British Columbia Hansard — 8 March 2018, p.m., Issue 99 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20180308pm-Hansard-n99

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, March 8, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 99 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care......................................................................................................................................Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.............................................................................................Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health.....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Commi ttee of the Whole................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Commi ttees.................................................................................................................................

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

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal)........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal)................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal).......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal)................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal)...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal)..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal)............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal)................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP).............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal).......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal).........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal).............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal)......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (B C Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP)................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kam loops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal)..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal)...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (B C Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal)..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal)................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal)..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (B C Liberal).............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal)................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kam loops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (B C Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal)......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal)................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal).....................................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal).............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal)..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal)................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal).............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Yap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West.................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kam loops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kam loops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm L etnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo...............................................................................

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

Jennifer Rice North Island............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head..........................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North..................................................................................

Dan Davies Peace River South............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast.....................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston.................................................................................. John Yap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena.........................................................................................................

Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale...............................................................................

Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Surrey South...............................................................................Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon. George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek.......................................................................

Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings.............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara.............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant................................................... Hon.

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon.

Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano................................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, March 8, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 3293 Orders of the Day Commi ttee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3293 Bill 4 — British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018(continued) A. Weaver Hon. B. Ralston T.

Stone Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 3298 Bill 4 — British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 3298 Bill 8 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2018 Hon. C. James S. Bond A. Weaver Hon. C.

James Commi ttee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3303 Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 Hon. C. James T. Redies S. Bond Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Commi ttee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3322 Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) D. Davies Hon. R. Fleming P. Milobar S. Bond D. Ashton S. Cadieux N. Letnick J. Yap S.

Sullivan J. Thornthwaite L. Throness A. Olsen

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2018 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the precinct today is the Am bassador of Austria to Canada, His Excellency Dr. Stefan Pehringer, who is here on his first official visit to Victoria to m eet with you, Mr. Speaker, as well as with m e this afternoon. The am bassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Debra Jean Pehringer, and the honorary con- sulgeneralto Austria, Mr. David Haber. Wouldthe House please welcom e them. Orders of the Day Hon. M.

Farnworth:In this chamber, I call commi ttee stage of Bill4. In the littleHouse, Commi ttee A, I callcon- tinued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. Commi ttee of the Whole House BILL 4 — BRITISH COLUMBIA (continued) INNOVATION COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) The House in Commi ttee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; R. Chouhan in the chair. The commi ttee met at 1:34 p.m. On

section 5 (continued). A. Weaver: Continuing with

section 3, I have one some- what technical question and a number of broader questions. The Chair: Members, we are on

section 5. [1:35 p.m.] A. Weaver: Sorry,

section 5 of Bill4,

section 3 thatis being amended in the BCIC AmendmentAct.Thank you for that clarification, hon. Chair. The firstquestion. With respectto

section 3(

e) of the act that is to be amended — by

section 5 of the bill that’s the amendment act — it says specifically there that one of the purposes is to “gatherand organizeinformation on scientific research.” I’m questioning why the word “technological” was notadded, as wellas “scientificresearch.” Is this beingleftout explicitly, or is science to include technology here? The reason why I dothatis thata numberof times in this

section — thatis,

section 3 of the actthat’s amended,

section 5 of the actthat’s doing the amending — “science” has been replaced by “scienceand technology,” and it’s really this one placewhere it hasn’t. My question to the minister is: does this mean to includescientificand technologicalresearch, as it says, actually, earlier in the same section? Hon. B. Ralston: I just wanted to clarify the member’s question. In the previous act,he seems to be referring to sec- tion 3(e), which reads: “…gatherand organize information on scientific research.” Is that correct? A. Weaver: Yes, that is correct. I’m wondering whether itshouldbe “scientificand technologicalresearch,” because we’re changing it in (

d) and (

f) there. Also, earlierin that actual

section 3 there, it talks about the importance of the “developmentand dissemination of scientific,technological and scholarly knowledge.” [1:40 p.m.] I’m wondering whetherthe research is actually also tech- nologicalhere. Itmay sound like semantics,butI don’tknow whether it’s just inadvertent or whether it’s deliberate. Hon. B. Ralston: I betterunderstand the member’s ques- tion now.

Section (

e) in the previous actfocuses on scientific research. The amendmentsare to (

d) and (f), substituting, for “science policy,” “science, technology and innovation policy.” The focus there is not on research but on policy. I don’tthink there was an intention to change (e). Itwas rather to expand the scope of the policy that would flow from it,whetherit’s scientificresearch ortechnology in gen- eral. I think that’s the reason for the distinction. A. Weaver: I appreciate the clarification. To furtherthat, though,if the ministeris ableto look atsection (c),itactually talks aboutthe “developmentand dissemination of scientific, technological and scholarly” information.

I’m wondering whetherthere’s an inconsistency there. On the one hand, you’re disseminatingand developingscientific, technologicaland scholarly research, buton the other, you’re just looking at the science aspect. Hon. B. Ralston: I don’t think there’s an intention to emphasize or create a difficulty there. The focus is on the development of a broaderpolicy beyond science policy, technology policy and innovation policy. That’s clearly not the intention. I think the member has madea perceptive point,butI don’tthink itreally detracts from the purposes of the amendments. A. Weaver: Thank you for the clarification.

I have a number of general questions about the role of Innovate B.C. In particular, I’m wondering if the minister couldidentify the relationship between the innovation com- 3293

missioner and Innovate B.C., as reconstituted in this amended act here. Hon. B. Ralston: Innovate B.C. and the innovation com- missionerwillbe separate entities,butthey willwork closely together, obviously. The commi ssioneris mandated to be an advocate for the tech industry, both here in British Columbia, to ourfederal counterparts, and, indeed, abroad. The commi ssioner will interactwith board members and willbe an ex officiomem- ber — will be invited to participate with Innovate B.C.’s board members as an ex officiomember.

There willbe aclose relationship, but the officeof the innovation commi ssioner will be independent of the agency. A. Weaver: Thank you forthe answer. Itactually answered my nextquestion. Wouldthe innovation commi ssionerbe a memberof the board oran ex officiomember?Thathas been clarified as well. My nextquestion is with respectto…. With this new vis- ion, as outlined in

section 5 of the amendmentact,pertain- ing to an amendmentin

section 3 of the originalact,whatis the…? If the ministercouldarticulate in a few words what he would define as the new mission statement for Innov- ate B.C. Has the ministergotan idea in mind? If he were to succinctly express, in two sentences….Whatis the mission statement of Innovate B.C., as reconstituted here? [1:45 p.m.] Hon. B.

Ralston: I’ve attended — and I’m sure, probably, the memberhas — board meetings or retreatsof organiza- tions where a mission statementwillsometimes be worked on fordays,if notweeks, and alotof internaldebate willtake placeaboutthe exactwording of a mission statement.So to ask me to give aprecise mission statementhere is something that I approach with some caution. The goalof the organization is to focus and use innovation and supportforinnovation to catalyzecompaniesto be more successfulin whatthey do, orevenresearchinstitutions to be more successful.

It’s abroadlook atthe powerand the trans- formationalforceof innovation as applied to awiderange of human and societal problems. A. Weaver: That’s very helpful, and I wouldneverask the ministerto develop a mission statementin commi ttee stage. It would simply be something that he could not be held accountable to — understandably so. I have, too, been in those board meetingsthathave takendaysto decidewhether it should be a “the” or an “an” or “they.” My next question, then, is following on that previous question, actually. As articulated here in

section 5(b), where it uses the words “innovation policy,” I’m wondering if the ministerwouldbe ableto define specifically whathe means by “innovation.” Hon. B. Ralston: I didhave adiscussion with the member before lunch, and I got an opportunity to think about the question, which he very kindly toldme he was going to ask me in advance.

I don’t think I’d want to be confined to a singledefin- ition of “innovation.” One looks at different institutions, and innovation has differenteffectsand consequences.For example, research institutions — whetherit’s catalyzing or driving the creative and intellectual abilities of research- ers and students or whether it’s the kind of innovation that drives companies of all sizes to develop either new productsornew servicesthatallow them to grow and fuel the economy.

Clearly, innovations can be big, can be huge, whether we’re thinking of a company like GeneralFusion, which I’ve metwith and I’m sure the member is familiar with, where the innovation that they’re recomm ending would literally transform the world— I don’tthink that’s an understatement — orwhetherthere are smallprocess innovations in the way in which a manufacturing process goes forward. Sometimes practitioners on the shop floorwillthink of away thatthings might be improved. That, too, would be an innovation.

I think whatwe’re hoping to do is to take a wide view of innovation in allitsaspectsand look to it,in a competitive and rapidly changing world, to draw on the creativity and talentof the peopleof British Columbia and use innovation and creative change to solve human problems, make things better, make companies grow and prosper and generally enhance the quality of life of everyone in the province. A. Weaver: Thank you for the very helpful response. My lastquestion is on the issueof technology. We’ve heard a lot of discourse.

I thank the member for Shuswap, who asked a numberof probing questions, and the ministerfor his responses. We’ve heard a lot about innovation in technology. I’m wonderingif the ministercouldexpand upon whathe means by “technology,” more forclarifying the publicrecord. Many peopleoften think thattechnology means apps and stuff that has chips on it.Here, the ministerhas a broaderdefinition of what “technology” is — innovation in technology and innovation in general.

In whatareas otherthan justchips, computers or apps is he thinking when he’s talking aboutinnovation, perhaps, in technology and elsewhere? [1:50 p.m.] Hon. B. Ralston: I wouldadoptthe answerthatthe mem- bersuggested, which is a broadscope of innovation. I agree with him. Sometimes there’s a view thatinnovation is con- fined to software developers in downtown Vancouver. That is most assuredly not the case.

