Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 186

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Patricia Hedstrom

J. Yap

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Oceanside Hospice Society

M. Stilwell

Irene Lanzinger

J. Routledge

Bruhn Bridge replacement project

G. Kyllo

Transgender Day of Remembrance

M. Dean

Sleep Out initiative in Surrey for homeless

youth

S. Cadieux

Child and Youth Day

N. Simons

Oral Questions

Ride-sharing services

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

P. Milobar

Government action on climate change and role of

health care system

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on climate change and role of

education system

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Fleming

Ride-sharing services

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Funding for rapid transit project in

Surrey

T. Redies

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Surrey school district portable use

M. Hunt

Hon. R. Fleming

Petitions

D. Clovechok

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Hon. G. Heyman

Motions Without Notice

Administrative leave for Clerk and

Sergeant-at-Arms

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

(continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation

and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

N. Letnick

A. Weaver

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are some constituents of mine.

Firstly, Gabe Lowe, who is graduating from the University of Victoria with a

philosophy and history degree. He is joined by his mom, Elizabeth Busch, and

his stepfather, Ralph Busch. I would love the House to please make the three

of them very, very welcome.

Also in the gallery is a dear friend of mine and an employee. Vanessa

Geary, who heads up our Vancouver cabinet operation, is here today with her

son Wayson on “Take your son to the Legislature day.” Wayson is an avid

soccer and hockey player, but he is most important to me because he gifted

me his Next Generation model of the Enterprise , which

makes some really cool sounds and even lights up. Certainly, would everyone

please make the generous Wayson and his mom, Vanessa, very, very

welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce into the House here

today a couple of my neighbours and friends from the Upper Columbia valley,

Grant Neville and Katherine Jerabek.

Grant works for Canfor. He is the First Nations relations

superintendent. He does an outstanding job and has also been an amazing

contributor to the College of the Rockies through their introduction to

trades program through Canfor.

Katherine is a registered nurse in obstetrics. Having been through the

medical system in British Columbia just recently, I’ve got four words: thank

God for nurses.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: Today in the gallery, Erin Arnold is here. She is a community leader

in Vancouver–Point Grey and an inspiration to many in the community. She had

a very strong run for Vancouver school board trustee, a rookie run, this

year.

She brought two generations of her family along with her. She has got

her son, Keegan Firth, and she brought dad along too. Stewart Arnold is also

here. Would the House please join me in making them all feel

welcome.

Tributes

PATRICIA HEDSTROM

J. Yap: On a more sad note, I want to advise the House of the passing

yesterday of a longtime Richmond resident and constituent of mine,

Patricia Constance Hedstrom — Trish to all the friends who knew

her.

Trish spent the last few years in poor health but always kept a

cheerful demeanour and a great personality — someone who chose to give

back to community by being active in politics federally with the

Conservative Party and provincially with our party.

She was a longtime volunteer on my team from almost the time I

first started as a politician. Trish was always there, was loyal to a

fault and always showed up and did what she could as a volunteer. She

passed away at the age of 81. My team were very fortunate to have her be

a part of our group for all these years.

[10:10 a.m.]

She leaves behind a family, including a son, Reg, who lives in

Toronto, but he’s here now to deal with her passing.

I would ask the House to join me in sending condolences to the

family of Trish Hedstrom and to express our condolences and also to

thank the family for all the years that she was able to share her time

with us.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I would like to welcome a friend, Justin Schmid, who lives in the best

riding in Surrey, and that riding is Surrey-Fleetwood. Justin works with

CUPE, and he’s always committed to making life better for the people. So I

would like to ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: In the House today are two constituents of mine, Sean Junglas and his

son Jeremiah. I first met Sean when he was working at the Lighthouse

Salvation Army in Port Hardy and did quite extraordinary work for the

community. I hope that the House will make the two of them very, very

welcome. They’re wonderful people.

Hon. C. James: We have a visitor in the gallery today visiting from our Vancouver

cabinet offices. She is the friendly face, the helpful person that you see

when you enter into the offices. Would everyone please welcome Olivia Dixon,

administrative assistant from our Vancouver cabinet offices.

N. Letnick: This morning we have the pleasure of having folks from Myeloma Canada.

They’re an advocacy group for people with myeloma. They’re looking for

meetings with us, which they had this morning, and hopefully, they’ll meet

with the Minister of Health and his team at some point. Please make them

feel very welcome right here in British Columbia.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to see Amita Kuttner in the gallery today.

Amita is a young woman I met this summer, and she impressed me enormously.

She’s finishing her PhD on black holes at the moment and then will be the

candidate in the federal election for the Green Party of Canada in 2019.

Please make Amita feel very welcome. She’s here to see how the Legislature

works today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House today an individual who was

a constituent of mine but now is a constituent in Port Moody. He is very

active in Port Coquitlam as the chair of the Terry Fox Hometown Run. He goes

by many names, including Dave Republic, and I’ll let him explain that one.

He also goes by the name dave.ca, a sometimes tech talker on CKNW. But most

of us know him as Dave Teixeira, the chair of the Terry Fox Hometown Run. I

would ask the House to please make him most welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to echo my colleague’s welcome of Amita

Kuttner. I’m astounded that a PhD physicist would like to seek politics,

particularly one working in the area of black holes. It’s an incredible

talent to bring into the Legislature.

Black holes, as you know, suck the energy in, and they let none of the

energy out. I can say she’ll be highly qualified, and I look forward to

helping her get elected in the upcoming federal election.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

OCEANSIDE HOSPICE SOCIETY

M. Stilwell: Death affects us all. It doesn’t discriminate who it takes, and it

doesn’t discriminate who it leaves behind.

At Oceanside Hospice Society, patients, caregivers and families

who are grappling with the final stages of life, bereavement or

caregiving can find comfort, compassion and support. The non-profit was

incorporated in 1990, but volunteers established the organization

informally many years before that.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today it remains volunteer-driven, with a wonderful and dedicated

board that includes Ian Mackay, Tina Rasmussen, Barry Tuck, Susie Coen,

Evelyn Clark, Krysta Robins, John Mercer and Sandra Rankin. It’s also

supported by the community, with the donations remaining in the area to

provide services free of charge to people from Nanoose Bay to

Bowser.

People can find services like grief counselling, support groups

and respite for caregivers. There’s even a loan equipment program so

palliative patients can stay in their homes longer. Volunteers will even

sit at the bedside of people in long-term-care facilities so they are

not alone in their last hours or to assure family members who have to

leave for a moment that their loved ones won’t be by

themselves.

Five hundred people have been helped by Hospice Society in the

past six months, ranging in age from 23 to 96. I’m proud to support and

advocate for such an important organization that has touched so many

people dealing with a difficult time in their lives.

Thank you to the executive director, Julie Chambers, and all the

dedicated staff, volunteers and board members for your compassion and

care at the Oceanside Hospice Society. And thank you to everyone who has

donated to this fantastic organization and made it possible for people

to receive the comfort that they need.

IRENE LANZINGER

J. Routledge: I rise today to say a few words of thanks to a tireless leader and

relentless advocate for the working people of British Columbia. I’m

talking about the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Irene

Lanzinger.

Following many years as an activist and leader with the B.C.

Teachers Federation, Irene was elected as the B.C. Fed’s first woman

president in 2014. A strong feminist, Irene has been a mentor to many

women, helping break down barriers so that more of us can take on and

succeed in leadership positions in our communities and in our

workplaces. Calm under fire, personable, approachable, Irene’s

leadership style is to be in charge without ever making a big deal about

it.

As the president of the B.C. Fed, Irene’s advocacy is not limited

to the workers who are union members. She has ensured that labour’s

collective voice is used to raise the bar to make lives better for all

working people.

She led the charge for $15-an-hour minimum wage, wide-reaching

poverty reduction efforts, removing barriers for women in trades,

stronger employment standards and labour code laws and protections for

temporary foreign workers. But after leading B.C.’s labour movement for

the last four years, Irene recently announced that she will not be

seeking another term.

I’ve known Irene for many years, and for many years, I’ve had the

privilege of her insights, her advice and her friendship. Despite her

departure from the federation, I think it is safe to say that she will

not stop being a force in the political landscape of our province. We

owe her our thanks for her many years of service to the working people

of British Columbia.

