishery. The people that I met with have got serious questions about that. DFO

is missing in action on the west coast. We need our provincial government to be

a champion for this industry locally.

My question, again, is for the Minister of Agriculture. There is an

absence of federal leadership. Will this government stand up for British

Columbia by facilitating an independent review of our quota licensing

system?

Hon. L. Popham: Again, thanks for the question. I know the member is passionate about

this issue, and I can assure the member that so are we.

Our ministry has provided insight and specific west coast perspective to

the discussion around the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act. We have to

keep up the pressure from our side, and we are doing that.

The Ecotrust report that came out of the conference in January…. This

report had action items specific for the federal Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans. Some of these were specifically around how social, economic and

cultural objectives are to be achieved in the Pacific region fisheries. We have

to be at the table representing the communities that want strong fisheries.

We’re doing that. I think that the member also knows that as we navigate and

try and work with the federal government, it’s very important to recognize that

they hold most of the cards. What our job is, is to represent B.C. at that

table.

[2:25 p.m.]

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

M. Hunt: The Premier came to Surrey and made a promise. “We have to have a total

removal of portables” in Surrey. “We need to start by reducing them by half in

the first two years.” On October 19 last year, the minister said: “I believe

that we can substantially complete that timeline.”

To the minister, he must have analyzed the numbers required to meet this

promise. How many portables does he plan to eliminate next year? Will he give

us a number?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think that if this side is going to ask questions about Surrey

portables, they have to acknowledge their own absolute failure and the mess

they’ve left this government with, to begin with.

They more than doubled the number of portables in that school district

under their watch. They failed to acquire sites in a fast-growing community.

They took all the tax dollars from hard-working moms and dads in Surrey and

didn’t put back the community infrastructure by building schools in

Surrey.

That’s what this side of the House is committed to doing. We’ve already

announced 1,600 spaces. That member ought to know. He was there for some of the

announcements. And there’s more to come. We’re working very closely with the

school district. The chair of the board was just in the newspaper last week

commending this side of the House for an entirely different approach from what

they had for 16 years.

So I say to that member and other members opposite in Surrey — and there

are fewer of them today, admittedly: come work with this side of the House.

We’re building a plan in Surrey that’s actually building schools, actually

building the community infrastructure that fast-growing Surrey needs. That’s

what we want to do. That’s what we’re doing, and that’s what the school

district has said makes us a valuable partner, where they were missing in

action.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: Well, it’s yet another NDP broken promise. The vice-chair of school

district 36, Surrey, has confirmed that Surrey’s portable bill is set to double

this year, including $1.2 million for 11 new portables. They’re adding

portables in Surrey, not eliminating them.

Again, to the minister, will he cut the number of portables in half next

year or not?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, again, I’d like the other side to take some credit where credit is

due. Sixty new portables in Surrey came because that side fought teachers for

15 years, and lo and behold, Surrey had to order another 60 portables to

support smaller class sizes. They failed them again.

We’re trying to tow away the damage that they did as quickly as

possible. I say to that member: have some patience. After all, for 16 years, he

said nothing while portables doubled.

We’ve announced thousands of spaces — more announcements to come. The

member is always welcome to attend them. The member should also look at what

this side of the House is doing differently on the operating side — 59 million

new dollars each year into the Surrey district, savings of $7.2 million this

year, MSP savings in the millions of dollars this year. Those are the new

resources going into the Surrey school district to help improve classroom

learning resources for kids in his area.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

S. Bond: Well, school districts must balance their budget by April 30. But for

weeks, this Education Minister has refused to clarify if school boards will be

exempt from the costs of the new NDP-imposed employer health tax as the Premier

promised. No exemption from this minister means funding gaps and service

cuts.

To the minister, school districts want and deserve an answer. Will they

be exempt or not?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I would remind the member, again, since the other side seems to

conveniently leave it out, that there is a 50 percent savings to all school

districts and other employers this year — 50 percent as of January 1. Next year

there will be, again, another 50 percent savings on MSP premiums, and in 2020,

we will be eliminating MSP premiums. We are continuing to work with and to

listen to not-for-profits, to school boards about what they need going forward.

That’s why the implementation doesn’t start until January 1. We’re having those

discussions, and we’ll continue to have those discussions.

Mr. Speaker: Member, before beginning, if I might remind you that it would be helpful

and important for you to direct your question through the Chair.

S. Bond: Through the Chair, this is what the Surrey board of education

vice-chair, Terry Allen, told the media about the new employer health tax. It

reflects the concerns of school boards across the province. “We were hoping,

and I think all districts were hoping, for some relief for that, but that’s not

going to happen, I don’t think. Maybe it will. You never know. But there’s been

no relief, to this point.”

School districts across the province, including Surrey, need to finalize

their budgets in one week. They need an answer from this minister whether or

not they will be forced to make service cuts because they were blindsided by

the surprise employers health tax.

To the minister, a pretty simple question. Will he listen to the

concerns of school boards across British Columbia, with budget deadlines

looming, and exempt them from the employers health tax? Yes or no?

Hon. C. James: Well, I can let the other side know that we will not do what they did.

We will not double MSP premiums and make school boards have to pay that.

Whether we’re talking about MSP premiums, whether we’re talking about hydro

rates, whether we’re talking about computer systems and tech, that side, the

old government, forced school boards to have to cut programs and services and

supports for kids to be able to pay for their mess that they put onto school

boards.

We will continue to listen to school boards. It’s why we set the

implementation date for January 1, 2019, so we could ensure a smooth

implementation. Those discussions are going well and will continue.

B. Stewart: The Premier promised school districts would be kept whole, but school

district 23 has reported a projected budget shortfall, citing the additional

burden of the NDP’s new and higher employer health tax. “It’s $1.9 million for

us that we weren’t planning on having to pay for,” says Eileen Sadlowski,

district secretary-treasurer.

To the Minister of Education, will he be providing the new funding for

the Central Okanagan school district, as the Premier promised, or will they be

forced to cut staff?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. As I said earlier, we are

continuing to listen and work with school boards, unlike the other side who

didn’t work with school boards, who just downloaded costs without any

discussion. We, in fact, have increased our investments to education. We are

having discussions now. The Kelowna board, as with other boards, is saving 50

percent on their MSP premiums this year.

Mr. Speaker: Kelowna West on a supplemental.

B. Stewart: The Minister of Education decided to spend $40,000 recently to tour

Europe at a time when he was forcing school districts into deficits to pay for

the new NDP employer health tax. School district 23 has said they have to cut

four staff.

Again to the minister, will school districts be kept whole? Or will they

be forced to make cuts?

Hon. R. Fleming: To that member, I would congratulate him for getting back into the

House. A lot of things have happened since he disappeared for a little while.