Whether it’s in Kam loops, at the Kam loops Innovation Centre; in PrinceGeorge, atthe clean-tech innovation hub that’s being developed by the economic director there at the city hall;orin Victoria here with Tectoria, it’s certainly geographically broad. The scope of the problems that are 3294 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

tackled, and what is m eant by technology, is very broad indeed. Technology is capable of revolutionizing and changing very traditional industries, such as the mining industry. I think I’ve repeatedly given a couple of examples. MineSense, which is a company using the Internet of things and sensors, devised a process to examine ore that’s been extracted and sortitm ore quickly, m ore thoroughly and m ore efficiently, thereby increasing the efficiency and, ultimately, the profit of the company.

Llam aZOO has a visualization technology that looks at a mine before it’s developed, inputsall the data and then representsthat in a visual display of the minesite itself in a way that helps peopleto understand whatthe mine mightlook like, what the ore body mightlook like itor how itm ay be extracted m ore efficiently. I don’tthink I wouldwantto be confined by thatnarrow definition of technology, certainly, whether it’s technology, orit’s innovation solutions applied to climate change, orlife sciences or ICT — across the board.

There’s an institution atSimon FraserUniversity thatspeaks of socialinnovation — in other words, applying some of the same techniques, some of the same inspiration and some of the same talentto major socialproblems, whetherthatmightbe addiction or the problems of aging. I think there’s always room, and the hope is thatthere are lotsof solutions coming that can be implemented to solve problems and make life better for everyone. T. Stone: I just have a few questions as well. Obviously, this pieceof legislation is of greatinterestto me as a former tech CEO.

I certainly applaud the government for taking some steps here to modernize the government’s approach, doing more to enable expansion within the tech sector. My firstquestion relates to the board itself, the board of Innovate B.C., which will be appointed, presumably, in the weeks and months ahead. I’m justwondering if the minister couldprovidea littlebitmore detailas to the kind of timing thathe has in mind for the board, and if he can give some assuranceto this House thatthere willabsolutely be repres- entation on that board from rural British Columbia.

I think we allacknowledge thatinnovation is taking place in comm unities large and small, in every corner of this province, so itwillbe very importantto make sure thatthere is representation that reflects the breadth of that innova- tion that’s taking placeacross B.C., including representatives from rural British Columbia. Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the memberfor his question. I know he raised this issue in his speech at second reading. I thank him for that.As the memberwillknow by my ref- erence to Kam loops Innovation Centre, I’m aware of the dynamism and creativity in the Kam loops tech sector.

Indeed, they won a national award for the start-up of the year. The expectation is thatoncethe agency is reconstituted legally and is in place, then appointments will be made. I don’twantto confine myselfto a time frame, because some- times peoplethat you ask and think wouldbe good don’t always accept. [1:55 p.m.] Certainly, the goal is to have the kind of representation thatthe memberrefers to on the board. I think it’s import- ant,one, because that’s the reality.

Secondly, I don’tthink it wouldbe right,or a properreflection of the kind of change we wantto bringabout,to confine itonly to peoplefrom, say, the Lower Mainland, for example. I certainly appreciate the member’s comm ents. In fact, probably we couldtalk about this off line. If he has people thathe thinks wouldbe good forthe board, then I wouldbe prepared to consider them. T.

Stone: I certainly appreciate the minister’s comm ents, and I willtake him up on his offerthere to sitdown and have achat.There are some exceptionalpeoplethatcome to mind in differentpartsof the provincethatwouldbe, I think, out- standing participants on the Innovate B.C. board. I was pleased to read the comm unication that was wrapped around this billwhen itwas introduced thatindic- ated there wouldcontinue to be support for the important work that’s done with the FirstNations Technology Council.

I think every member of this House fully supports doing everything we can to encourage and foster more success with respect to Indigenous entrepreneurship, whether that involves technology and innovation or not. I’m just wondering if the minister couldshare a few of his thoughtsas to how he sees thatrelationship between the First Nations Technology Council and Innovate B.C. really evolving over the months ahead. Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for that question. I think that’s certainly an important question.

BCIC, the predecessororganization, has anumberof pro- grams thatwillbe continued thatsupportIndigenous tech- nology entrepreneurs, including the venture acceleration program and the techworks program. I can give more details if the member wishes. In addition, the tech summi t,which was begununderthe previous government,is being continued enthusiastically by this one. There are anumberof Indigenous stakeholders who are being asked to provide meaningful participation.

I can briefly list them here: First Nations schools; First Nations Schools Association of B.C.; FirstNations Education Steering Commi ttee; Indigenous Adultand HigherLearning Association; the FirstNations Technology Council, which is the organization the member referenced; the First Peoples cultural council; the Indigenous Business and Investment Council; and the Aboriginal labour market commi ttee. They are all being asked to provide theirinput into the content of the tech conference.

Some of that, I think, will translate into participation, although I haven’tformally con- sidered it.I think it’s importantto note the future structure and composition of the board of Innovate B.C. Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3295

T. Stone:I appreciate the minister’s answer there. In this section, there is referenceto building capacity to access new m arkets.I know this has been canvassed a bit with a few other m embers. I expressed this in my com- m entsin second reading, as well. As a form er tech CEO, I remember back in the day, when we were really in the early stages of our business, trying to build it in British Columbia.

It was far m ore difficult to do business with British Columbia government entities than it was to do business in other jurisdictions. [2:00 p.m.] I think some progress has been made on this front, withoutquestion, in terms of where we are today.

Butin talk- ing with friends in the tech sector and other folks I know thatare stillactively engaged in bootstrappingtheircompan- iesand looking forthose initialpilotcustomers and so forth, I still hear far too often that it’s not as easy as it shouldbe to actually getyourfootin the doorwith localgovernments, with Crown corporations, with provincialgovernmententit- ies here in our own province.

I’m curious if the ministercouldoffersome thoughtsas to whatkinds of strategies he thinks may flow from the work thatInnovate B.C. willdoand the innovation commi ssioner — obviously, with direction and inputand supportfrom the ministerhimself— to really give B.C. companies, B.C tech start-ups and those in the early stages of growth thatbetter opportunity to actually gettheirfootin the doorwithinthe public sector here in our own province. Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question. The member raises a recurring question, and I think he’s right in his characterization of it. It’s still too difficult.

Quite often what one encounters is companies who say they’re out globally trying to sell their product or service, and peoplesay: “If you’re so good, how come yourlocaljur- isdiction, yourlocalprovincialgovernment,from yourvery sophisticated tech sector, hasn’thired orboughtyourservice or boughtyourproduct?” Itis a way of establishing credib- ility in the marketforfuture salesand building the strength and the sales of the company. Some work has been done.

The membermightbe familiar with it.There’s a program called start-up in residencewhich draws localcompanies and invites them in to look at what sometimes in the business jargon they call pain points — problems of operation orserviceordelivery in government. Itbringsin companiesand matches astart-up company with the ministry or agency, and they devise a solution. This is borrowed directly from the private sector.

One of the legendary start-ups in Silicon Valley has a very similar program where they invite start-ups in and pair them off with industry leaders, whetherit’s in transportation or fin- anceortourism orshipping, and then have a start-up bring fresh eyes and fresh enthusiasm and an innovative approach to solve problems that are vexing the company. There is aprogram called start-up in residence. I attended an awards ceremony forthe firstclass, I guess you couldcall it,of that.Itseems to be successful. ButI wouldagree with the member that it’s still far too difficult and that there is more to do. Government is….

There’s another program, which is called the continuous serviceimprovementlab, here in Victoria that,again, brings talented peoplefrom the government,in a hothouse atmo- sphere, and asks them to examine problems in servicedeliv- ery and operation in the technology within government. They’ve had some considerablesuccess as well. That’s been running for about a year or so, I believe. [2:05 p.m.] Those techniques and that trajectory are being followed, butI certainly agree thatmore can be done and more should be done.

Itwouldprovide an importantshotin the arm, an importantincentive, to those companies and help them get up and running. I think if that’s the case, we all benefit. T. Stone: I wouldconcur. The start-up in residence pro- gram, which was an initiative of the formergovernment,is, I think, working. There seems to be an appetite in the sector to actually expand it.Hopefully, itwouldbe the intentof the government to take a look at potentially doing that.

Anotherinitiative that,again, I’m notcertain as to where itis today — and perhaps the ministercouldfillme in a bit — is this conceptof aprocurementconcierge, some type ser- vice that wouldbest match government’s needs with com- panies in British Columbia that are innovating and that potentially could meet those needs. We called it the pro- curementconcierge service. Itwas received with a fairbitof excitement within the tech sector when it was announced, but I don’t believe it was actually…. I think this was just before the last election campaign. I’m notcertain thatitwas really lifted off the ground.

Nev- ertheless, I think it’s an ideaworthy of exploring. I wouldask if the ministercouldoffersome thoughtson whetherornot that’s something thathe and governmentwouldbe prepared to look at. The second piece wouldbe…. I think some progress was madeon simplifying the RFP process, as well, insideof gov- ernment.I was always one to be pushing, pushing, pushing to simplify it— more, faster. Again, with B.C. tech compan- ies in mind, itwasn’tthatlong ago thatto bid on a project with B.C. Hydro or with a different arm of government, it wouldinvolve an RFP of hundreds of pages.

I think thatwas whittled down quite dramatically. Perhaps the minister could provide som e thoughts on whether or not he wouldbe willing to entertain any fur- ther gains that could be m ade at really simplifying that RFP process. Hon. B. Ralston: Letme dealwith those two in the order thatthey were raised. The procurementconcierge, I’m not…. Staff is notaware of where thatwas at.I think itmay be for the reasons thatthe membersetout.Itwas an idea thathad not come close to beginning implementation.

The way in which the memberhas described it,itsounds like something 3296 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

thatmightwellbe worth investigating. I’llfollow up with my staff, and we’llsee whatwe can find out.We can advise the member of our efforts. Certainly, we wouldwantto make access to government, in thatway, easier. Again, it’lllowerthe transaction cost,and we’d geta widerrange of bids if we make iteasierand more accessible. Thatwouldbe an advantage to governmentthatI would welcome. On the RFP process. Some of the logisticsof procurement, of course, now fallin the Ministry of Citizens’ Servicesand don’tfallwithinthe new structure.