BRUHN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

G. Kyllo: The people of Sicamous are finally celebrating after a significant

infrastructure announcement in my riding of Shuswap last week. It’s the

culmination of several years of hard work by our community, including

residents, First Nations and officials at all three levels of

government.

I’m happy to report that the Minister of Transportation and her

federal counterpart, François Champagne, have announced joint funding to

replace the aging Bruhn Bridge and expand Highway 1. This project will

bring important safety benefits for all commuters and will benefit our

economy as well.

Although the final alignment of the Bruhn Bridge replacement

project has yet to be determined, I remain hopeful that the

recommendations of the local government, local First Nations and

impacted industry partners will be given significant consideration. The

project is budgeted at $224 million, and construction is expected to get

underway in early 2020. Our entire community looks forward to seeing

shovels in the ground and for these improvements to come to

fruition.

I can’t emphasize enough how grateful I am to represent a

community that united behind this common purpose and rallied together to

make this project a reality. It was teamwork and collaboration at its

finest.

[10:20 a.m.]

Many dignitaries were invited to share remarks at the event to

announce the funding for this important project. However, I was struck

by the words of Splatsin Indian band chief Kúkwpi7 Wayne Christian in

particular. He noted how reconciliation doesn’t just happen in Ottawa or

Victoria, but reconciliation happens on the ground in communities like

the Shuswap, where his peoples have resided for thousands of

years.

Chief Christian’s leadership philosophy is based on inclusiveness

and has always been an inspiration to me. Indeed, we have built

important relationships in the Shuswap. Whether we’re working together

on infrastructure or something much deeper, it’s my hope we’ll keep

inclusiveness and teamwork at the very heart of all that we

do.

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

M. Dean: I stand to recognize November 20 as the international Transgender

Day of Remembrance, a time to honour the memory of the people we have

lost because of transphobia and violence.

We remember the friends, family and neighbours who have been taken

from their communities, and we commit to working together to make our

province a place where transgender people are safe, loved and

celebrated.

For too long, B.C. has fallen behind when it comes to supporting

people who are transgender, non-binary and gender diverse. We believe

that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and to

live in safe, supportive communities.

I’m proud to say that we stand with trans people in our province.

We’re taking action to make sure people are able to be who they truly

are, like reinstating the B.C. Human Rights Commission, promoting sexual

orientation and gender iden­tity awareness in schools, giving

people a non-binary gender option on government identification and

improving access to gender-affirming surgeries in B.C.

We still have a long way to go. At a time when the human rights of

transgender people are under attack, it is more important than ever that

we stand up in the fight for safety, inclusion and justice for trans

people in our province.

We will not let the memories of our trans friends, family and

neighbours be lost to violence. We will not be silent in the face of

injustice. We will stand up against the erasure of trans people and

trans identities in our culture and our history. Together, we remember

and pledge to do better.

SLEEP OUT INITIATIVE IN SURREY

FOR HOMELESS

YOUTH

S. Cadieux: More than 100 people spent the night sleeping on the pavement in

South Surrey on November 5 to raise money and awareness for youth

homelessness. It was the second annual Sleep Out fundraiser for Ryan

Moreno and the Joseph Richard Group. And 165 people bundled up and took

part to spend the night from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. in the parking lot of the

Grandview Corners shopping centre.

Now, I’m a big fan of Covenant House Vancouver and the work they

do for youth, so I’m very pleased to report that this year’s sleep out

raised more than $163,000 to be donated to Covenant House and Youth

Unlimited. Last year they raised $115,000.

Ryan spearheaded the sleep out after he first participated in the

Covenant House Vancouver Sleep Out:Executive Edition two years ago,

which he has done every year since. Last year it was largely JRG staff

that participated, but this year it went to a whole new level, with

family, friends and other local business leaders getting

involved.

There’s a long list of businesses who organized teams to take part

this year in the South Surrey sleep out, including Dana Matheson from

C&D Logistics, Jen Hamilton from Oxygen Yoga, Darian Kovacs from

Jelly Marketing, Randy Watson from Village Church, Matt Dryfhout from

Scout Technology Guides, Angie Quaale from Well Seasoned, San Bhatha

from Southridge Dental, George Psefteas from A&W South Surrey, Mike

Penno from Penno Plumbing, Mackenzie Wells from SPINCO Cloverdale, Ryan

Cyr from Semiahmoo Minor Hockey Coaches, Rob Visnjak from Rob Visnjak

Personal Real Estate Corp., Renee Ferguson from Mountain View Veterinary

Hospital, Aaron Steinfeld from Newton Hi-Quality Meats, Will Loftus from

Game Ready Fitness, Brandon Drewlo from Novacom Building Partners, Dave

Ford from Sparo Mortgage Advisors and Chris Wakefield from Tim

Hortons.

They’re all hoping to grow this event annually, which I’m sure

Covenant House and all of us can be proud of. Thank you and

congratulations to everyone who participated and donated to support

youth and Covenant House Vancouver.

[10:25 a.m.]

CHILD AND YOUTH DAY

N. Simons: When I was a child, I remember one Mother’s Day asking my mom:

“There’s a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day, but there’s no Children’s

Day.” She replied, probably as other mothers did, that every day is

Children’s Day.

Of course, I believed my mother at the time. I had no reason to

think differently. She was talking about me and my brothers and sisters

and my cousins, and for us, every day really was like Children’s Day. We

didn’t have to worry about much. Of course, my mother knew, and every

mother knows, and I know, that every day is, in fact, not Children’s

Day.

In the world today, there are children suffering in war zones.

There are children who are hungry. There are children in cramped refugee

camps. Children are being bought and sold. There are children working

long hours in unsafe working conditions. Children are suffering and

dying from preventable diseases. They are even living in detention

centres. They’re taken from their parents, sometimes without good

reason. Many children have no access to clean water. Many children even

today are without the basic necessities of life.

Today is Universal Children’s Day, also called International

Children’s Day. In Canada, it’s National Child Day, and Child and Youth

Day here in British Columbia. It marks the anniversary of the UN

declaration of the rights of the child, in 1959, and the ratification of

the convention on the rights of the child, which took place on November

20, 1989.

It is the most ratified human rights treaty in the world, ratified

by more countries than even belong to the United Nations and more

countries than have signed the Geneva convention. The 54 articles in the

convention are based on four core principles. The first principle is

non-discrimination. The second is the devotion to the best interests of

the child. The third is the right to life, survival and development. The

fourth is respect for the views of the child.

The convention is supposed to be a global promise to all children

that nations will do everything possible to keep them safe. It’s almost

as simple as that. The purpose of this day is to raise awareness of the

rights of the child and to think about the progress we’ve made and, of

course, the distance we still have to go. It’s an important day to

recognize the interests and the rights of the child.

Oral Questions

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: After yesterday’s non-announcement about ride-sharing, I started

to get lots of emails. My constituent Bob sent me a message: “Just drive

across the Lions Gate Bridge early Saturday or Sunday morning, and you

will see young people walking home to the North Shore. This happens

every weekend. It is impossible to get a taxi. I’ve stopped

trying.”

Why is this minister continuing to block ride-sharing in this

province?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very well aware of people’s anxiousness to get new, safe

alternative options for transportation. After all, there has been

ride-sharing available in the world — and an approach to this province —

since 2012. So there has been quite a lot of time to get ride-sharing

in.

We have tabled legislation. The member opposite, I’m sure, will be

part of the debate on that legislation, which really opens the door for

ride-sharing companies with app-based ride-hailing systems to enter the

market in 2019. We want to make sure that people who are going to be

carrying people for money, earning their income or supplementing their

income by driving people, are operating safely and securely. We want to

make sure we get it right. I’m looking forward to the debate that we’re

going to be having in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s not just Bob. My constituent Jake was forced to walk home

from downtown Vancouver as well, all the way to Capilano University,

after he was refused taxi service downtown. Imagine being stranded after

a night out and having to walk two hours to get home.

[10:30 a.m.]