One of which is that his government, which fought teachers to its dying breath,

actually lost in the Supreme Court, and this year we have 3,700 new teachers

teaching our kids in British Columbia, including in the district in his area.

That’s good policy.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m also very happy to say that this government has been very active

making long-overdue capital announcements to remove portables in Kelowna, in a

fast-growing district. That’s what this government has been able to accomplish

in a few short months, where his government failed.

In regards to funding, here’s the difference for the members to

contemplate. This year, this full fiscal year, there’s $550 million more in

operating funds going to school districts to be able to manage their affairs.

We’ve returned savings where that government downloaded tens of millions of

dollars of costs. We’ve said: “Keep your broadband service fees this year” —

$20 million.

Overages on teacher pension plans in the tens of millions of dollars are

being kept by school districts, with one provision: that they be invested into

kids and classrooms and that they strengthen our education system after so many

years of downloading and ripping funding out by the previous side. That’s what

districts are doing.

T. Stone: One thing is clear. The minister had no problem finding the money for

his recent trip to Europe. But school districts across this province are still

waiting to find out if this minister is going to fulfil the Premier’s promises,

and they need to know by the end of this month.

My question to the Minister of Education is this: why was there money in

the budget, in his budget, for his European adventure, but there is no money in

the budget to enable school districts to cover the costs of the NDP’s new

health payroll tax?

Hon. R. Fleming: I guess the question the other side should ask themselves is: why was

there no money…? Why was there no concern for thousands of kids in British

Columbia and thousands of families who couldn’t get into French immersion

education in British Columbia at a time when demand for it grew by 35

percent?

It’s because they failed them. They didn’t put the money into training

French-language teachers. Our government is trying to meet the aspirations of

B.C. families to have bilingual kids as a product of graduating from our school

system. That’s what we’re working on, and we’re proud of it.

We’ve hired 3,700 teachers this year, the largest influx of new teaching

talent into our school system in generations. We need to hire more. That side

of the House, when they were in charge, failed to invest in teacher training

opportunities. We’re doing that for B.C. students who are in B.C. universities.

We are hiring out of province and the rest of Canada. Yes, we are hiring

internationally to bring French-language teachers here to British Columbia to

meet the aspirations that B.C. families and kids have to learn French in

British Columbia.

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

T. Stone: I say this as a father and as a member of this Legislature. I’m very

proud to have been part of a former government that presided over an education

system that resulted in our kids having amongst the best education outcomes in

the entire world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. We shall hear the question.

T. Stone: Mr. Speaker, on the same day that the minister flew to stop 1 of his

European adventure, Paris, SD 23 reported a projected budget shortfall. The

district specifically notes that the new NDP employer health tax is not being

covered. Included in cuts in their plan is to eliminate four full-time

positions.

Again to the minister, why is a trip to Europe a higher priority than

the students of SD 23?

Hon. R. Fleming: I wish the member opposite would pay a little closer attention to some

of the issues that arise, even in his own constituency. Such great news last

week — that, for years, after 16 years of almost no investment in his own

district, this government is investing potentially tens of millions of dollars

into getting rid of portables in Kamloops. That’s the change; that’s the

difference.

Here’s the situation. Districts are actually struggling to spend the

money this government is providing them to hire the new teachers that they are

able to hire, that they’re entitled to hire. That’s why we’re making additional

efforts to recruit teachers, to train more teachers in B.C., to hire from out

of province and to recruit internationally in B.C.

[2:40 p.m.]

We see the teacher shortage that we have today. It’s caused, in large

part, by the conduct of that side of the House for so long in the education

system. These are challenges, but they’re also opportunities for B.C. to make

our education system even stronger.

M. Stilwell: The Campbell River school board is worried about the new NDP employer

health tax, and their MLA has been silent. While the minister was in Europe,

trustee John Kerr had this to say: “The board will be required to cut services

in the amount of an average close to $256,268 over each of the next three

years…. The tax will be a de facto budget cut for school district 72 and every

other board of education in the province.”

My question to the minister is: will he provide new money to keep school

district 72 whole, or was there only enough money set aside for his European

adventure?

Hon. R. Fleming: As I reminded the House earlier, what’s different about this year than a

year and a half ago under the previous government is about $550 million in

additional investments into kids and classrooms. What’s different about this

year than, say, a couple of years ago is that we’re hiring 3,700 teachers when

they fired thousands of teachers in British Columbia. That’s the

difference.

What’s different in Campbell River and in other school districts is that

instead of downloading costs, we’re returning savings in the tens of millions

of dollars to school districts, and they are in a healthy fiscal

position.

We’ve heard from secretary-treasurers. We’ve heard from board chairs

around B.C. They’ve looked at the approach that that government had, which was

to rip out hundreds of millions of dollars in resources in the school system,

and they’ve looked at ours, which is an approach to invest and work closely

with our education partners. They prefer ours, not surprisingly.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Municipal Affairs and Housing. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Children and Families.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $196,910,000.

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that we’re getting started, and I look forward to hearing

questions from the other side. I just want to say a few words, if I

might.

I’m very fortunate to have with me a group of experienced senior staff

who are key to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing work. I’m joined

by the deputy minister, Jacqueline Dawes, and assistant deputy ministers. I’ve

got Greg Steves with housing and Tara Faganello with local government. Later

we’ll be joined by Kevin Volk with community and legislative services. I also

have Tracy Campbell, our executive financial officer and ADM of management

services.

We have a strong leadership and a great team at Municipal Affairs and

Housing, and I want to thank them for making progress on the issues that matter

to British Columbians. We’re doing things like improving access to safe,

functional housing that people can afford to buy or rent. We’re improving

policies and services for many landlords and renters in the province and

working to support better transportation options for people in Metro Vancouver

by supporting the Mayors Council’s ten-year vision.

We’re also working with British Columbia’s 189 local governments to help

them to help their residents and the communities so that they can all thrive.

I’d also like to recognize the leadership of our Crown agency. We’re joined

here today by the B.C. Housing chief executive officer, Shayne Ramsay, one of

the busiest people in the province these days.

[2:50 p.m.]

We also are supportive of the B.C. Assessment Authority’s president and

chief executive officer, Jason Grant, and Technical Safety B.C.’s president and

chief executive officer, Catherine Roome.

I know that our time is valuable here. I want us to use it well, but I’d

like to also give a few brief highlights of what we’re doing.

Improving housing affordability and housing availability is one of the

most important mandates British Columbians have given our government. After

listening to British Columbians and after consultation with experts in the

housing sector, experts on both the supply and the demand side, we released

Budget 2018. It includes significant new investments that are grounded in a new

30-point housing plan for British Columbians.

Our plan has started with taking action to stabilize the housing market,

to curb demand and to provide better protection and better options for renters.

While the Ministry of Finance takes action to curb demand, my ministry is

focused on rental policies and on increasing the overall housing

supply.