I’m advised thatforcon- tractsunder$250,000, there is a two-page RFP, which was implemented and is being continued. Again, I think it’s importantto make access to government….The methods by which we can encourage and contractwith smallbusiness in British Columbia are important.I also have the mandate for small business, so I’m keenly interested in that as well. [2:10 p.m.] I think that’s being continued, and any enhancements that couldbe m ade to that process, I’m certainly open to hearing about. T. Stone:I appreciate that. My finalquestion relates to whatis a criticalcomponent of any successfultech strategy.

Thatis ensuring thatwe’re focused on the talent side of the equation and, first and foremost,growing talenthere in British Columbia. I think thatstartsby ensuring thatwe are adding m ore seatsin our post-secondary institutions, which was initiated underour form ergovernment.The currentgovernmenthas followed suit. I know thatup in Kam loops, folks are very appreciative of soon having a full-fledged software engineering program. It is anotheroption forKam loops kids to stay in Kam loops for theireducation.

It’s good forindustry there, forthe hundreds of tech companies thatnow existand thatare yearning for good talent.I wouldhope thatthe governmentwouldintend on continuing to look atfurtheropportunitiesto expand the numberof science, technology, engineering and math pos- itions at post-secondary institutions around the province. Perhaps the minister could speak to that. Secondly, co-op placements are critically important as part of the equation. We need more co-op placements, opportunities for co-ops around the province. Perhaps the minister could speak to that.

Lastbutnotleast,I was very proud when ourformergov- ernmentintroduced codingin the schools in grade6. I speak to this in a bitof a personal…. As a dad, firstand foremost, I was a bittaken aback, in a good way butvery proud, when my 11-year-olddaughtercame home and couldn’twaitto tell me thatshe hadjustdone herfirstline of codeatschool. She was in a grade 5-6 split class. I realized, in thatmoment,the powerof whatthatinitiat- ive really meant:sparkingthe imagination of kids, alittlegirl like my daughter. So I’m avery strongadvocate of expanding coding beyond grade6 into latergradesas well.

I wouldlike to see itexpanded, ideally, to grade9 as a nextstep. I’d ask the ministerif he has any thoughtsaboutthe impactof cod- ing in ourschools and ourkids being exposed to thatand if he feels thatthere’s any appetite to expand coding to grades beyond grade 6. Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the memberforacknowledging the announcementthatwas madethroughoutthe province, butparticularly as itaffected Thompson Rivers University. I know I’ve spoken with the president,Dr. Shaver, and he was delighted thatafullsoftware engineeringprogram was going to be funded at Thompson Rivers University.

As he pointed out,and as the memberhas pointed outas well, there’s demand for that program. It will be filled very rapidly. Although it’s a big expansion, I think we’llbe mon- itoring it.I can’tspeak for the minister, nor for the Finance Minister, who wouldhave to pay forafurtherexpansion, but I think we’re quite proud of the factthat,forthatsector, par- ticularly in Kam loops, we’ve implemented that program. [2:15 p.m.] In terms of co-op placements,there is a$10.5 million line item for Innovate B.C. — or BCIC, the predecessor organ- ization — for tech co-ops.

I totally accept what the mem- bersays aboutthe value of co-ops. They’re valuablefor the employer, in the sense thatthey getagood chanceto look at enthusiastic studentsand decidewhetherthey are the ideal candidates for permanentemployment— plus the students themselves getreal-life work experienceand also can decide whetherthey wantto be atthatcompany orin thatparticular field. A lotof companies really value the co-op experience. Certainly, that’s why we’ve commi tted to funding it further.

On coding in schools, I recall the member’s story about his daughter from his second reading speech, and I was touched by that. I wouldsay, though, that the decision to expand codingornotwouldbe adecision forthe Ministerof Education. I think I wouldbe straying jurisdictionally into his area. So I probably shouldn’t venture an answer. Cer- tainly, I willspeak with him and find outwhathis views are on that,and I wouldencourage the memberto perhaps pur- sue that in estimates with the minister. Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. B.

Ralston: I move that the commi ttee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The commi ttee rose at 2:16 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [2:20 p.m.] Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3297

Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 4 — BRITISH COLUMBIA INNOVATION COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 Bill 4, British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. S. Simpson: I callsecond reading of Bill8, the Sup- ply Act. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 8 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2018 Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, be read a second time now. Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2018.

Consistentwith pastpractice, Bill8 provides interim supply for ministry operations and otherappropriations for approximately the first two months of the 2018-2019 fiscal yearwhilethe House completes debate of the appropriations presented in the ’18-19 estimates. Interim supply for min- istry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuity of governmentservicesuntilthe finalsup- ply bill comes into force.

Bill 8 also provides one-third of the com bined vote am ounts in schedules C and D of the ’18-19 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investm ents and other financing requirements. The one- third authorization provided for in relation to these dis- bursements is higher than that authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C and D aren’t evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, you require a higher level of interim supply to accomm odate the paym ents that will be m ade under these schedules.

Bill8 also authorizesthe fullamountof the disbursements related to in scheduleE of the 2018-2019 estimates.Schedule E of the 2018-19 estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of, and transferred to, specificprograms or entities. There’s no impact on the operating results, the borrowing orthe debtresulting from the collection and transferof this revenue. These interim supply appropriations are based on accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2018-2019 estimates.

The final supply bill for the 2018-19 fiscal year will incorporate these am ounts to ensure it reflects the sum of allvoted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year. S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. This is second read- ing, so I certainly don’t intend for the opposition’s com- m entsto take a very long time. My co-critic and I, as we m ove through Commi ttee of Supply, willhave perhaps one ortwo questions. Obviously, we’llshortly be m oving on to anotherbillwhich willbe much m ore lengthy in term s of our discussion. The ministercertainly characterizesthis billin the appro- priate way.

It is a consistent practice that as we watch the budgetprocess unfold, we see the FinanceMinistertableher budget. And when she tablesthat budget, she also tables the estimates forthe various ministries.In essence, the fiscal plan of the government is laid out. The estimates process is incredibly important.Ithas been really interesting to see the evolution of that process over time, as a person who has been in this place for a fairly lengthy period of time. It’s fantasticnow to see MLAs having directaccess to ministers.

Yes, sometimes thattakes longer, but it’s really important because it’s the chance for locally elected representatives to bring theirissues, theirconcerns, from a local perspective, to ministers. WhileI understand thatmay often require additionalstaff supportand briefings, the estimates process is absolutely critical to ensuring that there is a transparent budget process. Certainly, over the course of the nextnumber of weeks, both opposition members and, of course, members from the Green Party will engage in a very lengthy process.

Basic- ally, it’s an extended question period time, where every day we willwalk through various ministries and ask some very important questions. [2:25 p.m.] The point of the supply bill is pretty straightforward. It basically allows governmentto continue to operate. Itmakes sure that publicservants continue to get paid while this estimates process goes on over the next period of, as the minister has pointed out, two months.

The billitselfnotes thatthe allocation, particularly on the expense side, related to the publicservicewillbe about2/12 of the totalamountof the votes of the government.I think it’ll be interesting, also, to have the ministerwalk through, perhaps more specifically, alittlebitof information aboutthe uneven distribution of payments,which is requiring agreat- erallocation of supply for some of the otheraspectsof the bill. That matters a great deal. Technically, this bill will allow the government to take and withdraw those funds from consolidated revenue.

As I said earlier, it’s obviously a very importantpieceof legisla- tion, as we wantgovernmentto continue to function dur- ing the period of time while we are going through the estimates process. I think thatinherentin the discussion around the budget process willcontinue to be some of the significantconcerns that the members of the Green Party, the opposition and, in fact, British Columbians have been raising over the last number of days since the budget has been tabled. Certainly, the opposition remains very concerned about 3298 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

the ability of this governmentto deliveron the promises that itmadewithoutrelyingon revenuefrom whatessentially is a surprise tax increase to British Columbians, and in signific- ant ways. We’re talking about over $5billion this year alone. When we talk about the more significant issues that we wantto spend ourtime on, itis notunlike whatI said. Itwas interesting. I wentback to look atwhatwe focused on in the supply billwhen we were atthe budgetupdate period when the governmentwas firstputin place. I’m justgoing to quote whatI said atthattime.

I said: “So we have aggressive spend- ing, very littleadditionalfiscalroom leftforany otherspend- ing, and increased taxes to pay for those initiatives. Add to thatthe othersideof the equation: promises madeto British Columbians aboutkey programs and serviceenhancements. No sight of them in the budget.” Well, I probably could say ditto, because we’re seeing exactly the sam e kind of approach to the budgetthat we saw with the budget update that took place in the fall. I have regard for the minister. We have been in this place togetherfora long period of time. These questions are not personal in nature.

They are about a different approach between a governmentand an opposition. So those ques- tions are important. From my perspective, there is added weightwhen it’s not justthe opposition bench sitting up and trying to figure out whatkinds of questions we’re going to ask every day. Mem- bers on this side of the House, and I am positive members on that side of the House, have been flooded with emails expressing concern aboutthe employers health tax and the so-called speculation tax. Those are important issues. I have to admitto adegree of frustration whenin question period every singleday.

I’ve been on thatsideof the House too, and I know what it’s like. You know, here are the answers. How do we get through question period? British Columbians are concerned, not just members of the opposition sitting on this side of the House. Whether you are a university, a municipality, a smallbusiness owner, there is deep concern aboutthe impactsof the tax. So that relates to supply. I’ll tell you, what I’m concerned about is thatwe’re actually goingto have supply that’s goingto deliver the budget that the Minister of Finance laid out.

I think British Columbians deserve some thoughtful, carefulanswers and respectfulones. When a smallbusiness ownertells me thathe orshe is concerned aboutthe viability of herorhis business, thatshouldbe a concern to the mem- bers opposite — every singleone of them in theirindividual ridings. Yet that’s not the attitude that we’ve seen in this House. It’s: “We’re eliminating the MSP.” [2:30 p.m.] Yes, we admit the government is eliminating the MSP premiums. But at the same time, they are replacing that tax with another tax. It is a replacement tax.