It’s interesting. In the last couple of minutes, I’ve just become

aware that over 3,000 constituent emails have been sent to all the local

MLAs, as well as the minister, stating their dissatisfaction with the

minister’s delay in bringing forward ride-sharing. They are bringing up

examples upon examples upon examples of problems getting cabs as well as

their satisfaction with ride-sharing in other jurisdictions, which we

don’t have here.

My question again to the minister is: when are we going to get

ride-sharing here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think I’ve been very clear that we had the opportunity a number

of years ago, when Uber sat down with the former government about

potentially coming to B.C. At that time, the feeling was that safety was

number one.

I would like to quote the former Minister of Transportation, the

MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson, who said at the time: “It’s not good

enough to simply voluntarily stand up and say we believe we provide a

safe service. If Uber believes it meets certain safety requirements,

then they should have no fear of sitting down with the passenger

transportation branch and going through the same process that every

other taxi and limousine company has to follow.” That was back in

We are making sure that we are streamlining services. We’re

getting rid of overlaps. We’re going to stop the problems of people not

being able to get a cab in one jurisdiction and going to another

jurisdiction. We’re laying the framework for ride-share, unlike the

previous government, which had six years to move on it and did

absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a second supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Our side of the House had actually done the work. But right now

it’s you. It’s your side of the House that actually is keeping

ride-sharing away from British Columbians. You’ve been in government for

how long? This wait is all on you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has the floor.

Thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister has strung along my constituents, your constituents,

all of our constituents for far too long.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve got another example. This is from Carrie, from

Vancouver.

“The minister has the gall to talk about safety. On November 14, my

birthday, after receiving surgery at Women’s Hospital, I received the

runaround for hours as I sat outside under a neon sign that said ‘main

entrance’ while my tiny, little 70-year-old mother raced up and down the

street trying to get the attention of passing taxis because dispatch

kept playing games with me. It was almost four hours since I had been

discharged from the hospital by the time I got home.”

This government has been promising ride-sharing in 2017, 2018, and

now we’re told 2019. Now it might be 2020 or maybe never.

Why are you consistently blocking ride-sharing in British

Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite says that her government, when they were in

government, had done the work. If they’ve done the work, where is

it?

I know that timelines are an issue. They were an issue for that

government that sat on them for five years. Yesterday the spokesperson

for Uber, Michael van Hemmen, said: “Timelines are a big question for

British Columbians. People have been waiting for this service since

2012.” They were in government. They had five years to do something.

They sat on it for five years.

We have opened the door for these services, through this

legislation, to start operating in 2019. We fully anticipate, given the

opposition’s newfound interest in ride-hailing in B.C., that they will

fully support the legislation that is on the floor of this

House.

[10:35 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Given that the minister did not read the 34-page Hara report and

had to recommission a new one, it’s not surprising she hasn’t read any

background information that might have been done on the Uber file. So

let’s look at some of….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson has the

floor.

P. Milobar: Let’s look at the reaction of some other people in relation to

what they thought was a promise by the Premier for 2017 implementation

of ride-hailing in British Columbia. Patricia Hynes-Coates from MADD

Canada says: “First, it was going to be available in the fall of 2017.

Then they delayed it a year. Now I’m hearing it’s going to be delayed

again. That’s just not good enough. Lives are at stake.”

To the minister, why has the minister chosen to create further

delays and hurdles in implementing ride-sharing and, as MADD Canada has

pointed out, delayed safe transportation options for the

public?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question, and I know that safety is paramount. As

the Minister of Transportation, the safety of people in British Columbia

using our taxis, our soon-to-be ride-hail services, our buses, our

highways…. Safety has to be paramount. That is why we are taking the

approach we are doing — to ensure that people are safe when they get

into any vehicle for which they’re paying for the ride.

I know that the opposition agrees with this. They have actually

said that. The Leader of the Opposition has talked about back in July….

It’s not that long ago. The Leader of the Opposition said: “The issue is

how you make sure there’s a safe environment in which drivers can

operate and passengers, in particular, can operate.” That is what we’re

doing through our legislation so anybody who gets into a vehicle knows

that they are safe on our highways.

P. Milobar: Well, I think the public should reasonably expect that the Premier

and the government would be good for their word. But we’ll move past the

promises of the election, where the Premier very clearly said 2017, and

move on to only a few weeks ago, where the Premier claimed ride-sharing

applications will start coming next summer. Then when the reporter asked

directly when people will be able to actually use their apps to pick an

Uber or a Lyft, he was told by the Premier next September.

Again, with the Premier promising September, why did the minister

bring forward a bill that ensures ride-sharing will not actually happen

in any tangible way in September?

Hon. C. Trevena: We wanted to make sure that we get this right. We have been

working, unlike the opposition…. They seem to forget that they were

government when these new services first came to the market, when we had

Uber, obviously, sit down with them. We had them in — the former

Minister of Transportation saying that if new services wanted to operate

here in 2012, they should follow exactly the same process that taxi and

limousine companies do.

We are actually changing the system so they don’t have to follow

exactly. We’re looking at…. One of the things that we’re dealing with is

insurance. That is one of the reasons why it’s going to take some time,

because ICBC needs to develop its product. The opposition may have

forgotten that the former Minister of Transportation also left a hole in

ICBC that the whole province is dealing with, with $1.3 billion. We will

be getting ride-share, and it will be happening next year.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND ROLE OF HEALTH

CARE SYSTEM

A. Olsen: The world’s leading climate scientists have warned we only have a

dozen years to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius,

beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of

drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of

people.

[10:40 a.m.]

Health care is already over 40 percent of the provincial budget.

As I have seen firsthand in Saanich North and the Islands and across the

province, we have an aging population and are currently struggling to

deliver basic primary care to many of our citizens. We face a threat of

increasing sea level rise, water shortages and wildfires, all of which

will add to the financial burden of health care delivery.

If we act with urgency, we can couple strong climate

poli­cies with an approach that will also improve the health and

well-being of people that we serve. If we don’t, the impli­cations

on health care services could be overwhelming. The time to act is now,

and it requires an all-of-government approach. The health risks

associated with climate change are formidable.

What are the greatest climate change–related risks and

opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal

with both?

Hon. A. Dix: I thank the member for his question. It’s a significant one, I

think, for all members of this House, all people in British Columbia

and, indeed, the world. As the member will know, the World Health

Organization has identified climate change as the single biggest risk to

health in the 21st century. It’s a significant issue for all of

us.

I think that it’s one of the reasons why I note the member’s

question that we cannot act in silos on this question. The work of my

colleague the Minister of Environment, in dealing with climate action,

is a public health initiative as well as an environmental and economic

one.

In addition to that, health authorities and the Ministry of Health

are working hard on educational materials, prepared educational

materials to help health care providers and citizens to deal with the

risk of climate change. We’re working with other ministries and the

Ministry of Environment on risk assessments, because there are risk

assessments and issues in the future, issues with potential risks, such

as the spread of Lyme disease and the impact of heat waves on citizens —

in particular, seniors.

Finally, we have to make our system more resilient. It’s why

health authorities are taking the lead in terms of reducing emissions

and have, to be fair, for some time.

Also, we are building new health care facilities, particularly in

the Interior, in Fort St. James, in Terrace, working at Dawson Creek and

Williams Lake, improving services in Quesnel, Penticton, Kamloops, and

so on. The resiliency of our health care institutions is so important at

a time when climate risks are greater. All of us and all members of the

House, I think, will support these initiatives which help us to prepare

for the challenges of climate change in the future.

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

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND ROLE OF

EDUCATION SYSTEM

A. Olsen: There’s no question fossil fuels have contributed significantly to

human advancement. They effectively allowed us to transition our

industrial practices, spur economic growth and lift people out of

poverty. We recognize the significant value that those technologies and

innovations have had but acknowledge that the times are changing. We

have a transforming economy. There are different options for energy

production and storage, and there are different risks that we face

now.

Knowing the challenge we face and how we got here is incredibly

important to finding the solutions. Climate change is not explicitly

mentioned in the core concept for any mandatory course between grades 8

and 10 curriculum in our province. We need to do better in preparing the

next generation. They face the most severe effects of climate change.