Our plan includes support for affordable rental homes for people with

low and middle incomes, new rental homes for seniors so they can stay in their

communities, more homes for Indigenous peoples, new housing for women and

children fleeing violence, new spaces of student housing and new homes with

24-7 support for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

We will also make a significant investment, more than $1 billion over

ten years, to preserve and protect our existing social housing for people

already living in those homes. Altogether, we will be investing more than $7

billion over the next decade. This will be the largest investment in housing in

the history of British Columbia.

You’ve heard me, certainly, here in this chamber and elsewhere, talk

about the importance of building strong partnerships. That’s why we launched a

new housing hub at B.C. Housing — in order to bring everyone together to

facilitate the building of homes that people can afford. The housing hub is

already developing partnerships to find, use or redevelop available land in

communities hardest hit by the housing crisis.

The new hub underlines the importance of partnerships and the

coordinating of effort that it takes to address housing affordability and

availability. The hub will be actively pursuing partners, whether they are

non-profits, co-ops, local governments, landowners, First Nations, investors,

faith communities. These people and these groups are looking to partner with

us, with their government. The hub will be tasked with trying new things,

bringing together innovative partnerships to build the homes British Columbians

need — homes to rent and homes to own.

With rental vacancy so low in many parts of province, we need to make

sure that renters have the secure housing they deserve. Budget 2018 includes

new investments to expand eligibility and increase benefits for our rental

assistance programs for low-income seniors and working families. This will help

families and seniors stay in their homes and in their communities.

These enhancements will benefit 35,000 households, including 3,200 new

eligible families and seniors. Effective September 2018, on average, seniors

will receive an extra $930 per year, and the increase for families will be

about $800 a year.

We’ve also taken steps this spring to further strengthen protection for

renters and for manufactured home owners. These actions build on the steps

we’ve already taken, including closing what is known as the fixed-term-lease

loophole and eliminating the geographic rent clause.

While addressing the housing crisis is a major priority of this

ministry, we have a number of other important roles. I’m pleased to continue to

support approximately 5,000 not-for-profits in delivering programs through

B.C., through our community gaming grant program, and to work with the federal

government on much-needed infrastructure funding around the

province.

As the Minister Responsible for TransLink, we are very much focused on

investing in transit and transportation to make life better for residents, for

businesses and for visitors. We support the mayors’ vision and our funding will

be ready to support them as projects take flight and start liberating people

from the current congestion.

Before we get into questions, there are a number of other people I’d

like to thank in my office. I’d like to acknowledge my senior ministerial

assistant, Craig Ashbourne; ministerial assistant, Daniela Gardea; executive

assistant, Matt Djonlic; administrative coordinator, Christine White; and

administrative assistant Lisa Grant. These are the people that keep life

rolling, keep me busy and help us, together, deliver for British

Columbians.

T. Stone: Thanks to the minister for that introduction. I would also like to

acknowledge and thank the staff that, I know full well, are instrumental in

helping the minister prepare and do all that really heavy lifting back in their

respective offices to bring to life the government’s priorities, which is a lot

about the investments that people really need in this province.

[2:55 p.m.]

I just wanted to let the minister know that I will be leading the

questioning on the municipal affairs side of the equation. I’ve got a few

initial questions there. Then we’ll be turning it over to the member for

Vancouver–False Creek, who is the official opposition Housing critic. He will

lead our questioning on the housing side of the equation. I may jump in, as

will other select members of the opposition, with respect to

housing.

That will likely take us through the majority, if not all of, today.

We’ll reserve TransLink and a few other bits and pieces for tomorrow as

well.

Without further ado. First off, I’m wondering, with respect to ministry

organization…. We talked in estimates last fall about some things that had been

brought into the ministry and some things that were taken out and so forth. The

first question would be: have there been any further changes to the ministry

structure, the ministry organization, this year? If so, could the minister

please detail that for us?

Related to that, I’m wondering if the minister could just provide a

little bit of detail to this House with respect to the expenditures, insofar as

operating expenditures being up about $15 million overall. By my read of it,

that looks like the housing-related components of her ministry’s budget are up

about $32 million. Ministry operations is down about $47 million. I’m just

wondering if the minister could just provide some detail as to what accounts

for the increases on the housing budget side of the equation and the decrease

on the ministry operations side of budget and, again, if there have been any

significant changes to the ministry structure and responsibilities.

Hon. S. Robinson: There have been no additional reorganizations, no additional structural

changes.

I have a response around the budget changes. There have been changes to

the ministry’s budget since the last update. In particular, they include the

following: an increase of $31.89 million for the housing program’s operating

budget and an increase of $54.474 million for the housing programs capital

budget. These increases are offset by a decrease of $47.629 million to ministry

operations.

The decrease is mainly due to timing of grants and federal recoveries

under the clean water and wastewater fund and the New Building Canada fund.

There’s been a $50 million decrease for the clean water and wastewater fund and

a $6 million decrease for the New Building Canada fund. Provincial funding for

these two programs was accelerated last fiscal.

There’s also an increase in federal recoveries for the CWWF, which is

the clean water and waste water, of $25.172 million, and in the New Building

Canada fund, of $4 million.

These reductions are offset by the following increases: $2.1 million for

housing initiatives within the local government division, an increase of

$209,000 for BCGEU wage increases per the collective agreement, an increase of

$171,000 to reflect administration of the federal clean water and wastewater

program. And there have been some miscellaneous administrative adjustments of

$61,000. That includes benefit rate adjustments — that kind of

stuff.

[3:00 p.m.]

Just to wrap it all up. The ministry saw an overall budget increase of

$38.731 million. So a decrease of $47.629 million for ministry operations, an

increase of $31.89 million for housing operating dollars and an increase of

$57.474 million for housing capital dollars.

T. Stone: Thank you for that, Minister.

Could the minister provide a little bit more detail as to what accounts

for the issue related to the timing of grants? I can think of a number of

scenarios, but I would appreciate if the minister could just kind of go through

those categories again and indicate what exactly accounts for the timing being

different than what was originally planned.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to get on the record that the commitments

are the same. There’s been no change in the commitments. It’s really about cash

flow, about when projects actually get the funding. I just want to note, for

example, that when we had this terrible fire — the wildfires of this summer —

it meant that projects got delayed. Or if there’s a particularly rough winter

and they can’t actually start construction in the time frame that they thought

they would be able to start, there’s oftentimes a delay on some of these major

projects. So this is just really a cash flow situation.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, thank you for that, Minister. I’m wondering if we could

shift gears. I just have a couple of questions with respect to the community

capital fund.