It is an NDP replacementtax that,in essence, is being passed on to busi- nesses in British Columbia. [L. Reid in the chair.] If the Ministerof Finance does notthink thatthatsome- how does notimpactaverage British Columbians, she would be wrong. Allof the peoplecontacting members on this side of the House and on that side of the House are making it clear that they have several options. One of them includes transferring the additionalburden thatthey willbear on to the average consumer, whether it’s a product or it’s a service.

We remain incredibly concerned, and the thing that is particularly enlightening is when the comm ents made in Septembercan be repeated almostverbatim aboutthe Sup- ply Actin March, I think thatwe have a concern aboutthe thinking, the planning, the execution of this budget.I know thatthe ministerknows thatthere willbe muchmore discus- sion about this. We’ve seen, since— and I said itin a way thatwas pretty graphic— the keys to the Legislature have been handed over to this new government,$8 billion in tax measures eitherin place or announced. Interjection. S.

Bond:Well, we used to say seven months, butI actually heard a memberthe otherday talk abouteightmonths, so I think we’re up to eight months now. Today what I want to make very clear to the minister is that what we support, in terms of the Supply Act, is keep- ing government operating. Our comm ents today and our support will obviously allow for that to take place. But we question the long-term sustainability of this budget,and we certainly are very concerned about the issues that British Columbians have been expressing for the long-term supply issues, the long-term viability of this budget.

My co-critic and I will have more to say as we work through otherbills in the Legislature. ButI willend my com- mentsaboutthe Supply Actthere. I know thatthe Leaderof the Third Party intends to speak as well. With those com- ments,I appreciate the opportunity to make those remarks about the Supply Act. A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the Supply Act.I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for her comm ents and the minister for her introduction of the bill.

This bill, as the member for Prince George–Valemount pointed out, is, essentially, following tradition, where, after the budgetis announced and estimates are broughtforward, a portion of the budget getting us through this legislative period is requested up frontto ensure thatpeoplegetpaid, in essence— thatgovernmentcan operate, thatcapitalpro- jects can go forward.

In this Supply Act,we’re approving 2/12, or1/6 — quite remarkably, not to do fractional division, 2/12 is 1/6 — of the totalam ountof the m ain estimates, as wellas one- third — you could have said 4/12, if you wanted, as opposed to one-third — of the capital budget.I won’t be proposing an am endment on that, although I think it is sloppy mathematics. Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3299

On a slightly different note, I do have a numberof con- cerns, serious concerns, with respect to the Supply Act because the Supply Actis making assumptions with respect to the implications of the budget.And, of course, the budget, which we’ve discussed, has got some assumptions in it. I and my colleaguesare frustrated here in the B.C. Green caucus. We’re frustrated because on July 18 of 2017, this gov- ernment was sworn in. We are now nearly eight months since governmentwas sworn in, and we’re stillquestioning what legislation is going to be brought forward.

In the 19 days of debate — we’re in our fourth week now, of debate here — here we are, and what’s being brought forward? We’re getting the Supply Actto debate — fine. Fully four of the eightbills thatthe governmenthas introduced, includ- ing this Supply Act,are really housekeeping bills orbills that every governmenthas to bringin. We have the bill, of course, to ensure the supremacy of the parliament. I won’t talk to that,obviously, because that’s adifferentdebate. We have the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Of course, I’m not going to speak to that bill either.

It’s another debate. [2:35 p.m.] We have the now famous Miscellaneous Statutes Amend- mentAct,whichwe’re allwaitingwithbated breathto debate as we define things like Pacificdaylight-saving time. These are whatthe government’s agendais. This is troubling. These are what the government’s agenda is. This is troubling. Let’s go back to July 24, 1972, when an election was called. On August30, 1972, anew NDP governmentwas formed. In the firstsession of that30th parliamentin the fall, they sat fornine days, and they passed 13 bills. In the second session, they passed 93 bills in 61 days — 93 bills.

This governmenthas had16 years in opposition to come up with an agenda, and now we’re being asked to approve a supply actwhen we don’tactually know whatthatagenda is. We’re 19 days in, and we’ve seen precisely fournon-tradi- tional bills to debate, one of which is the Supply Act. We’re troubled abouta numberof the assumptions in this billthatare leading to the Supply Act.We have seen govern- menttalk aboutan employers health tax.We’ve seen govern- menttalk abouta speculative tax. We’re notsure whatthey mean when they’re talking about it.

I hadthought,afterconversations and reading the media, thataspeculation taxwasn’tgoingto apply to BritishColum- bians. Silly me for actually listening to the Premierand the Finance Minister say that in media scrums. But then I see an interpretive bulletin thatactually says thatwhat’s going to happen, leading to estimates thatwe have to approve here, is thatin fact,if you’re aB.C. resident,you’re gettingataxcred- it.That’s whatthe interpretive bulletin says: you’re going to get a tax credit.

You tell that to the constituents of mine or other col- leaguesacross this who aren’tearning any income buthap- pen to own a family cottage on a lake thathappens to be in the boundary of Nanaimo regionaldistrictor on one of the GulfIslands — thatnow thatperson is going to be charged $12,000 a year as a speculation tax. They’llgeta tax credit, sure, butthey’ve gotno income on which to apply thattax credit. How’s that a speculative tax? This governmentclearly believes thatthis realestate mar- ket is a market from which they can sap revenue. We’ve asked: what is the outcome?

What are the outcomes you’re looking for your measures? That has yet to be defined. We see projected budgetincreases, and then stabilization of revenue, coming from things like this so-called specula- tion tax. If itwas a speculation tax, you wouldhope it’d go to zero. It’s being applied, in oursense, as apaperwealth tax. We feelthatwhat’s happening here is thatpolicy and finance and tax measures are being made up in press scrums. The marketneeds certainty. Whatare youroutcomes?

We have gotasupply billthat’s madebudgetestimates assuming income from a speculation tax whose implementation has literally changed three times since the budget was announced. Is itgoing to apply to the GulfIslands? Is itgoing to apply to the city of Kelowna, where the rental accomm odation right now is critically dependent on owners renting their houses to studentsfor eight months of the year and using those houses in the summ erforeithervacation rentals orto live in themselves? This is criticalforthe Kelowna economy, yetwe callthata speculation. No. They’re playing a critical role to rental properties there.

We understand that Vancouver is out of control. We understand that the Vancouver market’s completely out of control, and we understand thatitwas far too long to deal with it.Butthe revenueshere, we’re uncertain of. We’re frus- trated, because we don’tknow whatthe agenda of the gov- ernment is, we don’t know the direction that they’re going in the housing market,and allthey’ve done is signalto the market that it’s going to be chaotic times ahead because we haven’t articulated what this critical new measure is to broadersociety. That’s nothow tax measures are going to be brought in.

We proposed, of course, dealing with the problem,which was the foreign capitalthat’s flowing into this province. This would have given certainty here, because we would have assumed that when you start to tax that foreign capital or you actually eliminate the source, you know those revenues are going to go to zero. [2:40 p.m.] This government,in the supply bill, is actually counting on those revenues and basically taxing the grandmotherin Oak Bay who happens to have a house from 150 years of family on Saltspring Island thatthey wantto leave to their children. How many MLAs here have properties on the Gulf Islands?

How many government MLAs have properties on the GulfIslands? Well, one justhas to look through the dis- closure. I can tellyou it’s anumberof them. Are they getting a surprise, knowing thatthey’re going to pay $12,000 a year, if it’s worth 600 bucks? So $12,000 ayear, butthey’llgetatax credit. They geta healthy salary here. Okay, that’s fine. But most of them don’t. 3300 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

We’re very worried down here. We’re worried that the government is actually falling into the trap that they have branded on themselves over many years, which is one of not being able to be fiscally responsible with the money, the hard-earned, taxpayers’ money, in oureconomy. Thatis troubling. It’s very troubling. Obviously, we supportthe supply bill. Obviously, we must have acontinuation of the governmentoperating and allthe schools and hospitals around this province. Obviously we must support this bill. But we want government to stand back and reflect upon what it’s been doing.

Ithas had16 years — orthe dreaded 17 years, depending on where you count,16 or17 years — to develop alegislative agenda. We are now 19 days into this session, and we’ve had nothing. We stuck our necks out. We recognized that British Columbians wanted a change. We recognized that they wanted to have people put first. We recognized that they wanted achildcare plan, which we see in the Supply Act.We recognized they wanted realmeasures done in the housing market.We recognized thatthey wanted boldaction in the housing market.What have we got?

A tepid response that, frankly, is botched up from its first introductions through the present day we are here. I’m worried, because letme say that the measures that are being broughtforward are notdealing with the problem there. If you want to tax speculation, tax speculation. But we’re not actually taxing speculation here. You could still, here: buy a townhouse; take possession; flip thattownhouse four times; pay zero property transfer tax because you bought it in a bare trust. Governmenthas known aboutthis for months and years and railed on the B.C. Liberals to close thatbare trustloop- hole.

Have they done it?No. Why? Because they have to col- lectmore data. How much more do we need to study these issues? How much more studying do we need? Clearly, too much,in thatcase, butwhataboutthe employerhealthbene- fit?Well, we don’tneed to study that,even though we have a MSP tax panel to actually do just that. We decide, as reflected in this Supply Act,thatwe know whatthe answeris.

We struck a panelof distinguished aca- demics who put their careers and credibility on the line to write a report on which government is going to base decisions, and governmentdetermines the way it’s going to dealitwithbefore theirinterim reportis there. And ithadto, because you don’tmake budgetary decisions two days after an interim report is done. Whatdoes thatsay thatgovernmentis actually doing? Is itlistening to the experts?Only on whatitwantsto listen to. Only on whatitwantsto delay, whatitwantsto kick down the road.