Developing the leaders who will guide us through the impacts of climate

change will require an all-of-government approach.

To the Minister of Education: what are the greatest climate change

risks and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared

to deal with both?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Like the

members of the Third Party, we know that the greatest challenge of our

time is climate change. We’re committed to tackling that as a

government.

The school system now gives kids tools to explore climate

challenges that our world is facing and are taking action to do their

part. Climate change wasn’t part of the curriculum until recently. That

has now changed. In the new curriculum, learning in all areas is rooted

in the core competencies, a number of which place a key emphasis on

social and environmental responsibilities.

Where climate change is a distinct part of B.C.’s new curriculum….

I’ll give the member just a couple of examples. In grade 9, all students

learn a systems approach to sustainability that touches upon climate

change and the role of carbon pollution as a key factor in climate

change. It teaches kids what the greenhouse effect is, among other goals

in that year. In earth science 11, students examine climate change on

water sources.

[10:45 a.m.]

Really, climate change and sustainability are embedded throughout

the education system from the earliest ages. It’s not just the science

curriculum. I want the member to know that. Social studies students look

at the role that climate change can cause in destabilizing countries,

creating the migrant crisis and all of those sorts of things.

I do want the member to know, as well, as a government statement

of responsibility, we’re also using our significant capital program to

build new buildings to the highest environmental standards. We are

funding geothermal and renewable energy projects in schools right across

British Columbia. We take this challenge seriously, and we’re leading

with our actions.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

J. Sturdy: Ride-sharing is available in virtually every part of the world but

British Columbia, and now we know it’s not coming here any time soon, if

at all.

Duplicate and redundant reviews are typically this minister’s

preferred method of stalling and excuse-making. Now she’s ignoring these

reviews and reports, all to achieve the same ends. These same reports,

as well as the government-led legislative committee review, recommended

against limitations and restrictions that are being proposed.

To the minister, why does the minister not want to allow customers

to benefit and for ride-hailing to thrive here in British Columbia, as

it does in most other jurisdictions around the world?

Hon. C. Trevena: We have tabled legislation. There is legislation on the floor of

the House which will enable ride-hailing to come to B.C. This is

something that the opposition had the opportunity to do for five years

and did nothing about. During that five years, people have become more

and more impatient and want to see the service. The only benefit that

we’ve been able to get from this is learning from other jurisdictions,

learning where there have been problems.

Yes, B.C. does not have ride-hailing at the moment. It will have

ride-hailing next year. But it has learned from areas where there has

been congestion, where there have been serious safety issues to make

sure that we get it right.

I expect that the member opposite, who’s so eager to support

ride-hailing, will be supporting our bill when it gets to the

vote.

Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, I suppose that it remains to be seen whether we’ll see

ride-hailing here in British Columbia. But because the minister is

imposing a slow and inefficient NDP-managed process, with caps on the

number of drivers, zones to restrict where drivers can go and prices all

to be set by government…. The minister is refusing to do what other

jurisdictions have done and allow a customer-driven, supply pricing and

service model.

To the minister, why can’t ride-share operate here in British

Columbia like it does everywhere else?

Hon. C. Trevena: We have a bill on the floor that is introducing ride-hailing, the

new app-based ride-hailing. We have worked to get it right for B.C. One

of the things we’re doing is we’re reducing overlap. Decisions are going

to be made through the Passenger Transportation Board, not the

government — the Passenger Transportation Board, get that clear for the

critic — with a demand-driven approach based on data.

We have looked at other jurisdictions, as I mentioned before. We

have learned what works and what doesn’t work. I mean, for instance, in

New York City, there’s always congestion, but there was a massive

congestion when the ride-hailing companies basically flooded the market.

They are now moving to manage the number of ride-hail cars.

We want to make sure we get it right for British Columbia. The

opposition didn’t do anything when they were government for five years.

We are moving, within a year, to ensure that there is ride-hailing in

British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR RAPID TRANSIT

PROJECT IN

SURREY

T. Redies: The mayor of Surrey has met with the federal government and

received assurances from Ottawa that they will fund SkyTrain. Last week

he received the support of the Mayors Council.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the

province get on board and fund Surrey rapid transit?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question and interest in some rapid

transit in Surrey, which, again, laid idle for 16 years while those on

that side of the House didn’t make investments. Instead, they built a

toll bridge and put more costs on the backs of Surrey people, rather

than taking off the difficulties of moving back and forth across the

Fraser River.

I appreciate that there is a new mayor and council in Surrey. I

look forward to hearing from the Mayors Council what their plan is to go

forward. Unlike the previous government, we increased the provincial

contribution to 40 percent to make sure these investments could go

forward — again, to protect the interests of people in Surrey rather

than make it more difficult for them. I look forward to the mayor’s

plan. I look forward to the Mayors Council embracing that plan. When

that happens, we’ll sit down and work it out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: It appears that the Premier doesn’t read his own news releases,

because the NDP haven’t committed a single cent to rapid transit in

Surrey — not a penny. Read your own releases.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please, it will be im­portant to hear the

question.

T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The mayor of Surrey has the support of the regional mayors. He has

the support of the federal government. But when it comes to the support

of this province, the NDP government is missing in action.

When will the province come to the table and fund Sky­Train

in Surrey?

Hon. J. Horgan: A teachable moment for the members on the opposite side — I

apologize to my colleagues — to walk them through this step by step. But

maybe they didn’t know that there was a comprehensive plan put together

by the Mayors Council. Maybe they didn’t know that because they didn’t

pay any attention to the Mayors Council.

When the plan came forward, we sat down with the federal

government, and we both increased our contribution to the overall plan,

which includes more buses, more….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Now, this is more fearmongering by the members on the other

side.

We are funding 40 percent of the plan, which includes Surrey,

Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Richmond — a place they long forgot about, where

they’ve needed a hospital for 16 years. Now they’re getting one because

of the good work of the Minister of Health.

I will take no lessons from those on that side, particularly that

member, when it comes to getting the people of Surrey out from

underneath 16 years of neglect. They now have a government that has

removed tolls, is building schools, a first urgent care centre and is

investing in transit for the first time in 16 years.

T. Stone: When the Premier was asked last month if the provincial government

would contribute any funding to SkyTrain in Surrey, the Premier said:

“Certainly not.”

So a very simple question again to the Premier: why won’t he

commit any provincial funding for the rapid transit which has been long

promised in the city of Surrey and which the folks south of the Fraser

deserve?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The former Transportation Minister, who did not deliver Uber, who

put a $1.3 billion hole in our public auto insurance corporation…. Of

all of the members on that side of the House, he should understand how

financing public transportation works in British Columbia. Of all of the

members on that side, he should know this.

To stand and say, “We’re not putting money into Surrey,” is just

not true. The question is: are we going to increase that funding? That

will be a discussion around the Mayors Council table.

We have committed to 40 percent of phase 2, as has the federal

government. It’s the responsibility of Surrey, Maple Ridge, Vancouver,

New Westminster and all of the other communities in the Lower Mainland

to come up with the remaining 20 percent. I look forward to a business

plan.

There’s another shocker for the people on that side of the House.

Wouldn’t they want to see a business plan before they committed more

dollars to something that has not even been surveyed yet?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:55 a.m.]

T. Stone: We’re certainly not going to take any lessons from the Premier and

his government when it comes to business plans. When it comes to

business plans, there was a business plan in place. It was two weeks

away from awarding a tender that would have delivered a $2.5 billion new

bridge for people south of the Fraser, and they deep-sixed

it.

Now, we’ve been here before; we’ll go here again. The government’s

news release — I encourage the Premier to perhaps read it — of September

4, 2018, provides a lot of detail.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

T. Stone: It provides a lot of detail — this news release of September 4,

2018. In it, it specifically breaks out funding for the Broadway line in

Vancouver and funding for the Surrey line. On Surrey, the funding

TransLink regional, $1.12 billion. How much money is indicated as coming

from the provincial government for the Surrey rapid transit? Absolutely

nothing.

Again, the federal government is at the table. TransLink is at the

table. The Mayors Council is at the table. When will this Premier and

this government join the city of Surrey at the table?