This was a community capital infrastructure fund that was outlined in

the minister’s mandate letter, I believe. I’m just wondering if the minister

could indicate to this House if this fund actually has been created. If it has

been, can the minister outline how many dollars have been dedicated to the

fund? And who will be eligible for the fund once the application process is

understood by those who can apply?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I just wanted to clarify that the member was referring to the bullet in

my mandate letter that directs me to partner with the local governments and

First Nations to develop a community capital infrastructure fund, rather than

the community capital fund, because it’s slightly different. I’m assuming it’s

the first.

I want to assure the member and the House that work is well underway

with that. There’s an opportunity to join with the federal government to make

sure that there is a significant fund available for communities to

access.

We all know how important it is for local governments, in terms of

making their communities livable and rich, to have opportunities to create

sports facilities, playgrounds, local community centres, arts centres and such.

That work is being undertaken right now to put this together.

T. Stone: Can the minister just indicate some timelines here? When will the

application process be up and running? When does she anticipate receiving

applications? How will the applications be adjudicated? Who will be involved in

that? I’m assuming it’s internal to her ministry, but potentially, there may be

some third parties involved as well. I’d appreciate some detail around

there.

Again, what would those ideal projects that the minister has in mind

actually look like, that would represent really good value for the taxpayers’

money in the context of this new program?

Hon. S. Robinson: The work is being undertaken as we speak. What I can tell the member is

that the application process will be a merit-based application process, so it

will be adjudicated by professional public servants. We’re working on putting

together what the ideal project is, and that work is just being undertaken and

reviewed right now.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House if her ministry is

contemplating any boundary changes for local governments or local jurisdictions

around the province, for communities that want to extend their boundaries for

any particular reason.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that when I was a part of the former government, it was an often

requested subject of great debate inside the government. So I’m wondering if

the minister could just advise me, and the House, if there are any active

considerations being given to boundary changes for any municipal or regional

district jurisdictions in the province.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. This boundary change request does come up. Of

course, it comes from the community themselves. The way the process works is

that it actually comes to staff first, who take a look and ask questions in

talks with the staff. They take a look at community support and stakeholder

support, and they explore what’s going on.

I can assure the member that none of these boundary changes are before

me as minister. So I don’t have a comment on anything that’s before

me.

T. Stone: Shifting gears, I’d like to ask a couple of questions about the

employers health tax and the impact of that on municipalities. I certainly know

that the details relating to the tax itself would not fall under the purview of

the minister but rather of the Minister of Finance. But I do think it’s a very

relevant line of questioning here in Municipal Affairs estimates, because I can

say, with a great deal of conviction, that there is no issue I’m hearing more

about, as the critic for Municipal Affairs, than municipalities and regional

districts that are concerned about the impact of the employer health tax on

their operations.

I’m wondering if the minister could advise this House if her ministry

has done any analysis or any modelling with local government to determine what

the potential fiscal impacts could be on local government of this new tax,

moving forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member fully appreciates that local governments are an

autonomous level of government that make choices about how they’re going to be

spending the revenue that they get. I was just checking with staff around if we

have received any formal complaints, concerns, issues. They haven’t. I have

heard from some who are concerned, and I have heard others who say that it’s a

wash. It’s not affecting them. So the response that I’ve been hearing is quite

varied.

T. Stone: Well, no quibble from me. Local government is an autonomous level of

government, for the most part, but they are often on the receiving end of

decisions that are made by the provincial government that can have positive or

negative consequences, particularly when it comes to their budgets.

The employer health tax. I know, in the case of my community in

Kamloops, the finance director in the city accounts and the mayor believe that

they’re staring down the barrel of a $1 million hit to their bottom line,

including the impact on policing costs.

I would like to ask the minister again if her ministry has done any

analysis or any work with perhaps the UBCM or other local governments to

understand what the budget impacts will be, recognizing that it would be very

different depending on the size of the municipality. I get that. But has there

been any work done to try and understand what the impacts will be on local

government budgets as the result of a decision taken by the provincial

government?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d also like to remind the member that when they doubled MSP premiums,

the local governments, I’m sure, had to make adjustments accordingly, because

that’s what local governments do. There are always various changes that happen

in the landscape, and they make choices about how they’re going to

adjust.

I also want to point out that I think it’s really important that we all

remember that this is a significant savings to families, and families live in

all of our communities. So as communities and local governments make decisions

about how to best serve their constituents, families now have $1,800 in their

pockets that they didn’t have before.

T. Stone: Well, the proof will be in the pudding on that one. The city of Kamloops

and other municipalities that I’m talking to are trying to determine what the

fiscal impact will be of this new tax on their budgets, and they will all make

different decisions as to how to cope with the change. But I tell you. A $1

million change or a $1 million impact to the city of Kamloops’ budget is a

pretty significant property tax increase that the people of Kamloops, the

homeowners in Kamloops, are going to face.

It’s also resulting in…. It’ll put pressure on the cost of goods. I

think it’s…. It might be easy for the minister to kind of gloss over the

impacts here. But I’m just trying to reflect what I’m hearing from the

municipalities that are contacting me.

Let me ask this, then. Was there any consultation on the part of the

minister and her ministry with local government, whether it’s through the UBCM

or directly with local governments, as part of the government’s thought process

and ultimate decision to proceed with an employer health tax?

[3:20 p.m.]

Again, for a city the size of Kamloops, it’s going to hit their bottom

line to the tune of $1 million more per year. Once the MSP is fully phased out

and there’s just the employer health tax, which is not till 2020, it’s a $1

million hit to their bottom line.

Was there any consultation, and could the minister detail what that

consultation looked like with respect to the UBCM and other specific local

governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to reflect back to what the member had said earlier when he first

started these remarks and just remind him that it was the Minister of Finance

that brought forward the budget. Really, I’m very proud of this budget in terms

of what it does, how it affects families and the impact it has on putting more

money in people’s pockets, because there’s certainly been an affordability

concern for families.

As part of that, I recognize that local governments will need to make

decisions going forward to address the needs of their constituents. They have

the information going forward in order to do that.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with any thoughts that

she has — I’ve read some of her public comments — with respect to the loopholes

in the local election campaign financing, which have clearly arisen.

We know that every member of this House supported getting big money out

of politics, corporate and union donations, and lowering the maximum

contribution amount for individuals only to $1,200 per individual per year,

both on the provincial election campaign side as well as the local election

side of the equation.

[3:25 p.m.]

Yet we now learn that Elections B.C. — in their

interpretation of the

amendments to the legislation, as amended from last fall — has determined that,

in fact, the way the legislation is worded, there is a loophole that means

elector organizations are able to continue to raise corporate and union

donations and continue to accept any contribution amount as long as those

dollars are used for operational purposes and not campaign purposes.

Certainly, in the opposition, we feel this violates the spirit of the

amendments, the spirit of the legislation as amended from last fall, which was

why I saw fit to offer a suggested fix in the form of a private member’s bill

earlier today. I’m certain that the minister will give it very careful

consideration.