It’s not listening on the employer health premium — again, a piece of tax policy that, as far as we can tell, was introduced, realized itwas done inappropriately. Now we’ve gotthe MSP panelcoming in with theirfinalreportclearly articulating thatthey don’tapprove or recomm end the dir- ection government has taken. How’s government going to respond? They’ve boxed themselves into a corner. They’re going to respond in a way that’s going to hurt schools and hospitals all across this province. Now they’llsay: “Okay, we’re goingto cutitforthe average person.” Yes, they will. They’llcutitfor the average person.

And I getthat there are unions out there — I was one of those negotiators — who’ve negotiated MSPs as partof acol- lective agreement,and itwas costed againstthe settlement. I understand that. But what you do then…. I mean, there are also unions rightnow going back to theiremployer, say- ing: “You’re notgoing to have to pay that.Give us the money back.” Now the employer is getting doubly hit, because they’re going to getahealth care tax.Notonly are they going to get a tax; they’re going to get an increased tax.

I don’tunderstand the logicof this governmentnotthink- ing this through and notrecognizing thatthere are models outthere and thatyou don’thitthe economy with a baseball bat.You recognizethatthere are problems. You send asignal to market,and you do so slowly, and you don’tmake policy up in each individual press scrum. [2:45 p.m.] I will quote one of the legislative reporters here who accurately assessed some emails that my constit officewas sending outsuggesting thatin factthe speculation taxwasn’t going to apply to British Columbians, because we heard, in press conferences, government say just that.

They said justthat— thatit’s notgoing to apply to British Columbians. Butin fact,itdoes. It’s applying, through a tax credit, not only in the problem area of Vancouver but in downtown Kelowna, which will absolutely devastate their economy. In Parksville. The memberforParksville-Qualicum talked about a development that likely won’t go ahead. Parksville is a comm unity that caters to — guess what — snowbirds, peoplefrom the prairies who are trying to escape the cold winters and come to Parksvilleforfourorsix months a year to live. Sometimes they rentouttheirhome in the summ er, for summ er vacations.

It’s a comm unity whose entire eco- nomy is based on tourism — snowbirds and others. Whataboutif we go to Cultus Lake? I had a passionate pleafrom acitizen from Langley who said they justbought a house. They’ve been saving theirlife fora placein Cultus Lake. They’ve entered into a contract, and now they have to m ove from the contractand getoutof it,outof fearthat the speculation tax willapply to them. They’re afraid that they’re going to be sued because governmenthasn’tgiven the m arketcertainty as to the direction itwantsto go. This is unacceptable.

We’re debating a supply actwhere the governmentis ask- ing: “So give us two-twelfths.” Itshouldbe one-sixth. That’s actually a beautiful demonstration of what I’m saying. Get the numbers right. British Columbians deserve that. They deserve a signal. They deserve a realestate sector thatactu- ally deals with the problem— notWhac-a-Mole, where you put a foreign buyer tax in Victoria and one in Nanaimo Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3301

regional district. Guess what. You go to Cowichan Valley regional district. There’s no difference between Cowichan Valley, CVRD, GVRD and Nanaimo. There are justa few arbitrary roads in between. So we Whac-a-Moledown here. We Whac-a-Mole up there. When you Whac-a-Molein Nanaimo regionaldis- trict, you’re going into the rural comm unities of Coombs and Errington. They’re not actually comm unities that have any housing problem. You’re going into these rural com- munitiesand Whac-a-Moling there. Meanwhile, you’re leav- ing Cowichan Valley open — pristine farm land thatis being boughtup and turned into mansions.

Butyou’re notdealing with that. The CEO of the Royal Bank has identified what the problemis. We know whatthatproblemis. CIBC has iden- tified the problem, by clamping down on foreign m ort- gages. This government is actually not viewing what the problem is. Instead, they’re viewing this tax, to generate revenue in the Supply Act that we’re debating, solely as a form of incom e to fund its other expenditures. That is reckless, and we deserve better. We deserve governmentto declare itsagenda.We’ve given them a fulleightmonths now, and we are waiting. We con- tinue to waitto know: whatdirection?

Whatare they going to introduce?You promised a bunch of things. I sathere for years and watched private member’s billafterprivate mem- ber’s bill being introduced. I come back to Dave Barrett.Ironically, and sadly, we cel- ebrated his life lastweek. Dave Barrett,who in his firstses- sion, in the spring…. His governmentpassed 93 bills, many of which are around today — one billevery three days over the short term. Here we are, government saying: “Trust us. We have an agenda. Give us some money now. We’ll kick it down the can, and we’llvote again later.

Butwe’re notreally going to tellyou whatthatagendais, even though we’ve hadso much time to do so. Whatwe’re going to do is make up tax policy, on the fly in press scrums, creating chaos in the market.” We deserve better. So whileI stand in supportof this Sup- ply Act,because we mustpay the government,I couldsay we have very serious issues with the budget implementations. Interjections. A. Weaver: Peopleare joking: “Well, you have to support the Supply Act.” We have to. If we don’tsupportthe Supply Act,basically, nobody getspaid, whetheritbe in schools or hospitals.

The government shuts down. [2:50 p.m.] I mean, they do thatin the U.S. allthe time, and itseems to be okay. Butwe don’twantto do thathere. We don’twant to do that here in Canada. With thatsaid, I say thatnow we have very serious issues with the way government is implementing the speculators tax and very serious issues with how the government is implementing the employers health tax. We have nothing now before us in legislation. We’re told it’s coming in the fall. Government has months to fix it. I expect them to fix it,because frankly, rightnow it’s unacceptable. Frankly, right now we need to have certainty.

I plead on government to stop m aking up tax policy on the fly, in press conferences. Give us certainty, so we know what’s going on, and stop scaring peopleacross the province. They’re contacting m e. They’re contacting our colleaguesacross…. They’re contacting m embers here. We deserve better. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no furtherspeakers, the minister closes debate. Hon. C. James: So much to respond to. This is the Supply Act, so I am going to actually stick to the Supply Act — tempting as it is to get into budget debate with members from b oth sides of the House.

There are justacoupleof thingsthatI think are important to note. First, I want to say that the member, my critic on the otherside, from Prince George, madea very important point, which is that the opportunity for questions, the opportunity for making sure that the opposition has a chance to be ableto question ministers, is exactly why we bring forward the Supply Act. It’s an opportunity for the estimates to occur, for accountability to be there. That is a strong partof ourdemocracy, whetheryou’re on thatsideof the House orthis sideof the House.

A criticalpieceof demo- cracy is to provide for that debate and discussion. The memberalso spoke aboutdifferencesof opinion. That is in factwhy we’re here. Thatis why we’re having this dis- cussion around the Supply Actand around estimates. It’s so thatwe can talk aboutourapproaches.It’s so thatwe can talk aboutourbeliefs,ourdirections, ourprinciplesand the val- ues we’re bringing forward in the work that we’re doing as ministers and in the work we’re doing as government. I look forward to thatdebate.

I look forward to thatdebate aboutdifferenceswhen itcomes to the budget,because we do believe in this budgetthatwe have broughtforward — a budgetthatfocuses on the peopleof this province, who help buildthe strong economy that we all benefit from. We do believe, as I’ve said over this last coupleof weeks, that the peopleof British Columbiashouldbenefitfrom the prosper- ity of British Columbia.Thathas notbeen happening in this province. Did we bring forward abudgetwith some boldmeasures? Yes,we did. Are we takingaction on areas thatthe publichas expected and asked for, for years in this province? Yes, we are.

It’s because the peopleof this provincedeserve to share in the benefitsof this province. They help buildthose bene- fits. That hasn’t occurred. I know we’llhave an opportunity to talk in otherbills and in otherdebate aboutthe budget.As the Leaderof the Third Party mentioned, there are notmeasures in this bill, in the Supply Act,thatspeak specifically to the speculation tax or to the employers health tax. We have had discussions over 3302 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

that, and I expect those discussions will continue. When you are bringing forward a new tax measure like the tax measure around speculation, it is the responsible thing to ensure thatwe listen and take the opportunity — as we’ve been doing sincewe announced the principlesof that tax in the budgetin February — to analyze allof the issues thathave come forward.

That’s exactly whatwe’ve beendoing since February, and we willcontinue to do that.The details will come out, and we will ensure that peoplehave all the information they need, well before we are moving into the fall and well before the legislation comes forward. With that,I willmove second reading of Bill8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018. Motion approved. Hon. C. James: I move thatBill8 be referred to a Com- mittee of the WholeHouse forconsideration atthe nextsit- ting after today.

Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 2018, read a second time and referred to a Commi ttee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. S. Simpson: I wouldcallcommi ttee stage of Bill2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018. Deputy Speaker: This House willstand recessed forthree minutes. The House recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 2:58 p.m. Commi ttee of the Whole House BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018 The House in Commi ttee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair. The commi ttee met at 2:58 p.m. On

section 1. TheChair: Minister, didyou wish to introduceyourstaff? Hon. C. James: I have with me Richard Purnell, who is acting director of tax policy, and David Karp, director of income tax policy. I’m going to introduce the staff who may be coming and going. For the members opposite, we may have some staff coming in for particular areas. Jord Goss is executive director of the consumer taxation pro- grams branch, revenuedivision. Jeffrey Krasnick is executive director of the income taxation branch, revenue division.

These are people who’ll be coming in and out again: Duncan Jillings, director of property tax, and BradSnell, who is the senior policy analystin the mineral, oiland gas revenue branch. They’llbe coming and going as we’re going. I look forward to the discussion. T. Redies: Thank you very much to the minister, and thank you to the staff for coming. This is a very technically heavy bill, so I’m sure the ministerfeels very happy to have some experts around her. I know I would. This is, again, quite a technical bill.

We are going to be asking for clarity, because we really justcouldn’t,in some cases, make heads or tails of some of the changes. [3:00 p.m.] With respectto

section 1, can you explain what’s happen- ing here and how these changes are being reflected through other sections of the bill? It does make reference to other acts.Maybe you can just sort of setthe framework for the rest of the discussion. Where else do these changes occur, and what does that mean? Hon. C. James: Maybe I can talk about the principleof bringing forward the change. As the member has pointed outquite rightly, there are anumberof sections.