Hon. J. Horgan: Deliberately obtuse is as charitable as I can be. That’s as

charitable as I can be. The former Minister of Transportation, who

forced a mail-in referendum on any funding of increased transportation

in the Lower Mainland, is the same guy who put a massive hole in the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Well, I won’t even talk about

speed limits. For him to stand and not understand how we finance

projects in British Columbia….

The province of British Columbia will be responsible for the

SkyTrain on the Broadway line; TransLink will be

re­spon­sible for the LRT — 40 percent of the funding for

the plan. What part of the plan don’t they understand? They are so

narrow in their perspective, so narrow in their partisan hyperbole, that

they don’t want to accept the fact that after 16 years of ignoring

Surrey, finally there’s a government that cares about the people on that

side of the river. That’s why there are so many of us sitting on this

side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

M. Hunt: The NDP promised to eliminate portables in Surrey within four

years and that halfway through they would have half of them done within

two years. Now, the reality is that on the ground, school construction

in Surrey is delayed. According to Doug Strachan, with the Surrey school

district, the budget provided by the provincial government to build

schools isn’t enough. It’s just another broken NDP promise.

My question to the Minister of Education is: with just eight

months to go, will this government cut the number of portables in Surrey

in half or not?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I thank the member for the question. Hopefully, this can be

another teachable moment as well. Under the old government’s watch,

portables in Surrey increased by 50 percent. Under the old government,

they even had a minister that said, “What’s wrong with portables in

Surrey?” as they proliferated, and up to 7,000 kids spent their learning

days in portables.

Our government has an entirely different approach. We’ve approved

and fully funded 2,500 new seats in Surrey. Some of it is underway

today. The reality, and this member knows it.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: If the previous government had acted as quickly as our government

has, if they’d invested as much in schools as our government has just in

the last 16 months, if they’d done that for four or five years, there

wouldn’t be portables in Surrey today.

[End of question period.]

D. Clovechok: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Clovechok: I have a petition given to me by a constituent with concerns about the

wolf cull.

G. Kyllo: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[11:00 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: Joining the House today is a good friend, Ron Surry, from the

community of Enderby. He’s quite actively involved with Myeloma Canada, and

he is here today advocating on behalf of additional funding for one specific

drug that actually can provide a significant impact on the lives of those

that are suffering with myeloma.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call, for members who are here, committee on Bill 51.

In Committee

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call, for members who are there,

committee on Bill 45.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

section 1.

The Chair: We’re just taking a moment for the staff to come to the

House.

[11:05 a.m.]

Minister, do you want to introduce your staff,

please?

Hon. G. Heyman: On my right is Kevin Jardine, associate deputy minister of the

environmental assessment office. Behind me are Paul Craven, from the

environmental assessment office, and Kate Haines.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I need to ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:06 a.m.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Motions Without Notice

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR

CLERK AND

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Mr. Craig James, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and Mr.

Gary Lenz, Sergeant at Arms, are placed on administrative leave with pay

and benefits, effective immediately.

During the period of administrative leave, and as a consequence of

an outstanding investigation, Mr. James and Mr. Lenz must not access

Legislative Assembly network equipment, systems or services and must not

be present within any building that is part of the “Legislative

Precinct” as defined in

section 1 of the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258.

This resolution is subject to periodic review and modification by

the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

section 1 (continued) .

[11:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: Under

section 1, can the minister please speak to the phrase

“adverse effects,” referenced under the definition of “project,” and

reference where it is detailed further in Bill 51? It is a subjective

concept and needs to be clearly understood in terms of scope and scale.

We’re wondering why it doesn’t have its own definition.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. There is no definition

of “adverse effect” in this act, nor was there in the previous act. But

there is a longstanding practice of, essentially, adopting the common

meaning and usage of “adverse effect,” which would be a negative

impact.

In this case, a negative impact on any of the five pillars of

environmental assessment — that’s to do with the environment, health,

culture, economic or social considerations. And then, of course, the

process of the assessment is to determine the extent of the adverse

effect and what measures, if any, are available to mitigate.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering. In terms of missing

definitions, one word that

comes through this document, all the way through, quite regularly is

“consensus.” And moving forward, as decisions are made, as the CEAO

starts to make their determinations, as we get to final decision-making

areas, consensus starts to play a bigger and bigger role.

I’m wondering why there is no definition of “consensus” within the

definitions section, given that it can be open to

interpretation,

whether rightly or wrongly, how any particular group may interpret their

view of consensus. Some will feel it means 100 percent agreement. Some

will feel it means majority agreement. Some will feel as long as there

was a good, robust discussion and there seems to be a semblance of a

common ground, it would be meeting the threshold of

consensus.

I’m just wondering why there was no actual, very clear definition

so that Indigenous nations, proponents, applicants, community groups,

municipalities, everyone that would have standing in any of these

hearings and processes would understand what consensus actually means in

this context of this bill.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. “Consensus” has a fairly

common meaning, but what the act requires is that we — the environmental

assessment office, the proponent, Indigenous nations — attempt to

achieve consensus. But there is no requirement in the act that consensus

actually be achieved. It’s that every effort be made to achieve

it.

Consensus, as we outline very clearly in the intentions paper and

I’ll repeat here for the record, is “an outcome that is actively

supported by all participating Indigenous nations and the environmental

assessment office or is not objected to by a participating Indigenous

nation, while they reserve their right to ultimately indicate their

consent or lack of consent for a project after assessment.”

P. Milobar: With that definition that’s being used, I’ll get into consensus

later on.

I’ll move on to a different definition that I need a little

clarification around — proponent. It means “a person or organization

that proposes to undertake a reviewable project” — so this is the person

that would want to do a project — “and includes the government of

Canada” — that’s understandable, if they’re doing a project — “British

Columbia, a municipality or regional district, another province, another

jurisdiction and an Indigenous nation.”

Under this definition, does it not seem contradictory that

Indigenous nations would be required to go through an environmental

assessment for a project they may want to do on their own

lands?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. There’s no contradiction. An Indigenous nation in this case

would be a proponent. They may also be the Indigenous nation that’s

concerned. But every project, if it’s designated a reviewable project,

needs to go through an assessment.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

P. Milobar: In subsection 2(2)(b)(ii), there is: “support reconciliation with

Indigenous peoples in British Columbia by (

A) supporting the

implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples” and “(

D) acknowledging Indigenous peoples’ rights

recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in

the course of assessments and decision making under this

Act.”

Can I just get clarification from the minister — I think I know

what the answer is, but it’s always good to get it on the record — that

section 35 of the Constitution Act all throughout this document would

override the UNDRIP document, or are they having equal standing through

this whole bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to clarify. I don’t

think this is an issue of paramountcy. It’s an issue of the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the

Constitution Act of Canada,

section 35, being read together. They’re

complementary.

[11:20 a.m.]

Section 35 of the Constitution Act sets out the rights of

Indigenous peoples and nations under Canada’s constitution and guides

the law, the legal framework. In the case of the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, it provides a framework

agreed to by nations around the world, including Canada, that can help

guide the implementation of rights pursuant to

section 35 of the

constitution, as well as to advance reconciliation.

P. Milobar: Most of my questions on this bill are really around trying to get

better clarification and better understanding. The purpose of this bill

is supposed to be trying to create that understanding in the community

and create less frustration and a better understanding of process. So

the reason I’m asking the question — and I don’t think it was fully

answered yet — is….

If the new CEAO is having to make some decisions, I think both the

public and Indigenous nations alike would like to know…. If there’s a

contradictory

interpretation between a

section within UNDRIP, or an

ideal within UNDRIP, and the Constitution Act of 1982, in

section 35,

would the CEAO be relying more heavily on the Constitution Act,

section

35?

I’m assuming they would, but I don’t know for sure. I think a lot

of people would like that clarification around which document should

provide greater guidance, especially for Indigenous nations as they move

through this process as to where they should be looking for the weight

of the decision-making tools.

Hon. G. Heyman: I hope I can give greater clarity here. First of all, every

section of this bill, once it becomes legislation, that is relevant to

any decision facing the chief environmental assessment officer must be

considered. Having said that,

section 35 of the Constitution of Canada

is the overriding law of Canada, and clearly, it needs to be respected.