I’m wondering if the minister could comment on what her plans are to

close this loophole so that the spirit of these legislative changes is truly

honoured. We’re running out of time. There are six months before the municipal

elections, and elector organizations are out there. Everybody’s confused. The

government, I think, needs to provide some direction on this.

Could the minister comment as to what her plan is with respect to

closing this loophole?

The Chair: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan seeks leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two people that I’ve just met. We’ve

done a nice tour of the building. With us today from Richmond, B.C., is Albert

Adamoski. He’s a printer. He loves skiing Whistler. That’s a surprise, eh? He’s

accompanied by Michaela Sal from Taiwan. She’s a housekeeper in Whistler. She

loves outdoor activities. They’ve come here to visit our House, their House. Can

we please all make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s commitment to getting rid of big money out of

our politics. It’s certainly music to my ears to hear this change in

perspective and this conversion that has happened. It’s very exciting. I think

we should have a little party recognizing this commitment.

This interpretive challenge that we are seeing is one my staff are

taking very, very seriously. We’re committed to addressing and fixing this

interpretive challenge that we have right now, and that should be coming

shortly.

T. Stone: I’m just wondering if the minister could explain why the legislation was

introduced with such a glaring hole in it. We did canvass this particular topic

at great length in committee stage of the bill. We did go back and forth. We

were provided assurances that indeed big money, corporate and union donations,

would be removed from the mix as a result of these changes and that the maximum

contribution would be the $1,200 per individual.

I certainly voted for that. I support that, as do members of the

opposition. It was unanimous in this House. So can the minister explain why she

brought forward a piece of legislation that was so obviously flawed insofar as

allowing this loophole to exist?

Furthermore, when will she introduce a fix of some sort that will

provide local governments and all of those British Columbians out there that

are contemplating running for office, all of those elector organizations out

there that are looking for some clarity on this…? When can they expect some

clarity from the minister on a fix to close this loophole?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to thank the member opposite for his willingness to put

the effort into a private member’s bill. Now he has this sudden interest in

banning big money, and I’m really grateful that he feels that way. I’m also

thankful to the elector organizations who understand the intent and have gone

on record for continuing with that intent.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I’m sure the member knows full well that when you are working with a

piece of legislation, how it rolls out, how it plays out on the ground,

sometimes doesn’t actually hit the mark. I’ve gone on record and certainly been

very committed to addressing that

interpretation. It’s an

interpretation that

we didn’t anticipate. Now that others have brought it forward in terms of how

they understand what’s acceptable, we are in the process of identifying a way

to make sure that that is not the case.

T. Stone: I appreciate that, Minister. It certainly is our role, as the official

opposition, to hold the government accountable for the decisions that it makes

and to ensure that we’re asking the right questions and the tough questions

with respect to those accountabilities.

This was an important piece of legislation that was supported by

everyone in the House. Again, just a very simple question to the minister,

because it sounds like she’s committed to a fix. I want to, again, highlight

the urgency from a timing perspective, with municipal elections on the horizon

and bearing down on all of us quickly. When does the minister plan on actually

coming forward with a fix to this particular loophole?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the time pressures. Trust

me; I am fully aware. But I think it’s important to tell a bit more of this

story.

I want to remind all members of the House that it was a number of years

ago — I want to say 2014 — when there was a task force put together by the old

government to look at campaign finance and, in particular, expense limits for

local governments. At the time, there was zero interest by the members opposite

to include campaign contribution limits and get big money out.

[3:35 p.m.]

I know that I brought forward a motion to see if we could include that

in this task force. It was denied, which was very disappointing, because we’ve

known for a long time…. British Columbians have been asking for some time to

get big money out of local elections. That would have been the time, I have to

say, to actually do something to get big money out. It was certainly the

opportunity to have the legislation working and understanding so that you’re

not in this six-month crunch.

However, that wasn’t to be, which was really unfortunate. But it seems

that the members opposite have seen the light and recognize the importance of

banning big money and getting it out of our election process. I’m pleased to

hear that there’s still that commitment. I thought maybe it was just around the

piece of legislation, but hearing that they’re still committed to that is a

good thing.

Again, we heard at the UBCM in September — you know, a new minister,

just three months — a commitment from the UBCM. We did move quickly, I want to

say, because there’s an election coming up this coming year, and we wanted to

make sure that we could get big money out.

I want to assure the member opposite that staff are working diligently

to identify a fix. That should be available for all parties because they do

need to know exactly what the expectations are. I can tell them right now the

expectation is that big money will not be influencing our politics in this

upcoming election. The fix is in the works, and we’ll have it

shortly.

T. Stone: While I do appreciate the minister’s walk down memory lane on campaign

finance reform and the gospel according to the minister on this, the fact of

the matter is that she is the minister, and she is responsible for this piece

of legislation. She was responsible for overseeing its drafting. She was

responsible for ushering it through this chamber.

It contains a very significant loophole that is now causing tremendous

concern and tremendous strife within local government as local politicians

prepare to put their names forward for the forthcoming municipal election. What

was or was not the right thing to do in 2014 or 2015 or 2001 or 1991 is not

relevant to the line of questioning here today.

On behalf of all of those mayoralty, councillor, regional district and

school trustee candidates out there and all those electoral organizations, I

will ask one more time: could the minister confirm that this loophole will be

eliminated via some sort of a fix on her

part in time for the municipal

elections that will be taking place later this year, in 2018?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pretty sure I answered this question, but I want to assure the

member opposite that this interpretive challenge that we’re facing right now

will be fixed, absolutely, in time for the upcoming election.

T. Stone: I’d like to ask a few questions about gaming grants. First, I’m

wondering if the minister can confirm what the level of funding will be for the

forthcoming fiscal year with respect to community gaming grants and whether or

not that funding level is the same as last year’s. If it’s not, is it going up

or is it going down?

Hon. S. Robinson: The budget for community gaming grants remains unchanged at $140

million.

[3:40 p.m.]

T. Stone: I wonder if the minister could provide some details on the allocation of

the gaming grants. My understanding is that there continue to be six intake

categories: arts and culture, sport, parent advisory councils, environment,

public safety, human and social services — and capital. Are those still the

grant categories — one? Two, will there be any movement of funds from one

category to another?

The overall amount is unchanged. I understand that. But are there any

allocation changes within that overall amount? If so, could the minister please

provide those details?

Hon. S. Robinson: The community gaming grants will continue to award a diverse range of

grants to a variety of non-profit organizations that represent six categories:

arts and culture, sport, environment, public safety, human and social services,

and parent advisory councils. The capital project sector also will be

available.