Thatapplies across a numberof these piecesof the billwhere, by making a change on a taxation piece, you have to make sure thatit’s reflected in a numberof differentacts.So that’s whatyou’ll see. You’llsee, often, whatappears to be repetition in anum- berof the pieces,and it’s because those changes also have to occurin otheracts.The memberquite rightly pointsoutthat referencesto the SchoolActand the exemptions willcome up in otherpartsof the bill, and we can referencethose as we go along. Just to talk about the general principlesof this, this is related to providing enabling support to municipalities.

Rightnow, municipalitiescan exemptproperty taxformuni- cipalrevitalization areas orzones.They can zone aparticular area. They can exempt property tax to encourage develop- ment. What we’ve said is that the province couldalso be a partnerin thatby exempting schooltax in thatarea, in that zone, if the municipality chooses. So this isn’tdirective. This is permissive and gives an opportunity formunicipalities to make adetermination, to setthis revitalization areaand then have the opportunity to have the province match thatwith the school tax. I think it’s important.

I know the members on the other sideknow this, butforpeoplewho are listening: aschooltax doesn’trelate to schools. I think that’s importantto acknow- ledge. I think many people…. I know the member across the way, my critic, was also on a school board. I can’t tell you how many times I had to explain to people that the tax on theirproperty billthatsaid schooltax wasn’trelated to the school board and the spending of resources at the school board. It’s a provincial tax. It may have had a rela- tionship way back when, but there isn’t a connection now.

Basically, what this amendment does is add the provincial rental revitalization exemption from property tax imposed by B.C. Assessment. Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3303

S. Bond: Thank you to my co-critic. We’re going to work ourway through these sections, and I very much appreciate her beginning. That’s a very interesting description, and I appreciate it. Did municipalities make a requestthatthere be the oppor- tunity for the provinceto provide an exemption? Couldthe minister give us an exampleof when a municipality might want to use that tool? Hon. C. James: We’re going to make sure that the staff who dealwith the municipaltax come in, in case there are specifics.

We did hear, during the housing consultation that the Minister of Housing was doing, that municipalities were looking for the opportunity to provide further incentives. Forexample, if they haddevelopers who wanted to come in and look atbuilding purpose-builtrentalhousing, they had the opportunity, as a municipality, to be ableto say: “Well, we can give you a break. We’ve got this tool already.” Any othertools thatare possibleand were availablewere the kinds of ideas thatwere coming up during the consulta- tion.

The Ministerof Housing dida numberof round tables and forums with members from not-for-profits,from hous- ing, from municipal governments and heard a number of ideas. This was one of the approaches that came up. [3:05 p.m.] We’ll getstaff. We can getsome specificswhere it’s been utilized — notthis tool, because this is obviously a new tax, butwhere the municipalitieshave utilized this revitalization. We can get some specifics for the member if she wishes. S. Bond: Thank you to the ministerfor thatresponse.

It’s basically, then, a tie-into the housing strategy thatthe gov- ernmenthas tabled, mostspecifically, butthere may wellbe other things. Does the minister or the ministry have any idea of the quantum in terms of forgone revenue? Hon. C. James: To go back to the purpose of the revital- ization, it’s utilized by municipalitiesin abroadersense than simply looking atrentalhousing. It’s often used, forexample, for a downtown revitalization. It’s a fairly broad approach. Ourapproach from a province’s perspective and from the school tax perspective is simply rental housing.

That is the only portion that we’ll be looking at. We’re expecting very littlerevenue loss based on thatbecause we’ve narrowed it. We’re notlooking atthe broadrevitalization for municipal- ities.We’re looking atthe revitalization focused on purpose- builtrentalhousing. This really is, as the membersaid, part of the housing strategy. S. Bond: Since we’re discussing the sortsof overarching principlesin this, and itwillhelp us laterwhen it’s reflected in another act…. At this point, it’s rental housing and an incentive as part of the housing plan, but there are other opportunities.

You look at how municipalities incent eco- nomic growth. PrinceGeorge has justbeen given anew des- ignation. One of the ministers of internationaltradewas in Prince George talking about a new development zone. Is there the likelihood or possibility that…?Is this basic- ally apilot,where we’re looking ataspecificgovernmentini- tiative? Are there other ways that the municipalities could approach government to say: “You know what? We really need some thinking aboutwhetherthis couldmake the dif- ference in attracting some investment or some other eco- nomic projects”? Hon. C.

James: The memberbrings up a very interesting point— whetherthis is atoolthatwillbe successfulin spur- ring on furtherwork and partnership between municipalit- ies and the province. I certainly wouldn’t rulethat out. It’s notthe intentof the changes thatyou see in these bills and the number of changes that you’ll see coming up. It’s just focused right now on purpose-built rental hous- ing, butI think the memberraises an interesting point.As the memberknows, governmenttracks allof the taxchanges that happen.

We will certainly be tracking this one to see whetherit’s utilized and to see whetherit’s helpfulto muni- cipalitiesto doareview, as we dowith allof ourtaxchanges each year, and take alook atwhetherthere are opportunities or requests. I think itwouldbe an interesting discussion atUBCM to see where there were requests,to say thatthis wouldbe help- ful to municipalities. We certainly wouldn’t close the door, but that’s not the intent of these changes. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. [3:10 p.m.] T. Redies: With

section 3, can the minister explain the changes thatare occurring here and give a real-life example of what this applies to? Hon. C. James: Again, I’ll just give the bigger picture around the reason forthis amendment.Then,if there are any specific questions around the amendment itself….

When the carbon tax was implemented in 2008, it was implemented with a security system which would enable refiner-collectors — and I’ll getinto explaining this a little bitmore — to acquire fuelfrom one anotherwithoutpaying security on the fuel, instead paying security to government only on the firstsaleof the fuelto the person thatwas not arefiner-collector. So basically avoiding doublepaying. That really is the purpose here.

What this amendment does is it clarifies the legislation by making sure thatallfuelswaps are exempt.The amend- mentbrings the legislation in line with the currentpractice thatis already there. And justto define arefiner-collector— that’s something I certainly asked — it’s persons who own and operate acrudeoilrefinery in Canada.There are eightof 3304 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

them in British Columbia. This, as I said, is basically clarifying the legislation, bring- ing itin line and ensuring thatwhen they acquire fuelfrom one anotherwithoutpayingsecurity on the fuel, they pay the security to government only.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. T. Redies:With

section 4, can the ministerprovide some insight as to how this particular change is going to impact the industry, if at all? Hon. C. James: Basically, this doesn’t change practice. It clarifiespractice. There willbe no change. They’ve been tak- ing these creditsnow. This is the way it’s working now. This change willjustclarify thatin legislation so it’s certain thatit works the way itwas intended to work, which isn’ta double tax, when it’s changed, but that we receive the security once. T. Redies:Justto be clear, couldthe ministerconfirm that there’s no new fee and no new tax here being put on the industry? Hon.

C. James: The member is correct. It’s a refunding provision. So there’s nothing new — no new taxes, no new additional costs in this section. Sections 4 and 5 approved. On

section 6. T. Redies: This

section refers to, I guess, the reimburse- ment of costs for auditors travelling outsidethe province. Can you talk aboutwhattypesof costsare incurred by audit- ors now to traveloutsideof B.C.? Whathas been happening in the past? Has something changed here? Hon. C. James: It happens more frequently than you might imagine — that peoplehave theirbooks outsidethe province. Itrequires, then…. The kinds of costsyou’re look- ing at, really, for an auditor are airfare, hotel costs, travel coststo be ableto access the books.

That’s paid for by the Ministry of Finance. [3:15 p.m.] What we’re saying is we want to look at recovering our costs.We wantto make sure thatif there are out-of-province auditsthatare required to be done, we eliminate the need for the province to coverthese costsand that we ask the indi- vidual or the business to cover those costs. Again, rememberthatthe individualcould, in fact,bring the books to BritishColumbiaand there wouldbe no cost,so this, basically, is afee…. If someone isn’tableordoesn’twant to bring their books to British Columbia, then we would recover the costs for the ministry. T.

Redies: Thank you for that,Minister. I wantto, again, be clear here. The intentis for costrecovery, notto addon any additional fees. It’s just cost recovery of the auditor’s travel expenses to that location. Hon. C. James: Yes, it is cost recovery. We’re not going to look atbilling as you wouldfor someone who travels. It won’t be saying to the company: “Here’s the cost of….” We will create a fee structure.

It won’t be a cost of: “Here are the air travel costsand the hotel costs,and you’ll pay that exactamount.” Itwillbe a fee schedulethatwillbe worked out.Again, rememberthatthe individualorthe business can eliminate thatcompletely by bringing theirbooks to British Columbia. T. Redies:Will you be charging for the auditor’s time? Hon. C. James: The fee scheduleis stillbeing worked out. Butthe idea is thatitwouldbe a per-diem costthatwould include the travel costs and the time of the auditor. T. Redies:How longis itgoingto take forthis fee

schedule to be worked out? It seemed to be quite open-ended lan- guage. If I was in industry, I’d be wondering whatthe poten- tialimpactis here. How long is itgoing to take to getthe fee schedule, and how much do you anticipate? Hon. C. James: The specificfees stillhave to go through Treasury Board. That’s an important step. That hasn’t occurred yet.We expect, in the nextfew months, that that will be worked out. It’ll go to Treasury Board, and those determinations will be made.

But I think it’s important to stress, again, that there is a very clear option for peopleto avoid the fee and not have to pay the fee at all. T. Redies: This fee is to be set by regulation. Why not through legislation? Hon. C. James: In fact,it’s the administratororthe direct- orthatsetsthe fees.Itgoesthrough Treasury Board. The dir- ectorhas the opportunity there, setsthe fees. The regulation willlook atthe maximum thatcan be charged. Itwilldeter- mine the maximum. The reason it’s in regulation is justto give the flexibility around hotelcostsor travelcostsor those kinds of things changing.