It guides decisions any place where it’s relevant.

We see the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples as a useful tool and guidance to doing that, and that’s why it

is entrenched in the bill itself.

[11:25 a.m.]

In any decision made by the chief environmental assess­ment

officer, the environmental assessment officer will consider the rights

that are expressed for Indigenous peoples in the constitution, the act —

every

section of the act, every requirement of the act — the reference

to UNDRIP in the act and supporting the implementation of UNDRIP, as

well as supporting reconciliation, any

article of common law that is

applicable or any precedent.

Then in issuing a decision, the job of the chief environmental

assessment officer is to outline in the decision exactly how these

various aspects have been read together and explain how they relate to

the decision being made. That is also an important fundamental principle

of this act — that is, the linkage to a clear explanation in a decision

or a recommendation that references all of the aspects that go into that

decision.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that clarification.

On 2(2)(ii)(B), I’m just wondering, in terms of the jurisdiction

of Indigenous nations — and I don’t take issue with any of that — if

there is clarification around “through representatives chosen by

themselves.” Again, what is the process within this bill to handle when

certain nations, or a band and a nation combined, are at odds as to who

should be the representative?

It’s not spelled out that it’s simply chief and council, so

obviously, there was some thought given to other avenues for that

determination to be made. I’m just wondering. Does it point to it

anywhere else in the bill for clarification sake, or is it just left up

for

interpretation on a case-by-case basis?

Hon. G. Heyman: The language is crafted this way because Indigenous nations with

whom we consulted made it clear that, in some cases, they have different

forms of government. They will, at times, come together in an alliance

to represent themselves. In other cases, they choose to represent

themselves individually.

The point they made to us is that they should be free to decide

their form of participation and who their representative should be, that

it shouldn’t be government or the environmental assessment office that

superimposes our belief of who should represent them on them.

[11:30 a.m.]

We accept that as reasonable. In some cases, there may be some

dispute between nations or a dispute between the environmental

assessment office and nations about whether that is appropriate, and in

that case, there is provision further on in the act for a dispute

resolution process. The nations themselves may just have their own

processes to work through any differences or any discussion around how

they choose to be represented and simply inform us of the

result.

The details on the dispute resolution process will be elaborated

further in regulation. The act is an enabling provision, and the

development of that process through regulation will involve, as this act

did, broad consultation with affected parties and an opportunity for

public comment before those regulations are proclaimed.

There is an additional provision in

section 14 involving the chief

environmental assessment officer with respect to nations that identify

themselves as participating. I will just leave it to that section. If

the member has any questions on that section, we can discuss it further

then.

S. Furstenau: In

section 2(2)(b)(i), it states that the purposes of the office

include to “promote sustainability by protecting the environment and

fostering a sound economy and the well-being of British Columbians and

their communities.” Could the minister please speak to the concept of

sound economy? It sounds like a very broad and subjective concept. I’m

wondering whether it’s used in other B.C. acts.

Hon. G. Heyman: The term “sound economy” is carried forward from the current act.

It’s important to note that this

section refers to fostering a sound

economy. I would say a sound economy is an economy that provides jobs,

stability, a sound use of resources while, at the same time, not

compromising or creating unmitigatable damage to the environment, to

social values, to cultural values, to Indigenous rights, to the

opportunities and rights of future generations.

S. Furstenau: Our question around this is: would it create an opening for a

legal challenge? For example, if a lucrative project application is

denied because of its environmental or climate implications, could it be

argued that the province was failing to “foster a sound

economy?”

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, anything could be argued in court. Whether it can be argued

successfully is really the question. I would say, in answer to the

member’s question, that sound economy is one of three things contained

in this phrase around promoting sustainability.

[11:35 a.m.]

The other two are protecting the environment and fostering the

well-being of British Columbians and the communities. Then there are

listed a number of points following that that need to be considered

further on in the act. There are clear matters that need to be assessed

and addressed. They all must be addressed in the deliberation of the

environmental assessment office, in the recommendation of the chief

environmental assessment officer, in the final decision of the ministers

in terms of how those matters and the assessment of them were factored

into the decision.

I think if somebody simply argued that a lucrative project was

turned down and it shouldn’t have been because, despite all of the other

negative aspects associated with the project, it would have fostered a

sound economy, I personally have a hard time seeing that legal case

finding success.

S. Furstenau: One more question around this. Did the ministry analyze the

section using gender-based analysis plus framework, which is a framework

used by the federal government and soon by B.C., that facilitates the

intersectional consideration of how policies will impact different

groups, particularly women?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for a critical question and one that I’ve

had much discussion with members of government and with my colleague,

the parliamentary secretary for women’s rights.

It’s important to see that

section 2 sets out the responsibility

for the environmental assessment office and what in particular they need

to pay attention to as they carry out all of the different aspects of

the act and responsibilities under the act. So (

a) talks broadly about

social, cultural and health effects of assessed projects. Further on in

the act, we get into a very express definition of what that means and

how it will be done. So under

section 25(2)(d), “Required assessment

matters,” very specifically, we have: “disproportionate effects on

distinct human populations, including populations identified by

gender.”

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In

section

2(2)(b)(i)(A), our question is: why isn’t climate listed in this

section? If we can agree that climate is the biggest threat facing B.C.

and will undermine all other components listed — i.e., it’s not just an

environmental issue — we wonder why climate isn’t specifically noted in

this section.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member again for an important question. In part,

my answer to this will be the same or similar — that this

section of the

bill sets out very broad parameters, including environmental, economic,

social, cultural and health, all of which are impacted by climate

change.

If we then go to the specific matters that must be considered in

every assessment, under

section 25(2)(h), it says: “greenhouse gas

emissions, including the potential effects on the province being able to

meet its targets under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.” This

is particularly significant because not only do we talk about greenhouse

gas emissions — which, of course, are the source of climate change — but

we link them to very defined targets under another piece of legislation.

So this matter that must be assessed clearly sets a threshold that must

be addressed in the assessment.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

P. Milobar: Just to make it very clear. This whole

section is specifically,

strictly around dispute resolution facilitators as they pertain to

Indigenous nations, not any other potential disputes that might arise

from anyone else that may have an interest in an application?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to clarify. This

concept of dispute resolution facilitators came from and was included in

the act primarily as a result of it being raised by Indigenous nations

and Indigenous representatives with whom we consulted. So we put it in

the act, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s only available for

disputes with Indigenous nations. That’s certainly how it was identified

and how it’s being conceptualized here.

We’ve enabled dispute resolution, which we think would be far more

productive and timely than either not resolving disputes or ultimately

leaving it to the courts to resolve. So we have this process, which will

be defined in regulation — again, a regulation on which we’ll consult

broadly. For example, if industry or business says, “We would like the

opportunity to access dispute resolution” — not just on an Indigenous

nation coming forward — that could be included following consultation in

the defining regulation pursuant to subsection (4).

P. Milobar: I guess the reason I asked that question is because it very much —

I think in every single area — references Indigenous nations, which is

understandable. Coming from a community that was knee-deep in an

environmental assessment process for the better part of eight or nine

years, and varying views of the community of how much input

municipalities should or shouldn’t have or local government should or

shouldn’t have, there doesn’t seem to be any clarity that this might be

an avenue for a local government to, say, take if they feel that they

have a dispute that needs to be resolved within the overall process

under the same guidelines.

[11:45 a.m.]

Is the minister saying that a municipality or a local government

would be able to trigger parts of

section 5? I think he just said 5(4)

would be an appropriate trigger for them as well.

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the member. We certainly had discussion about

the potential merit and advisability of using dispute resolution in a

number of areas, but the concept only came forward initially in

discussion with First Nations. That’s why it’s framed the way it is in

the act but also why subsection (4) allows the development of

regulations that could be more expansive.

When we enter into the development of regulations, we’ll certainly

let people know, let communities and all interested parties know that we

are considering regulations with re­spect to giving life to

dispute resolution, and they’re invited to give us their ideas about how

else, in what other ways, it could be useful.