We’re committed to the notional allocations that the member noted, but

of course, I know that he appreciates that communities and trends change over

time. What’s going on over time changes. At this point, we’re not anticipating

any significant shift, but staff monitor very, very closely to see what the

requests are, and we try to make sure that we’re a responsive grant opportunity

for communities around the province.

T. Stone: If I’m hearing correctly, the minister is not anticipating any

significant changes in allocations from one application group to another as

part of the overall amount. I appreciate that.

I’m wondering if capital grant requests from volunteer fire departments

would be an eligible request. There are a number of volunteer fire departments

that the official opposition is aware of and that have some capital needs. It

would seem to me that the new capital project grant component of the gaming

revenues program might be a useful area to extract some funds to meet the needs

of volunteer fire departments.

I’m wondering if the minister has received any of those kinds of

requests and if she has any thoughts on whether or not those kinds of requests

might be considered within the overall application process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to let the member know that volunteer fire services have made

application, and some have been successful. It’s case by case. They have to

meet, certainly, the criteria, but that’s certainly an eligible opportunity for

them.

T. Stone: To the minister, I appreciate that.

One more on the gaming revenue piece. The chief of the Tk’emlúps Indian

Band, Kúkwpi7 Fred Seymour, obviously was — along with many First Nations

around the province — appreciative to hear of the government’s commitment to

provide gaming revenues to First Nations.

Kúkwpi7 Seymour received a letter back from the Minister of Finance on

November 3, 2017. In it, it says: “As part of government’s commitment to

reconciliation at this time, government is committed to working with First

Nations leaders and communities on the development of a framework for a share

of provincial gaming revenues. I will be working closely with my colleague the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who will be leading this

work.”

My question, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is: could she advise

the House as to whether or not a share of provincial gaming revenues applies to

the existing pie that is provided to existing recipients in those six

allocation categories that we just talked about? Or is it the government’s

intention to provide net new gaming revenues above and beyond what’s currently

available for the First Nations to apply for and receive?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that gaming revenue and how that’s

distributed is tax policy. That comes out of the Ministry of Finance, and it’s

outside of the scope of the administration of the program, which is what my

ministry is responsible for.

First Nations groups are certainly, if they meet the criteria, eligible

to apply, along with other non-profits, in order to access the funds. Like I

said earlier, the gaming revenues, overall, are part of tax policy.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Stone: I understand that. But it is the minister’s responsibility to those

existing allocation categories and the organizations that apply for and receive

funding. The minister would be able to rattle off all kinds of organizations,

I’m sure, in her constituency. I have lots in mine — there are others around

the province — that really rely on the gaming revenue stream that they receive

each and every year.

I’m wondering if the minister could allay the concerns that some are

expressing, in some of those existing organizations — that their gaming revenue

fund levels are not going to be compromised when First Nations are cut into the

existing pie but that rather, the intention on the government’s

part is to

provide net new gaming revenues to First Nations that will not come at the

expense of existing recipients of community gaming grants.

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, I want to let the member know that my ministry is

responsible for the administration of the $140 million gaming grant program. We

have no anticipation of having to do anything more than what we’ve been doing

or changing it in any way. Again, if the member is concerned, overall, about

what happens with gaming revenues and how that is distributed across

government, that work happens out of the Ministry of Finance.

T. Stone: Let me ask the minister the question this way. Does she believe that the

existing organizations that receive gaming revenues — and are largely, in many

cases, dependent on those revenues — should be kept whole, irrespective of any

other priorities of government?

Insofar as providing provincial gaming revenues to First Nations, does

the minister think that those existing organizations that have come to count on

these revenues — in many cases, for many years — should continue to have the

confidence that those gaming revenues are going to be there for them on a

go-forward basis?

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t anticipate any changes.

T. Stone: One final question on this. In the estimates of the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I asked the minister a similar line of

questioning — again trying to reflect, on the one hand, the support that I

certainly have, and the opposition certainly has, towards the concept of First

Nations being provided provincial gaming revenues but also balancing that off

with ensuring that existing recipients of gaming revenues are to remain

whole.

[3:55 p.m.]

The minister said: “I think the idea is that it’s a share of the

provincial government portion. It’s not going to be coming out of the existing

funds that go out to all the good organizations and local governments that

currently are there. They’re not going to be linked.”

One final question. Does the minister agree with the comments of her

colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on this

matter?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

S. Sullivan: In the interest of trying to get as many questions in, given the

shortness of time, what I’d do is just speak for a few minutes on the context

of how I’m seeing this file. I certainly respect that the minister has a

weighty responsibility on this incredibly important topic of the housing

crisis. We do have a real affordability crisis.

I’m going to spend a little bit on this groundbreaking study that has

just been produced by the CMHC group that basically had 30 PhD master’s

economists spend a year and $1½ million to get to the bottom of the issue. What

is behind the rising house prices, especially in Toronto and

Vancouver?

They looked at Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. They

concluded that the real challenge that we have is a supply curve that is

incredibly inelastic. It’s the worst supply curve in the country, possibly on

the continent. The actual number is around 0.25. It means that for every

escalation in price, very few new housing units are actually created. So we

have a supply curve that is broken.

Now, there are two options on how to deal with this. One is to fix the

supply curve, and the other is to break the demand curve, just go after and

damage the demand curve as much as possible. The problem with going after the

demand curve is that there are a lot of unintended consequences, and,

especially, there are real challenges. Sometimes going after the demand curve

can actually cause even worse supply problems.

I do have a number of people that have come to me recently to ask me….

There’s a lot of uncertainty, and one of the big problems of going after the

demand curve is it injects a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty then affects

supply. The people who actually make supply pull back.

Now, the 30-point plan that I read through…. Almost all of the points

deal with demand. There are a number of points that deal with supply, but it’s

all government supply. In fact, there is not a single point that I can find

that deals with the broken supply curve, the actual market-driven housing. Some

of the points that attack the demand curve are actually risking reducing the

supply and making an even worse supply curve.

For example, there doesn’t seem to be a great sense of trying to

determine the different types of speculators that are in the market. There are

some speculators that cause price rises, and there are other speculators that

actually create housing. You’ll find, I think, most of us live in

speculator-created housing. It’s called spec housing. Most British Columbians

live in speculator housing, housing that has been created by

speculators.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s very important not to attack those speculators. There are other

speculators who simply create turmoil in the market and actually cause rising

prices.

Rather than fixing the supply curve, I think the first effort of the

government was a kind of rationing. As I tried to understand it, it was

basically home rationing. We haven’t seen rationing since World War II. This

was even a type of rationing where it was one home per household — I know the

government has pulled back since that time — to basically punish anybody who

had more than one home. This has actually created a lot of uncertainty as well

and a lot of unintended consequences.

The kinds of people that I am hearing from…. Because I’m in downtown

Vancouver, this is the place where people have the most…. There are homes,

small condos — they’re called pied-à-terres — that are common in all

global cities. Vancouver is a global city. It’s a city where we have a lot of

people from all over the world who come here, who love being here.

We have…. For example, a person I’m dealing with, a Silicon Valley

entrepreneur, probably spends about three or four months here in total. He’s

created a business here and hires a lot of Canadians. He comes here mainly to

manage and to create a lot of employment in Vancouver. He’s now called a

speculator, because he has a flat in Vancouver. He will only be three or four

months here. He’s also liable to the vacant house tax. So he’s wondering about

why he’s trying to create employment in Vancouver in this tech sector. We’ve

got a number of people who, actually, are in that situation.

Another gentleman owns a very significant property. He’s paid over $20

million in property tax since he’s owned that home. His home is actually used

as one of the highlights of the film industry. When they send out their

prospectuses around the world, his home is one. Because he’s not in it that

often, he allows it to be rented out for film companies. It’s a heritage house.

He keeps it immaculately. The film industry is worried about losing that

home.

A couple retired to Bowen Island, but they sit on a major foundation’s

board in Vancouver. They do a lot of volunteer work. A lot of the people on

Bowen Island keep a flat in the downtown, because they can’t make their

ferries. They’re now considered speculators.

Some people want a getaway home. I now know that they’re moving their

purchases to Birch Bay in Washington, just to go across the border. I think one

of the unintended consequences is that we’re finding British Columbians now

moving across the border for their second homes and taking their consumption

dollars and taking their economic consumption to the U.S., where they’re not

labelled as speculators and they’re not given punitive tax bills.

A lot of people are concerned about the future of Whistler. Whistler is

exempt, for some reason, from the speculation tax, but they are concerned that

it won’t be long before they eventually get covered. That’s creating a lot of

uncertainty there. People are not willing to make the purchase of the homes

there.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’ve got rules that seem to be balkanizing the province. Our artificial

boundaries, where one property is treated one way…. A person can own a large

home in Whistler, but an elderly person with a bungalow in Vancouver is being

treated entirely different.

A B.C. couple lives part of the year as snowbirds. Fifty thousand

British Columbians live in other parts of the south, especially, volunteering

for Médecins Sans Frontières. It pushes them into the category of the empty

homes tax.

There are a lot of things that I am dealing with on people coming to

visit me and to express their concern. I’ll just ask the minister a couple of

questions. Does she feel that there are reasons that some people, for

employment, would need to have two homes? Does she accept that that’s a

legitimate status that someone would have?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s an interesting question. I think people can do whatever they

want. They can have as many homes as they want.

S. Sullivan: The question is to be liable for punitive taxes. Right now, there’s, you

might say, an empty homes tax. Or you could say the speculation tax would be a

kind of a vacancy tax. We do have people who, through their employment needs,

require two homes. Do you accept that that’s unacceptable and should not be

liable for punitive taxes?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s really important to recognize that our government has taken

quite a balanced approach to the housing affordability issues that have been

growing over the last decade and were ignored until the point where it reaches

a crisis.

Our government has taken a really broad-based and balanced approach,

addressing some of the demand issues but also addressing supply and taking some

significant steps so far — and there’s more to do — but also making sure that

we have the kinds of securities in place for renters and landlords so that that

relationship works better. We’ve taken some significant steps.

I want to remind the member that our government made the biggest

investment in housing in B.C.’s history — $7 billion over the next decade. It’s

a significant investment in the supply-side component. In this budget, we’re

already moving ahead to directly support investments into 36,700 units over the

next ten years. We’ve already started to make significant investments

there.

I also want to point out this new branch of B.C. Housing. I’m very, very

proud of this new branch, because they are being tasked with being innovative

and creative and with bringing partnerships together. I certainly spoke about

it in my opening comments. We announced it about a week and a half ago, where

we’re able to demonstrate already how this housing hub is bringing together

partners who have land or are ready to reuse the land or repurpose the

land.

What they needed was a little bit of help in taking a look at how this

development can work, in creating a land trust across four different

communities and in developing 400 new affordable housing units that will meet

the needs of British Columbians who are challenged with finding affordable

housing.

We’re not going to be able to do this fast. Housing does take some time

to build. But we have to start, because it hasn’t been done before. Our

government is taking swift action both on what I’ll call the social housing

front as well as on the market front.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve got some other pieces that we’re looking to do legislatively that

we’ve talked about already around housing needs assessments, rental-only

zoning, so that we can stimulate the kind of supply that people

need.

S. Sullivan: Perhaps I can help the minister. Right now MLAs are paid by the

government to have two homes. Some MLAs own two homes, and they’re required to

do that for their job. They live partly in Victoria, and they live in other

parts of the province. So MLAs are conveniently exempted from this home

rationing.

I know the Premier has said that cabinet will now be meeting more often

in Victoria. This means that Vancouver MLAs, at least cabinet ministers, may be

liable for the empty home tax if they spend any more than 180 days away from

their home. If they’re on the road, if they’re in Victoria meeting, ministers

will have to pay the empty home tax. Will they be compensated by the government

for any empty home taxes that they’re liable for?

Hon. S. Robinson: Although this is a finance question, because it’s about the speculation

tax and my ministry isn’t technically responsible for the application of that

tax…. No one is exempted. I’m not clear that the member understands that — that

it has nothing to do with MLAs. It has nothing to do with any of

that.

S. Sullivan: So ministers would be liable to pay to that if they spend more than 180

days away from their homes?

Hon. S. Robinson: MLAs make choices about how they’re going to do accommodation here in

the capital, while they’re working. Some may have purchased. Some rent. Some

stay in hotels. That’s to suit individual needs. In this case, if they’re

responsible for the speculation tax, then they’re responsible for the

speculation tax.

S. Sullivan: So ministers and MLAs are speculators, then, according to this

government. By living in Victoria and maybe not spending enough days sleeping

in their own homes in Vancouver perhaps…. I know that Victoria has asked for

the empty home tax. If that gets imposed on Victoria, that means those of us

who do not live in Victoria for up to 180 days would then have to pay the empty

home tax and would also be considered speculators, according to this

government, even though the government is subsidizing them to be speculators.

Do you think it’s right that the government subsidizes speculation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that part of what the member is getting at is trying to find a

way to not acknowledge the kind of housing that people need. What we are

talking about is people need housing. And the option to rent out housing is

always available to people to make sure that people have the opportunity to

have a home that they can afford, recognizing that it’s really important that

those MLAs who make choices make whatever choices that suit their needs around

their own housing.

S. Sullivan: I’m not sure that it’s a choice for us to come to the Legislature. We

have to be at the Legislature, and we have to be there the days that the

government requires us. That’s our job. I don’t think that MLAs are speculators

either, because we have to do our job.

If Victoria will get an empty home tax, the MLAs would have to pay that.