There willbe an assessment,obviously, as this is anew piececoming in. There willbe an assessmentaround what the actual costs are, what the m oney is coming in. Itgives the flexibility to be ableto m ake those changes, if needed. [3:20 p.m.] T. Redies: Minister, in the briefing, we were given the understanding thatthis fee was going to be used to recover costsof operating an auditofficein Mississauga.Is thatthe case? What’s the cost of operating that office in Mississauga? Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3305

Hon. C. James: There is an officein Mississauga,as the memberknows. Justto mention, because peoplewillwonder why the Ministry of Finance in British Columbia has an officewith staff in Mississauga,it’s precisely because of these kinds of reasons. Where there are many books thatare out- side of British Columbia, it provides an opportunity for us to be ableto dothose kinds of auditsforpeoplebased there. Thatactually saves the costsof the individualwho is looking at auditors if you have auditors in the province. That is one of the considerations that will be looked at — the fee. No decisions have been m ade.

No costs have been determined at this point. We’re obviously bringing forward the changes to look at the fee. But that is one of the considerations thatm ay be on the tablewhen we take a look at the fees. T. Redies: Just to ask again: could the minister tell us whatthe costsare of operating thatofficeannually? Is there any planned expansion with these new regulations coming through? Hon. C. James: I can getback to the member. I know we’ll be taking a whileon this bill overthe nextweek, I’m sure. We can make sure we can getthe specifics.I don’thave them with me, but I can get the specifics.

There is no intent to expand. The officeis working well. It’s functioning well. It’s serving itsjob, which is to provide audits, so we don’t foresee any kind of expansion.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. T. Redies: I’m sorry, Minister. I’ll be asking these ques- tions quite a bit.Can you clarify the purpose of this

section and under which authorities a penalty would be imposed and on whom? Hon. C. James: Just to clarify, this

section actually is focused on the notice of assessment of a fee. The penalty piece was already an existing piece in the act, so this isn’t changing it related to the penalty. This is talking about m aking sure that a notice of assessment com es out if we impose a fee.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. T. Redies:With respectto

section 8, whatdeficienciesare there in the process thatthe ministerbelievesmay occurand why they’re putting this particular piece in place? [3:25 p.m.] Hon. C. James: This is acomm on clause in taxacts,That’s why it’s included in here. I don’thave any specificirregularit- iesthatthe courtmay find, butI can go back and talk to the lawyers and see if they have specificirregularitiesthatmight be included in this. This is a standard clause thatis included in the act. T. Redies: Notbeing an expertin how this stuff is done, itseems to me a bitodd.

Why woulda courtbe barred from disallowingorvaryingafee related to adeficiency in the pro- cess? Thatdoesn’tseem to puta lotof onus on government to make sure thatthe processes are correct.I’m justkind of curious that, if you say that’s a standard clause, it seems it banks towards government. Hon. C. James: I’lllook atthe two sections. There is apro- cess for a judicialreview of the imposition of a fee. That’s a process thatis stillthere.

Someone can take this issueto judi- cialreview, where they look atthe process and determine if the process was fairornot— which givesabetterbalance, as the memberwas talkingabout,between governmentand the individual. If the judicial review finds that the process was not followed, they have a right to overturn the fee. That is there within the act. In this clause, what the “changed” talks about when it looks atirregularities is thatthey can’toverturn because of an irregularity that happens as it’s coming forward.

They can’t overturn the fee based on that, but you still have the opportunity, through a judicialreview, to have the fee over- turned based on administrative process orbased on the pro- cess notbeing fair— which, again, makes sure thatthe indi- vidual, the business or whoeveritmay be has a fairoppor- tunity against government, as the member has raised. Sections 8 and 9 approved. On

section 10. T. Redies:To the Ministerof Finance:can you again give a littlebitof contextof why this clause is in here? Why is it being done through regulation? Why is the limitation value not actually being set in the legislation? Hon. C. James: Similarto the previous discussion we had, again, the administratordetermines and setsoutthe fee. The regulations set out the maximum that can be there. Again, this is simply related to the ability to be able to increase ordecrease. It’s notalways an increase.

I know most peopleexpect that most times, when fees are put in place, they’re an increase, butthere may be a fee thatneeds to be decreased. This providesthe flexibility, through regulations, to look atan increase or to look ata decrease, butthe max- imum will be set out in regulations. [3:30 p.m.] T. Redies: I can only hope thatin my lifetime I actually see a decrease in governmentfees. Butthank you for that, Minister. 3306 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. S. Bond: There are several sections of the bill that talk about information-sharing. We certainly have seen, with experiencesin otherjurisdictions and even here in Canada, thatthere is significantconcern when personalinformation is either collected or shared. An important part of that concept is also protection of privacy. It’s not just about the freedom of information. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] As I understand it,section 11 takes away, removes, some of the exclusions of some uses and disclosure of taxpayer information.

First of all, can the minister describe exactly what data will be treated differently? Hon. C. James: This piece is about sharing information that’s already gathered, but sharing it between acts. The Home OwnerGrantActrightnow setsoutthe opportunity to share information with the Income Tax Act,forexample. They can also getand share information with the Land Tax Deferment Act. If they getinformation on the Income Tax Act,they can’tshare thatwith the Land Tax DefermentAct. So there is a pass through. You can’tshare the information between those three acts.

What this provides is an opportunity for that inform a- tion to be shared. It’s using existing inform ation, opening thatup, so we can gatherinform ation on the hom eowner’s grant, incom e tax and the land tax deferm ent, and share that inform ation. The purpose of this — and I think the memberhas heard us talk aboutthis — is to make sure thatwe have the infor- mation we need for auditpurposes. Information is the first step. Once we getauditinformation, and if an auditis war- ranted, thatgives us the ability to then move to enforcement if people are avoiding paying the taxes that they need to pay.

That’s really the purpose of this change, to allow inform- ation to be shared with those three acts.Information that’s already gathered now by the Home Owner Grant Act will now be ableto be furthershared with the Land Tax Defer- ment Act and the Income Tax Act. S. Bond: Thank you, Minister. Allof the information that is being collected is currently collected. British Columbians will be asked for no new information? Hon. C. James: That’s correct. S. Bond: So what we’re doing is, in fact, broadening the distribution of that information.

We’re connecting various partsof the taxsystem, and we’re allowingthem to share that information. Willthere be monitoring? I know thatcertainly we have hadlotsof discussion abouthow information is shared, who looks afterit,whathappens with it.The good news is, it’s no new information. The question is: how willwe monitorwhat is a new information-sharing system, in essence? [3:35 p.m.] Hon. C. James: There are strict provisions that exist already.

Those willcontinueto exist.I can justgive the mem- ber a couple of examples.Using the Income Tax Act, for example, taxpayerinformation can only be used by author- ized persons for very specificuses, such as administering taxes or formulating fiscal policy. It would be an offence to knowingly share the income tax payer information for an unauthorized purpose. There are fines. There’s imprison- ment. So very, very clear restrictions. On the operational protections, those are kind of the legal protections on the operational protections.

Right now, data fileexchanges with CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, are all secured via Entrust encryption. There’s encryption builtin there. Itprovides for m aximum secur- ity of the data by m aking the filesaccessibleonly to indi- viduals who have the cryptographickey, which is the term that’s utilized, to be ableto access the encrypted files.The exchange can only occur through a filetransfer protocol. Again, there are protocols built in. Then a numberof safeguards around comm unicating the information in a secure way and destroying it in a secure fashion.

Keepingand maintainingthe records is also covered by this. So very clearrestrictions thatdonotchange withthis amendment that we’re making. S. Bond: I appreciate thatanswer. I think also thatacross government…. I know that at PublicAccountswe recently looked atsome work done by the AuditorGeneralabouthow the evolution of making sure thatwe’re protecting informa- tion is improved. I actually think it’s a work in progress. We had a good discussion about that at Public Accounts. The minister referenced the CRA and madeit clear that they wouldbe using some of this information. I’m assuming that is not a new practice.

Hon. C. James: It’s an existing practice, Member. You are correct. S. Bond: Are there any otheragenciesthrough which the information wouldbe shared? So CRA, internally through a tax branch. Is there anywhere else where the information will be shared? Hon. C. James: This does not make any other changes. There are no otheragreements.This does notexpand in any way, shape or form any othersharing of information other than what is named in the change.

If the memberwas looking foran exampleof where infor- mation mightbe shared — in a broad sense, notrelated to this amendment — it couldbe, in a very limited way and Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3307

with all the protections that I talked about earlier, anoth- erministry thatadministers tax credits,for example. There may be very limited purposes, where they’re allowed to util- ize information to be able to determine the eligibility of someone for a program or a credit. So that may be an example. But this amendment makes no changes to any of the existing processes. S. Bond: I just want to confirm for the record that it doesn’t involve other jurisdictions. We’re not sending this information anywhere outside of Canada, I would assume. [3:40 p.m.] Hon. C. James: Correct, Member. S. Bond: I wantto justexplore….

The ministerdidspeak aboutitin away thatI think was helpful, butI think if you’re trying to work through…. Information-sharing, as I said, is going to come up a few times, and we’re probably going to ask fairly repetitive questions. British Columbians, as you know, are quite reluctantattimes to share information, and they want to be sure that it’s properly protected. Whatis the ultimate purpose of increasingthe connection between a variety of acts,as the ministerdescribed it?What does she hope to accomplish with the broadened network? Hon. C.

James: I think the bestword to describe itwould be “consistency” of information. The exampleI might use wouldbe B.C. homeowners who are deferringtheirproperty taxes. You have to be a resident of British Columbia to be able to defer your taxes. These measures and the sharing of this information willallow tax administrators to be able to identify taxpayers who have different information, for example, on theirincome tax return than on theirproperty tax form. Thatraises red flagson why there is differentinformation.

This provides that opportunity to, then, identify those red flagsand make sure thatpeopleare actually payingwhatthey shouldand providing the information they shouldand that that information is accurate between acts.

Section 11 approved. On

section 12. S. Bond: Here’s one of the repetitive sections in terms of referenceto the SchoolAct.I think the ministerdid a great job of clarifyingwhatthatmeantin terms of the firstsection. Couldthe minister just lay out for us how it relates to the Hospital District Act? Hon. C. James: Indeed, as the memberdescribed earlier and as I described earlier, this basically mirrors the school tax change that’s going to happen with the rental revitaliz- ation exemption. Itprovidesan opportunity, then…. When you see yourproperty taxbill, they have anumberof organ- izations listed that take a tax off.

We are requiring, through this change, hospital districts to mirror thatsame exemption for rentalproperties, in the rentalexemption thatthe municipalitiesmay putin place. It mirrors thatto make sure that,again, there are exemptions forrentalproperties.Itdoes notlook atthe broadrevitaliza- tion piecethatwe talked aboutearlierwith the member. This simply applies to the rental properties. [3:45 p.m.] S. Bond: It’s becoming clearerto me now.

There willbe a package, then, of potentialtax exemptions thata municipal- ity can requestof the province— so schooltax, hospitaltax — if it’s related to a rental housing initiative. Is that correct? Hon. C. James: The onus is on the province. The municip- ality determines the rentalrevitalization orthe revitalization exemptions — the area. They make theirchanges thatneed to occurin the municipality. The province, if it’s rentalprop- erty, wouldthen say to allof these otherprovincialorganiz- ations: “You must exempt it if it’s rental housing.”

Section 12 approved. On

section 13. T. Redies: Couldthe minister explain what the current practice is that’s requiring clarification in this legislation? Specifically, are there properties that B.C. Hydro owns that are currently not assessed school tax that they’re trying to capture with this change? Hon. C. James: This basically was apiecethatwas already in placevia regulation. It was put in placeby the previous government.Thatregulation expires. Ithadatwo-yearterm. So it’s taking that regulation, putting it into the legislation and making that change permanent. It isn’t changing any- thing.

It’s taking the existing regulation and basically putting itinto the legislation around how theirland is assessed as a Crown entity. T. Redies: Couldthe ministergive us some sense of how much schooltaxB.C. Hydro pays today, and willthatchange with this regulation? Itsounds like itwon’t,butI justwould like the confirmation. Hon. C. James: I’d be happy to getthe memberthe num- ber. We don’thave the numberof exactly how much school taxthey pay. There are some areas thatare exemptfrom pay- ing school tax. We can take a look at that, but there is no change with this.

This basically takes the regulation thatwas put in place two years ago and puts it into legislation.

Section 13 approved. On

section 14. 3308 British Columbia Debates Thursday, March 8, 2018

S. Bond: I know that often tax measures have to be changed to align with federal changes. Obviously, this sec- tion talks about the infirm dependent credit and the care- giver credit. Can the minister explain how this aligns with the federalbilland whetherthere willbe additionalbenefits available to British Columbians? [3:50 p.m.] Hon. C. James: The member is quite right. There will be a wholeseries of these that parallelthe federalchanges. There were changes federally in 2017.

We aren’trequired, as aprovince, butoften, as the memberknows and as she men- tioned, if we parallel, there’s an opportunity to be ableto fur- ther support individuals in our province. That,indeed, does happen with this benefit.The changes are expected to providetaxpayers with an additionalbenefit of $5 million in ’18-19 and $4 million in ’19-20 by parallel- ing with the federal credit. S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I look forward to the details aboutthe B.C. caregivercredit— I think that’s what it’s called — and how those additionalbenefitsmightaccrue to a family, in particular.

We know that’s a huge issue for many families in the province. Couldthe ministerjustconfirm forme, then, thatthere is no impact to the 2017 taxation year? Hon. C. James: Thatis correct.Itbegins in the ’18-19 year. S. Bond: Does the ministerexpect,anticipate, thatthere will be additional peoplewho will claim the credit or the ability to claim the credit? Does the ministerexpect to see additional people benefit from the credit? Hon. C. James: There are some benefits.There are people who dobenefitwith the changes thathave been made.

Those wouldbe individuals who care foran infirm spouse orsingle individuals who care for an adult relative. They’re going to actually benefit, who weren’t previously benefiting. These individuals couldpreviously only claim the spousal tax credit or the eligibledependent tax credit. Even if the caregivertaxcreditorthe infirm taxcreditwouldhave given them a largercredit,they weren’tableto claim those. They willbe ableto now, underthese changes. They’llgetatop-up to make sure thatthe higherof the spousaltax creditorthe eligibledependenttax creditand the B.C. caregivercreditis received.

So it gives them that flexibility. The otherpiecethatis achange is thatindividuals who are caring for an infirm relative butdon’tlive with thatrelative willalso have the ability to be ableto geta largertax credit, depending on the relative’s income. Itobviously looks atthe relative’s income. Butthat’s anotherareawhere there may be an expansion in the servicesorin the supportsthatindividu- als are able to collect. S. Bond: I appreciate hearing…. So in essence, expanded scope. Where there was more limited ability to apply foroth- ertypes of credit,afamily oran individual, forexample, will be able to claim both.

There will be a cap, I’m assuming, based on income? Hon. C. James: They don’tapply forboth, butthey’re able to getthe largerof the two. So itensuresthatthey getthe lar- ger amount, when they didn’t previously. S. Bond: We have lots of debates in the House about where we differ, butI think that’s an importantexpansion for some families who will certainly need that. One question I do have, though, is…. The minister noted…. I think she said there wouldbe a$5 million invest- mentin 2018-2019 and then a$4 million investmentthe fol- lowing year. Is there a reason that there was a differential of $1 million?

Is itbased on justavailability? Whatwas the reasoning in terms of not just continuing a $5 million enhancement in the second year? [3:55 p.m.] Hon. C. James: I think, as we talked about, peoplewho can access more support….There are also peoplewho are no longereligibleto receive the taxcredit.I think that’s import- antto recognize. The federaltax creditsaid thatindividuals who live with a healthy senior parentwillno longerbe eli- gible to receive the caregiver tax credit.

It’s the federalgovernment,through theirprocess — and we’ve mirrored itthrough ourprocess — targeting the need to infirmed, and that’s where the supportis. We believe that because of thattargeting, there willbe a drop in the second year. It’s a small drop. Again, that’s what the modelling shows. Whetherthe tax creditneeds to be larger, it’s a small enough amount that that difference will be there. We believe thatwith the changes…. With the extraindi- viduals coming in and then the limiting of the supportfor healthy individuals, we think those are the numbers that are there. S.

Bond: When you look at sort of the puts and takes of the programs, is there an anticipated number of people who wouldno longerreceive abenefitthatthey are currently receiving? Hon. C. James: I’ll go through each of them, because I think it’s helpful. This agood piece, foran issue, as the mem- bersays,thatwe allcare about.When I was talkingaboutthe individuals who care foran infirm spouse orsingleindividu- als, thatwillimpactabout40,000 taxpayers, who’llbe better off. That’s the numberthatwe’ve used around the modelling. Peoplewho care for an infirm relative butdon’tlive with the relative….

That’s approximately 2,500 additionalpeople thatwillbenefit.It’s estimated atapproximately 30,000 indi- viduals who live with a healthy senior parent who will no longerreceive the caregivertax credit.Thatgives the mem- ber the kinds of numbers that were used for the analysis. Thursday, March 8, 2018 British Columbia Debates 3309

S. Bond:Can the ministerquantify forme whatthe mon- etary loss to the 30,000 peopleis? Is there an average benefit that those families would lose? Hon. C. James: We have it back at the office. We’d be happy to getit for the member. It will really vary because of the family income and the individual’s income. Butwe’re happy to do a follow-up and get the information for the member. S. Bond: I apologize for being repetitive about this, but couldthe ministerperhaps more broadly explain to me the difference for the 30,000 people? The minister noted that it was a federal government sort of realignment of a pro- gram.

Perhaps the minister couldjust explain exactly who and what their circumstances are. I think it has to do with a healthy parent, but obviously there was a benefit being provided to these familiesfor a reason before, and now there isn’t.So couldthe ministerjust articulate for me who those families are? [4:00 p.m.] Hon. C. James: Previously, there were two taxcreditsthat were available. So an infirm dependentcreditis fortaxpayers — I think that’s pretty straightforward — who provide care butgenerally donotlive with an infirmed adultfamily mem- ber.

I’ve got the definition of “infirmed.” The second creditwas called acaregivercredit,which was fortaxpayers who live with and providecare to aseniorpar- entor grandparentand/or adultfamily member. The senior parent or grandparent was not required to be infirmed. What the change has been is to focus on the care, the amount of care and people who are providing more care. Basically, what they’re looking at are people who have an impairment,aphysicalimpairmentoramentalimpairment.

That’s really the definition that they’re using around infirmed, and that’s where they’re focusing the credit: to make sure thatpeoplewho are mostin need are getting the supports that are there. S. Bond: That’s a rather large group of people. I think that…. Anyway, I do appreciate the minister’s answers. Was there any consideration of closing that gap? I can understand the need to focus on those mostvulnerableand those who are infirmed, butcaring forelderly parentsis also incredibly challenging for many families today. We’re seeing $1 million less in costs.

That’s a fairly sub- stantive program thatfamilieswere takingadvantage of. Was there any thoughtgiven to the loss of thatbenefitforfamilies who are in those circumstances? Hon. C. James: As the memberknows, the complexity of the tax system in making changes based on the federal tax system is very difficultand causes, again, more administrat- ive costs. We believe that it m ade sense to mirror the federal agreementthat’s in place. Remember, these are tax credits. These aren’tprogram s, so this doesn’ttake into accountthe work thatwe’re doing in the areaof the Min

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20180308pm-Hansard-n99
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20180308pm Hansard n99
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	706e80c9f537a08d6e130aa879cd1cd40b9486a3

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