The suggestion of the member certainly has merit. Of course, the

member knows that for dispute resolution to be successful, the parties

involved in it have to be willing participants, but that is no reason

not to set up the framework that can be utilized when they are. So more

to come.

J. Rustad: In subsection 5(1), it says that the minister, “after considering

a recommendation, if any, of an Indigenous nation, may appoint

individuals to facilitate….” The question I guess I have, to the

minister, is: could you perhaps provide a definition of what an

Indigenous nation is?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: While we do define “participating Indigenous nation” — and there’s

a process to define that — we very consciously chose not to define

“Indigenous nation” because the only definition we could use would be

the definition under the current Indian Act, and we heard very clearly

from Indigenous peoples that they didn’t want to be defined that

way.

They may in time come to define themselves, or what constitutes

their own nations, in very different ways than Canada has experienced in

the past. So we simply left it without definition — although, for the

purpose of an assessment, it was necessary to define “participating

Indigenous nation.”

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 45; S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

section 1 as amended (continued) .

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate the minister and her

staff being here. I know that we went late into the night, and there was

a lot of emotion and lots of questions. I know that there are very

strong feelings about this tax, and we appreciate the minister’s

response.

[11:05 a.m.]

We’re going to stay on

section 1. I will let the minister and her

staff know that we want to work through a number of the

definitions, in

particular, because all of them, obviously, have an implication as to

how the tax will be implemented.

I want to begin with a quote from the minister on March 27, 2018,

where she said: “For many people” — referring to the capital gains tax —

“it might encourage them to hang onto their properties and just watch

the appreciation go up, as they’ve been doing.” I’m sure the minister

can understand the implication that the minister believes that holding

onto a property is speculation, as opposed to flipping a property in a

hot market.

Can the minister just explain her comments in the context of why

she might think that is an appropriate action?

Hon. C. James: This was in a discussion occurring around the opposition, who were

talking about a flipping tax as a speculative piece. I think the

important piece to note is that speculation, yes, can be short term, as

the member talked about with flipping; it can also be long term.

Flipping, yes, is one speculation tool that some people use, but in a

sustained, escalating market, as we saw in British Columbia, what we saw

were people who were not flipping, who were purchasing additional

properties to be able to see the value go up.

I think, as I said on budget day, from our perspective, real

estate is not a stock market. We want real estate to be in place for

British Columbians, for people who live and work here, for people to be

able to purchase a home, to build a community, not to hollow communities

out. I think it’s not an either-or. In fact, speculation can show itself

in a number of different ways.

S. Bond: One of the things that all of us have grappled with and that I

think British Columbians are, is that we do want to see a way to

mitigate legitimate speculation. We’re not convinced that that’s what

this bill does.

Can the minister, then, confirm for us that one of the

consequences of this tax, or one of the reasons that this tax was put in

place, was that she thought that British Columbians should be

considering sale or renting of their properties? Is that one of the

consequences that this minister is trying to force British Columbians to

do? Rather than holding onto a long-term property or investing in

property, is one of the consequences the fact that she wants to force

British Columbians to either rent or sell their properties?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important, again, to go back to the principle of the

tax. No one’s principal residence is taxed. We are talking about

people’s second or third or fourth homes. I think that’s an important

piece to take a look at. Individuals, obviously, have a choice. It’s up

to them how they determine what happens with their second or third or

fourth home.

Do we hope that people will rent it out so that it becomes part of

the rental pool, which, again, assists with affordable housing? Yes, we

do. That would be a positive, from my perspective, if we saw the vacancy

rates go up and there was more housing on the market. But again, it

comes back to the opportunity for people and the opportunity to increase

affordable housing in urban settings where unaffordability is in a

crisis.

T. Redies: With respect to the definition around “apartment,” is the purpose

of this definition to distinguish between units or between types of

residences?

Hon. C. James: This is to determine type of residence.

T. Redies: Does this definition also include secondary suites in regular

homes?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it does.

T. Redies: I’d just like to move on now to the definition around “arm’s

length tenant” and “non-arm’s length tenant.” We have a few questions

around that. Can the minister explain the difference between

arm’s-length and non-arm’s-length tenants for the purpose of this

act?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll start with an arm’s-length tenant. I’ll look at both pieces,

but an arm’s-length tenant would be an individual who occupies a

property with a written tenancy agreement and deals at arm’s length with

the owner. Arm’s-length dealings are defined in

section 12. That’s why I

was just trying to make sure we had all the references to the

section.

Another example would be — just a bit more depth on the arm’s

length — if the owner was a corporation or trust or a partner, the

tenant has to be at arm’s length from all the corporate interest holders

for it to be truly arm’s length.

For non-arm’s length — and then we can come back to more specific

questions if the member has them — that means an individual who occupies

a property for at least one month but is not at arm’s length from the

owner — for example, family members. You often have people who will buy

a condominium for their child going to university, for example. Their

child would be a non-arm’s-length tenant for the purposes of this

act.

Just one other additional piece. If the tenant was arm’s length

from the owner when they signed the original tenancy agreement, they’re

still considered to be an arm’s-length tenant as long as the tenancy

agreement continues.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for your answer.

What happens in the case that there’s no tenancy

agreement?

Hon. C. James: People will be required to have a tenancy agreement to be able to

claim the arm’s-length tenant. That will be required. They won’t need to

provide it. They’ll just need to have it so that if there’s an audit,

they’re able to show that they have a tenancy agreement in place.

Therefore, they can get the exemption.

T. Redies: I’m just asking a little bit more specific question with this

situation. What happens if a person is a U.S. owner of a property here

but has a daughter and son going to university? Will they be exempt from

the tax or still have to pay the tax?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: If they are a foreign owner, so not a British Columbian, they will

generally have to have an arm’s-length tenant. That’s the requirement,

as you’ll see in the act as we go through, unless the tenant is a B.C.

resident paying taxes here. There’s a formula, and we’ll get into that

as we get into more specifics in the bill.

N. Letnick: Good morning to the minister and her staff. It’s a pleasure to be

here again.

Probably the first question I’ll have is to do with what length of

term is required for renting out your place to qualify for not being

subject to the spec tax. I just want to confirm. If I understand

correctly, it has to be a minimum of six months in the calendar year,

and it has to be a minimum of three-month increments. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. James: Six months, but one-month increments is the

requirement.

N. Letnick: Could the minister then comment on the case where you have people

renting out their homes through Airbnb for, let’s say, one-month

increments? In a lot of cases, in Kelowna and other jurisdictions that

are attractive during the summer, you’ll have people rent out their

homes to people from around the world. It could be for a month and one

day. Does that mean that if they did it for six months of the year, they

would now avoid the vacancy tax?

Hon. C. James: Remember that for arm’s length, there has to be a tenancy

agreement in place. In most cases, an Airbnb doesn’t have a tenancy

agreement in place. So the requirement would be a tenancy agreement in

place for the person who is living there in one-month increments or the

six months or a portion of the six months to make up the six months. But

the tenancy agreement has to be in place.

N. Letnick: Maybe the minister can enlighten me. How do you get a tenancy

agreement in place and then ask the tenant to leave, since the law has

now been changed where it’s much more difficult to do that? Maybe she

can explain that to us.

Hon. C. James: Just to clarify the residential tenancy. If you are the owner and

you are renting it out to someone, you can have an agreement in place

with someone to rent it out and then move back yourself. That’s

permitted within the residential tenancy branch.

[11:25 a.m.]

T. Redies: This requirement to have a tenancy agreement and the one-month

increments…. We have a vacation rental tourism business here in B.C.

that generates millions in revenue. Is this not going to cause

tremendous problems for the vacation rental market in that most people

who are vacationing don’t typically take out one-month extended stays?

It’s usually a couple of weeks.

Have the minister and the ministry thought about the impact of

this tax and the

definitions on the vacation rental business in this

province?

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to remember that many people who utilize or

provide opportunities for Airbnb or vacation rentals use their primary

residence. This doesn’t impact those people at all. There are many

people who rent out the extra room, or they rent out their downstairs.

That’s what they do. It doesn’t impact at all on vacation

rentals.