And I wonder if they will get extra compensation. I know in the private sector,

they don’t.

I have a neighbour who lives in Yaletown, who lives right beside me. He

owns an air-conditioning company. He lives in Abbotsford, and he also has a

flat in Yaletown. When he does most of his work in the downtown area, he stays

in his Yaletown flat. When he works in the suburbs, he stays there, at his

regular home.

[4:15 p.m.]

Is this person considered a speculator, and should he be liable for

punitive taxes?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening very closely to the member’s comments, the hypothetical

around what Victoria is doing, and I can’t comment on what may or may not

happen. It’s just…. Victoria may make whatever choices they make. They get to

do that as a local government, and then we’ll see what happens. But I can’t

comment on something that hasn’t happened that I know nothing about, because

Victoria hasn’t implemented any empty home tax.

S. Sullivan: Is it right for government politicians to not have to deal with the same

issues that private sector people who create jobs have to deal with? Here we

are. We must come to Victoria to work. I actually stay in a hotel. Many people

don’t like to pack up their luggage every week and then move into their home

every week. It’s much more difficult, so some people choose to actually

purchase a home in Victoria. They’re committed to their work.

Many of the ministers currently may not be liable to the empty home tax

in Vancouver, but if the Premier does decide to have more cabinet meetings and

more work done in Victoria, they will be likely out of their home in Vancouver

for more than 180 days. In that case, they will have to pay the vacant home tax

in Vancouver.

Does the minister feel that ministers are speculators because they have

to work in another city, in Victoria, where they do most of their

work?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the member is moving into a hypothetical that I can’t really

respond to. It’s hypothetical, and I don’t have a response for hypothetical.

However, I do know that he’s asking a significant number of questions about tax

policy, and that’s the purview of the Minister of Finance.

In my ministry, we’re putting a tremendous effort into making sure that

we have the kinds of homes that people can afford, making sure that we are

building the kind of supply that the member actually started his comments with.

He commented on a supply issue. I think it’s really important to get on the

record that at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we’re working

together, between the municipal part and the housing part, to make sure that we

have the kind of housing that meets people’s needs.

I know that the member was the mayor of Vancouver and would have come

across this in his time on council. I certainly saw, in my time on council in

Coquitlam, where we were getting a lot of proposals for towers, because the

Evergreen Line was coming to Coquitlam, and the number of proposals that were

coming through to build supply were all 600-square-foot apartments. Just 600

feet, all of them. We’re talking tower after tower after tower.

We were doing some significant density, because that’s what was required

when you have quite a transportation node like that in the Tri-Cities that has

been starved for a long time and waiting for efficient and affordable

transportation. And what struck me at the time…. I remember asking, very

specifically, a couple of the developers who were coming through again and

again, three and four towers, and saying: “So 600 square feet? Why is that all

that you’re building? Where are the two-bedrooms? Where are the three-bedrooms?

Where are families going to live? Where are people going to downsize

to?”

I don’t know if the member is familiar with Coquitlam, but it’s a

traditional suburban community, as traditional as traditional could be, with

lots of single-family housing, lots of cul-de-sacs, lots of 1950s, ’60s, ’70s

houses. And now people want to downsize. I’m one of the youngest on my street,

and I have no children at home anymore, so there’s no place to downsize as a

result of this overabundance of 600-square-foot apartments. So as a result,

people are, as my son says, staying overhoused.

[4:20 p.m.]

I agree with the member that there is a supply issue, but the problem is

that it’s the right kind of supply. When I would ask the development community,

the developers that were working in my community, why just 600-square-foot

condos, their response was: “Because that’s what the market demands.” They’re

flying off the shelf. Their presales were gone in a day, in half a day. So for

them, they were saying: “Well, that’s the demand. We’re responding to the

demand.” But it wasn’t responding to the demand of the community — a different

kind of demand.

I think it’s really important that we focus on what communities need,

remember what British Columbians need. British Columbians are saying they need

homes that work for their families. They need homes that are affordable. They

need homes that are appropriate. That’s exactly what…. Everything that’s in the

30-point plan related to the supply side, which is critically important, is

what we’re focused on right now.

S. Sullivan: Well, I don’t see anything that deals with the market supply curve — the

atrocious 0.25 supply in elasticity that we have. I understand that there are

some condos being built in Port Moody, absolutely, and I’m glad that that is

happening. But we are not solving this.

All of the points that you have in here…. In fact, we’d call those

condos, speculator condos. Those condos were built as spec housing. There are

certain speculators that are actually building housing, and most of us actually

live in those houses. I’m just concerned about some of the uncertainty that the

minister is bringing in. Almost the entire 30 points are dealing with demand

and trying to break the demand curve.

I want to ask…. I’ll just get into some other questions on some of the

literature she’s put out recently. First of all, how many units of housing will

the minister’s government build over the next three years?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked specifically how much government is going to build. Is

that correct? We anticipate building between 2,500 and 3,500 a year over the

next three years. That’s government-built.

[4:25 p.m.]

I’m sure the member can appreciate that once you fund it, you still need

to go through a development permitting process, and actually building and

delivering will take anywhere from 18 months to three years, depending on the

community. Those processes take some time.

I also think it’s important to recognize that we are working very

closely with a range of other sectors to deliver on other housing. In fact, we

just announced over 400 units of housing, partnering with a faith group. That

is not government-subsidized. That’s working with a faith group to build

housing for what we call “the missing middle.”

S. Sullivan: The 2,500 to 3,500 per year. You mentioned that there was going to be

planning and working through the processes and then actually building them.

Would I conclude that there won’t be any housing done within three

years?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the member fully appreciates, it’s a constant flow. We’re expecting

to be able to open 2,500 to 3,500 units every year. As the next year, you

announce, and it just keeps going. You just keep working at it.

This is what happens when you haven’t had anything in the pipeline. You

have to start moving. You start, and you move it through, and that’s our

commitment: to get between 2,500 and 3,500 opened every year.

S. Sullivan: The housing that the current government is committing to…. Actually, for

people to actually move into them, there won’t be any housing that has started

now, funded now and actually is to be moved into in the next three years. Would

I say zero?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud to say that we have people already moving into housing

that we announced in September. They moved in, in January.

S. Sullivan: I would imagine that would be the modular housing, then. Okay. So

temporary housing.

How many units over the next ten years?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s 114,000 units.

S. Sullivan: That is both government and private sector.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes.

S. Sullivan: For government housing, what is the cost per unit of this

plan?

Hon. S. Robinson: I suspect that the member is well aware — maybe he’s not — that with

every project, the costs vary.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We’re a government that’s about partnership, and we’re always looking to

partner. Every project is different — by location, by area of the province, the

unit size, the kinds of things that people bring to the partnership, whether or

not t