We are talking about people who have empty, vacant, second or

third or fourth homes. For those people, yes, we are encouraging

longer-term rentals. We aren’t encouraging Airbnb. We don’t want people

to purchase homes, leave them vacant or utilize them for short-term

rentals. We want to encourage rentals.

Yes, we did spend a lot of time on that piece in the bill, and

yes, that’s the intent of the bill.

T. Redies: Just following on, on this, a lot of these vacation rentals,

again, are purpose-built vacation rentals that investors and other

people have bought with the idea that they use them for a few months of

the year, and then they rent them out. They’re part of a vacation

property. It seems to me that this tax is going to really damage that

particular industry. I’m not talking about Airbnb. I’m talking about the

vacation rentals that were purposely built and are often in remote areas

— for example, SookePoint.

Does the minister really think it’s realistic that some of these

vacation rental properties, which are often in remote areas, are going

to be rentable? Some of them are, oftentimes, luxury-type rental

accommodations. SookePoint, for example, doesn’t even have a bus service

to it. Again, why damage that industry, which is really not going to

generate affordable housing for the people of British

Columbia?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member mentioned remote areas and further away. I think it’s

important to just note, again, that we’re talking about urban centres. I

recognize there will be some places in urban centres, but remember,

we’re talking about urban centres and that this tax applies to class 1

residential. Some of those purpose-built vacation hotels or resorts

would not be class 1. If they’re class 1 properties, which is

residential under the Assessment Act, therefore they’re

included.

N. Letnick: The scenario, then, is that we have an investor that lives in

Kelowna who has also purchased a class 1 residential property as a

second home, or a second unit, and who was renting it out as a vacation

rental for the time being — waiting for someone to come back from

overseas to fill it in. But in the meantime, it’s being rented out as

vacation rental. Is the minister saying, therefore, that unit, even

though it’s not vacant, would be subject to the vacancy tax?

Hon. C. James: I think it’s just important to note…. Obviously, we’ll go through

these examples, because that’s important. I think it provides

opportunity to look at the tax. But for very specific individual cases,

I just want to clarify for people that we’ll provide information based

on the bill. But individuals should obviously make sure that they’re

looking at their own tax purposes, looking at their own information and

connecting with the site when it’s up. I think that’s important as

well.

The example the member gave. Someone lives in Kelowna. They have a

second home. They’re renting it out as a vacation rental. Again, to come

back to the original purpose, if it’s being rented out in one-month

increments, and it’s being rented with a tenancy agreement, then they

don’t pay the speculation tax. Otherwise, they do.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that. I think my last question on

this before the Leader of the Third Party asks some questions is…. This

is going back to Airbnbs again. So not the other example.

I understand the minister did discuss the

intro­duc­tion of this with the Airbnb association. There’s

also, I believe, $16 million in revenue that’s projected from Airbnbs in

the budget. Does the provision of the speculation and vacancy tax impact

any of that $16 million that’s in the budget?

[11:35 a.m.]

The Chair: Members are reminded that the same rules as apply in the

Legislature apply in this chamber and that the taking of photos is

not permitted, Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, even if the

photos might be of a mouse.

Hon. C. James: You’ll hear this, because we’ve had this discussion previously

around the budget. We used very conservative numbers, and no, it doesn’t

have an impact on the budget numbers for the PST that is going to be

paid by Airbnb and other vacation rentals.

A. Weaver: I enjoy this line of questioning. I think it’s very important to

get clarification on the intent of the legislation before us. I have

three questions on the definition of “specified area” in this

section.

The first is with respect to item (

l) in specified area. It refers

there…. It just says: “…an island, if any, within an area referred to in

paragraphs (

a) to (j), if the island is usually accessible only by air

or water throughout a calendar year.”

The first question is: why was the term island used there as

opposed to a general area within these (

a) to (

j) that are generally

accessible only by air or water? I’ll come to a specific example. Within

the broader area, there may be, in fact, regions that are only

accessible by air or water, even though they lie within the areas

covered in (

a) to (i).

Hon. C. James: As the member knows, the exclusion, when we looked at how to

refine the geographic areas and looked at, as I mentioned in our

discussion yesterday, the issue of how you make sure that most vacation

homes are excluded…. We took a look at a number of different options,

and one of them was to look at refining the geographic area.

That’s why we’ve said that we exclude islands that aren’t

accessible, or that only are accessible by air and water — to be able to

address those areas that, again, are difficult for commuting and,

therefore, in most cases, are not people who are commuting and buying

second homes. They’re mainly vacation homes, which is why we’ve listed

it under (

l) in that way.

[11:40 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I very much appreciate the answer and the intent of actually

including islands.

Why I raised it is that I heard from a resident of Belcarra,

which, as the minister will know, is a lovely piece of the Lower

Mainland across from Deep Cove. This person actually owns a property in

Belcarra that is not accessible by road and is only accessible by air or

water.

It seems that the intent of the legislation was to actually ensure

that we’re dealing with urban areas where there are issues of commuting

and issues of a rental market that’s being at ease here. Clearly, I

would have thought the intent of this legislation would not have been to

include somebody with a home in Belcarra that is not accessible by road

and only accessible by air or water.

My question to the minister is: to what extent does a person who

lives in the region — in one of these designated, prescribed areas —

have an ability to actually get government to recognize that the spirit

and intent of this legislation probably wasn’t meant to apply to an area

which is only accessible by air and water but happens to be in one of

these geographical regions?

Is there a mechanism that this person, recognizing the spirit of

the minister’s previous statement, could go forward to actually

determine whether or not this really is appropriate and they were meant

to be covered under the government’s intentions?

Hon. C. James: We did specifically look at Belcarra. Part of the logic was,

again, looking at the commuting distance. In fact, the commuting

distance from Belcarra…. It’s a very short commute to downtown

Vancouver. In fact, it’s a shorter commute from others that go from the

Fraser Valley or from other distances — North Vancouver, for example.

Five minutes away.

It is a municipality though, and I think this is important. As the

member asked: what opportunities are there for discussion around these

issues? Belcarra, in fact, is a municipality. I met with the Belcarra

folks at UBCM. They will have the opportunity, in an informal setting

anytime, but in a very formal setting, as the member knows, with the

amendment coming forward, to have an opportunity to be able to argue

either the strength or weakness of having the municipality

included.

The Chair: Noting the time, we’ll take one more question.

A. Weaver: On this topic. I have one more question after this. I don’t know

whether….

The Chair: Of course. As long as the minister can address the questions,

we’ll do them.

A. Weaver: It’s just to follow up on that further, very briefly.

I’m not talking about the entire region of Belcarra. But within

the broader

section of Belcarra, there are parts of Belcarra —

properties that happen to have cabins on them — that are only accessible

by water or air. Therein lies the issue here.

It may be that the municipality itself meets the intent that the

minister sought of a commutable distance. However, it’s not a commutable

distance for some aspects of this municipality that extend into areas

that are actually not an island but are only accessible by air or

water.

Again, my question for a specific individual within this broader

municipality: is there a mechanism for that individual to seek an

exemption, as per my earlier remarks?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question, again. I think we did, in fact, look

at the commuting time from some of the areas that were only accessible

by boat — five to eight minutes to get to the Lower Mainland. So there

are commuting pieces there. There aren’t opportunities other than,

obviously, coming forward and raising the issue.

There aren’t opportunities built into the legislation, but I

expect that people will have the opportunity to argue that changes

should be made, if changes are going to be the made to the tax,

including the mayor, who, I’m sure, will represent all the members of

the municipality.

A. Weaver: My final question is very brief. It’s from another concerned

couple who approached me. I’m just giving a sampling of them because

they illustrate the variety of concerns out there. I believe I know the

answer, but I’d like to get confirmation from the minister.

The couple lives on Mudge Island in the Nanaimo regional district.

They’re concerned that the tax could afford them and that it could kill

the property values on Mudge Island. Can the minister confirm — they

live in their home full-time on Mudge Island — that Mudge Island is not

included in the regions that are prescribed under the specified

areas?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that the member raised is primary

residence. If it’s a primary residence and they live there full-time,

then they aren’t captured. It isn’t captured. It’s only second or third

homes. But Mudge Island is not captured by the speculation tax as

well.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress

and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada