Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 119

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M212 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2018

S. Furstenau

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Farm Roots School program in Delta

I. Paton

Vaisakhi

R. Singh

Court ruling and wine exports

J. Yap

IBS awareness

A. Kang

Workplace stress in women’s occupations

A. Olsen

Stanley Park Ecology Society

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Media appearance by Premier’s chief of staff

J. Johal

Hon. C. James

Agreements with First Nations on Trans Mountain pipeline and comments by Environment

Minister

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and economic benefits of project

A. Weaver

Hon. G. Heyman

Referendum on electoral reform

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

J. Martin

M. Stilwell

J. Sturdy

C. Oakes

J. Isaacs

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — referral of jurisdictional

dispute to court

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

S. Bond

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Redies

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today, we’re joined by a number of technology leaders

who hosted an amazing breakfast for us, all members of the chamber. We had a

great dialogue about how they’re advancing work in technology, as

technicians and leaders throughout the province, making our communities safe

and advancing STEM — science, technology, engineering and math.

I’d like to welcome Sid Siddiqui; M.J. Whitemarsh; Paul Dangerfield,

from Capilano University; Allen Bruce; Roslyn Kunin; Steve Cardwell; Chris

Atchison; and Theresa McCurry, who is now the new boss in town.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of John at ASTTBC for the last 44

years, and I would like to welcome the leadership of Theresa and her team —

Trent Reid, Sarah Campden and David Sparanese.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for hosting the dialogue today,

and keep shining throughout B.C. Haawa .

S. Sullivan: We have some very special guests. We are joined by Lorna Morrison, who

won the Woman of the Year in the north for leadership and has spent her life

working on Aboriginal health.

Ron Townley, who is an entrepreneur and business person, has probably

done every trade and business in the north. He’s living here now, and I’m

told he has very few creditors.

We also have Vickie Jensen, author. She is writing a book right now

about the burgeoning submarine industry in British Columbia, one of the

hotbeds of submarine technology in the world.

We also have with us Jay Powell, who has spent his life on reviving

and revitalizing Aboriginal languages. He has 12 languages that he has

developed resource material for, and he’s the only speaker of Chinook

jargon, the old trade language, Chinook Wawa. I’d ask the House to greet him

with klahowya . Klahowya .

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure today to welcome here the National Association of

Japanese Canadians. I look forward to meeting them shortly after question

period.

We have with us the president of the national association, David

Mitsui. We have the vice-president, Lorene Oikawa. We have board director

Eiko Eby from Nanaimo. We have George Uyeda from Kamloops. We have Tsugio

Kurushima from Victoria and Rick Ogasawara from Vernon. Would the House

please make them welcome.

J. Routledge: Well, any second now, the first of four groups of social studies

students from Burnaby North Secondary are going to be walking into the

gallery to experience the Legislature in action. When they join us, I hope

you will join me in giving them a big welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

P. Milobar: In the House today, we have several representatives from an important

employer in Kamloops, Domtar. We have Jean-Claude Allaire, the Kamloops mill

manager; Kristin Dangelmaier, the environment manager; Merl Fichtner, the

fibre procurement manager; Debbie Kirkpatrick, the human resources manager;

Bonny Skene, the regional public affairs manager. As well, we have Unifor

representatives Mark Cameron, the national representative; Rene Pellerin,

president of Unifor Local 10B; and Bob Stephens, president, Unifor Local

10B. Will the House please make them welcome.

E. Ross: There are two people already introduced in this House, but there’s a

personal connection with myself to these two people in

particular.

Lorna Morrison was actually the health director for my band for a few

years before she got promoted to be the band manager. The thing about Lorna

Morrison is that she’s a doer; she’s not a talker. She renovated our soccer

shack and renovated our soccer field. She built our council office. She

built our fire hall. She built our public works building. And she did it in

a short period of time. Our people owe her a debt of gratitude for her short

service to our community. It’s still being recognized and used today. Thank

you, Lorna Morrison.

Jay Powell probably worked at my band office longer than I did, longer

than other people I remember. I developed a great relationship with him. He

understood more about culture and language than I ever could in any

lifetime.

Thank you to both these guests in the House. To the House, please make

them feel welcome again.

Hon. A. Dix: Today at noon in the Hall of Honour, the B.C. and Yukon Heart and

Stroke Foundation and the B.C. emergency health services will be hosting an

awareness and teaching event to promote learning CPR and how to use an AED.

We’ll all be tested a little bit on that.

Here to help with today’s events are members from the Ambulance

Paramedics of B.C., CUPE Local 873. They’re joining us in the gallery. I’d

like to introduce Ellen Cheatley, Candace Kennedy, Bruce Honeyman, Kevin

Lambert, Cameron Bradley and Lance Stephenson, who may or may not also play

for the Indiana Pacers. I’m not sure.

We’re obviously grateful for the extraordinary work that ambulance

paramedics do for all of us every day. I wish everyone in the House to make

our guests welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Environmental Management

Amendment Act, 2018.

S. Furstenau: Today I move that a bill intituled the Environmental Management

Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given, be introduced and

read a first time now.

The bill I am introducing today amends the Environmental

Management Act. The intention is to ensure protection of drinking water

by disallowing the deposit of waste materials in a sand or gravel pit,

in a limestone or sandstone quarry or above a highly sensitive aquifer.

Quarries and gravel pits are porous, which means there could be

significant risk of groundwater contamination from waste

deposited.

On Vancouver Island, there are two examples where this practice

has caused great concern. In Shawnigan, residents remain anxious about

water contamination from a quarry used for landfill and contaminated

soil. The permit has been revoked, but the waste remains at the

headwater of Shawnigan’s drinking watershed, and it must be removed. In

Campbell River, the community has grave concerns about a quarry being

granted a permit to deposit waste. The quarry is adjacent to Rico Lake,

which drains into McIvor Lake, the town’s drinking water.

Protecting drinking water needs to be a government’s highest

priority. This amendment to the Environmental Management Act will help

us take steps towards this goal.

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

Motion approved.

S. Furstenau: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M212, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2018, introduced,

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FARM ROOTS SCHOOL PROGRAM IN DELTA

I. Paton: I think we’ve all heard of specialty academies in our high schools

— everything from hockey academies to lacrosse, baseball, theatre, opera

and dance. A few years ago the bright idea of an agriculture academy was

forwarded by a group of Delta teachers who partnered with some local

farmers and secured an empty elementary school in Tsawwassen and an

unused acre of land next door. I was delighted to help this program get

started with fundraising advice and even cow manure.

Earlier this month the Delta Farm Roots school program received

the 2017 Ken Spencer Award for innovation in teaching and

learning.

[10:15 a.m.]

This award recognizes hidden gems across Canada that produce

creative and innovative approaches that empower and excite previously

disengaged youth. It places a distinct emphasis on encouraging change in

schools and raising the profile of classroom innovation.

The program itself teaches students the essentials of building and

running a sustainable farm, drawing in students from across Delta.

Students spend every second day at the mini-school campus in Boundary

Bay, alternating with their regular high school. They combine their

normal studies with planting, harvesting, business education, marketing

and environmental science and are able to gain hands-on work experience

and design their own research projects.

The program is highly individualized and flexible, and throughout

the program, students develop deeper relationships with their

communities and with local agriculture businesses. These relationships,

in turn, expose students to a plethora of career possibilities and

post-secondary education options they may not otherwise be aware of or

have been interested in. This groundbreaking program is inspiring young

people to get their hands dirty, get outside and try new

things.

This is, I’m sure, the first of many awards to come for the Farm

Roots Mini School in south Delta, and I am pleased to congratulate them.

I am also hopeful that these students will go on to become the next

generation of B.C. farmers and involve themselves in the exciting

possibilities of agriculture as a career.

VAISAKHI

R. Singh: Vaisakhi, an important festival of the South Asian community, was

celebrated with great fervour in Vancouver last weekend, and a big

celebration is planned in Surrey for the coming weekend. The

celebrations in Surrey will be the biggest in North America and the

second biggest in the diaspora outside of Punjab.

Vaisakhi signifies harvest and renewal. It has a particular

significance for the Sikhs, as on this auspicious day, the tenth master

of the Sikh faith, Sri Gobind Singh Ji, laid the foundation of the

Khalsa Panth, a force of dedicated Sikh warriors that was raised to

fight against oppression and injustice. The birth of the Khalsa was the

beginning of a new revolution that challenged the brutal caste system in

the Indian society through empowerment of the oppressed groups that were

often denied the right to education and to live with dignity and

self-respect.

The legacy of the Khalsa and the progressive spirit behind

Vaisakhi are still relevant as the world continues to grapple with

social injustice, inequalities and oppression. Let’s resolve to carry

forward the struggle for a fair and just society on this Vaisakhi.

Wishing you all a very happy Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi di Lakh

Vadhai .

COURT RULING AND WINE EXPORTS

J. Yap: I rise today to acknowledge the Supreme Court of Canada judgment

in the Comeau case. This is a disappointing loss for many of our B.C.

wine producers, who we have long supported in their desire to export

their product to other provinces, including via direct shipping. It’s

also disappointing for consumers, who have said time and time again that

they want the right to buy Canadian wine, including our high-quality

B.C. products.

Indeed, B.C. has gained an international reputation for its

top-quality products. Our producers have won many, many accolades. They

are the hard-working men and women who put their hearts and souls into

each bottle. However, the court has made its judgment, which we fully

respect.

I and other members of this House acknowledge the importance of

reducing trade barriers and increasing economic cooperation within

Canada and beyond. This underscores the importance of cooperation and

political agreements in enabling our key industries to thrive. Past

governments have produced agreements, like the new west partnership,

which contribute to the prosperity of many western Canadians.

Let us recall, also, that the previous government symbolically

dropped its barriers to wine. Surely we can all appreciate the important

contributions of B.C. wine to our economy and to the dinner tables of

homes across Canada.

IBS AWARENESS

A. Kang: When was the last time you had a bowel movement? My topic today is

no laughing matter. In fact, it is a very serious one. April is

Inflammatory Bowel Syndrome, or IBS, Awareness Month. In kindergarten, I

was taught that it is inappropriate to use washroom language in public,

and it’s so unimaginable that I would be using it here today at the

Legislature.

[10:20 a.m.]

Why is it that we are able to openly share our thoughts about

other debilitating or life-altering syndromes, such as cancer, autism,

cholesterol and even Alzheimer’s, but it is awkward for us to talk about

something as important as inflammatory bowel syndrome?

The Gastrointestinal Society represents Canadians living with

gastrointestinal diseases and disorders, including those with IBS. What

many of us may not be familiar with is that people with IBS have

significantly impaired quality of life. The symptoms of IBS can have a

substantial effect on daily life due to their frequency, severity,

unpredictability and persistence.

Patients often need to make lifestyle alterations in order to

accommodate the symptoms. Quoting from a patient: “I cannot make plans

ahead, as I never know when it will affect me. I’m not able to work,

because I never know when I will have to call in sick. Isolation. Fear.

Always feeling that I smell.”

Many of those with IBS believe that they are not taken seriously

and that their symptoms are not real. Some individuals with IBS are

discouraged from seeking medical help, because they believe that they

will not be heard or understood.

With April being IBS Awareness Month, I want to encourage people

with IBS to speak up early, speak up completely and speak up often.

Also, friends, let’s listen, be compassionate and be

understanding.

WORKPLACE STRESS IN

WOMEN’S

OCCUPATIONS

A. Olsen: What do child care providers, nurses and teachers have in common?

If you said they were typically occupations that employed women, you

would be correct. If you said they’d been historically undervalued

because of this fact, you would be correct. If you said that they are

three of the jobs with the highest levels of workplace stress and levels

of mental health issues, you would be correct.

In Canada, 95 percent of nurses are women. These numbers increase

when you consider the particular types of nurses that deal with

society’s most vulnerable population: children, the elderly and those

with mental illness. Sixty-eight percent of teachers in Canada are

women, while 84 percent of elementary school teachers are women and 94

percent of early childhood educators are women.

Women are trusted to take on the job of ensuring that the minds

and bodies of young and vulnerable Canadians are taken care of. But who

is ensuring that nurses and teachers in B.C. are sharing the same

courtesy? Studies have shown that teachers and nurses are tied for first

place in levels of harmful workplace stress.

In Manitoba, 52 percent of nurses report experiencing physical

assault, and at least 30 percent to 40 percent exhibit signs of

post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s possible this number is higher. Not

only is PTSD misdiagnosed as anxiety or depression; symptoms are often

based on men with PTSD, which can differ from those experienced by

women.

Historically, as women enter professions, they’ve seen a reduction

in both pay and prestige. This has been the case with both nurses and

teachers and is repeated in the attention to how their mental health is

received. While the gender pay gap is well known, the gender PTSD and

workplace stress gap is less so.

Work done by women is invaluable, and we need to start acting like

it.

STANLEY PARK ECOLOGY SOCIETY

S. Chandra Herbert: This Saturday, April 21, we will be celebrating Earth Day. Now, we

celebrate, but we also need to, I think, reflect on the challenges we

have made for our earth to thrive. For the species, for the creatures,

for the planet’s great abundance to be all that it can be, we need to

recognize our role, our often harmful role, in limiting its true

potential.

While we remember that, we also need to, I think, reflect on the

great successes that we have started to make, to recognize our role as a

creature of the earth, not a creature above the earth.

I think we need to recognize that we need to connect to nature and

reconnect to nature. All too often when I walk through the streets of my

community or streets of many of our communities, I see myself and others

staring at a small screen as we walk through the streets, very often not

acknowledging those around us — or the birds or the trees, the flowers,

the bees.

There’s one organization in my community that’s working hard to

try and change that, to connect us back to nature. I want to acknowledge

them. It’s their 30th birthday this year, and we’ll be celebrating on

the 21st. It’s the Stanley Park Ecology Society.

[10:25 a.m.]

They’ve worked to, in some ways, decolonize the park. What does

that mean? Well, in their sense, they’re focusing on invasive species,

on things introduced from the outside that were never there before —

They bring the community in to do that, to get our hands dirty,

because in the concrete jungle we sometimes live in, in the West End,

you can lose that connection to the earth. They do very important work

through their nature house, bird walks, planting of native species to

bring back the birds that maybe don’t feel as connected there — bringing

back otters, seals and the abundance that truly was there before the

domination, the colonization.

I want to acknowledge them and wish them a very happy birthday for

the very important work they do.

Oral Questions

MEDIA APPEARANCE BY

PREMIER’S CHIEF OF STAFF

J. Johal: I have here a copy of the Standards of Conduct for Public

Service Employees . This is a document on the government

website, last updated March 27, 2018.

Can the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency confirm

that these public service rules still apply to all political

staff?

Hon. C. James: I’ll take a look at the document. I’m presuming that, yes, those

apply. Again, I don’t have a copy of the document, so I’ll take a look

at the document that the member raises.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Yesterday the Premier’s chief of staff taped a promotional radio

appearance to sell his book. Page 8 of the Standards of Conduct for

Public Service Employees has strict rules for public employees

doing work outside their regular employment.

Again to the minister, can she explain how taping a radio

appearance for personal gain during working hours complies with these

standards of conduct?

Hon. C. James: I’ll take a look at the issue that the member raises.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.

J. Johal: Just to provide a bit more information. Not only was the

promotional appearance done during normal working hours, but the

employee was very clearly introduced by his title of chief of staff to

the Premier.

This individual is already paid $195,000, by taxpayers, per year.

Can the minister explain how it follows the rules for the Premier’s

chief of staff to take advantage of his position to sell his

book?

Hon. C. James: People certainly are aware of the responsibility and the duties of

the individual that the member speaks about. I am certain that he took

great care in making sure that his work wasn’t interrupted, but I will

take a look at the specifics that the member raises.

AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE AND

COMMENTS BY ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

P. Milobar: On March 14, the Environment Minister was asked about the 33 B.C.

First Nations with benefit agreements. He said: “What’s difficult to

ascertain is whether support was a condition of receiving benefits.” He

went on to call it “a sort of support.”

This is what Simpcw Coun. Don Matthew told me about the minister’s

comments: “Our members voted to support the project knowing full well

that our main objective was to be involved with the environmental

aspects from start to finish. We are quite capable of knowing what we

sign.”

Will the minister retract his statements that trivialize the

decisions of the Simpcw?

Hon. G. Heyman: Certainly, I had no intent to trivialize the concerns of any group

of Indigenous people, any nation, on either side of this question, who

are taking legitimate positions. The fact remains that there are

different positions, and it is not a matter of counting up how many

nations support one side or how many nations support another

side.

The real question is a question of rights and title and impact.

For 16 years, we had a government in British Columbia that ignored

British Columbia’s First Nations, that ignored rights and titles until

they were forced to by the courts. They refused to implement the United

Nation’s declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and they

refused to take seriously the importance of reconciliation.

[10:30 a.m.]

We’re taking a different approach. We recognize the calls to

action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We recognize the

United Nations declaration. We recognize the decisions of the court.

We’re working carefully and with purpose throughout every ministry in

government to build new relationships and ensure that we take actions

that not only build respect for rights and title and engagement with

Indigenous people but create economic opportunities for all.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, yesterday the minister did say: “I would never, ever

trivialize the concerns of voices of Indigenous people….”

Let me read more of Simpcw Coun. Don Matthew’s concerns with the

minister’s remarks and how they feel the minister’s remarks impact them.

“We knew what was happening, and we approved what was going to be done

in our territory. We don’t need non-native politicians looking out for

our best interests these days.” This is the feeling of the

Simpcw.

Again to the minister, will he apologize for his offensive

comments to them?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member himself read out a statement by me which said I have no

intention of trivializing the concern of any nations. I’ve been clear

about that.

Nations have differences of opinion. People in British Columbia

have differences of opinion. The job of the government of British

Columbia is to respect them all.

The fact remains that it’s not up to the government of British

Columbia to speak for First Nations. They’re doing that on their own.

While some nations have signed agreements and support the project,

others have gone before the Federal Court of Appeal to protect their

interests, as they say, seeking to overturn federal approval of the

project. That includes the Tsleil-Waututh, the Coldwater and the

Squamish.

We need to resolve these differences with respect for the United

Nations declaration, with respect for the calls to action, with respect

for previous decisions in courts and with respect for decisions yet to

come. That’s our government’s commitment to British

Columbians.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROJECT

A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the government whether they share the concerns

being raised by many experts about the economics of the Trans Mountain

pipeline. I’d like to pick up on that here.

Earlier this year and for the very first time, a new class of

tanker — a very large crude carrier, or VLCC — left the newly

refurbished Louisiana Offshore Oil Port destined for Asia. These tankers

can load over two million barrels of oil, and the LOOP facility can fill

them at a whopping rate of 100,000 barrels an hour.

The Aframax-class tankers that would leave the terminus at the end

of the Trans Mountain pipeline can only take 555,000 barrels of diluted

bitumen out of Burrard Inlet. This means that any Asian buyer would need

to contract four Aframax tankers from the Trans Mountain terminus versus

only one VLCC from the LOOP facility.

Based on this obvious economic reality that any Asian buyers would

be serviced by the VLCCs out of the U.S. and not out of the terminus of

Trans Mountain, my question is this. To either the Deputy Premier and

Minister of Finance or the Premier, if he’s here: is her government or

his government and her ministry or the Premier’s office taking a hard

look at the financial case for the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I and

other members of the government are certainly aware of the controversy

around the economics, the different studies, the changes in conditions

and different alternatives. I thank the Leader of the Third Party for

reading these into the record.

With respect to the Leader of the Third Party, it is the job of

proponents to determine the economics. It is the job of other

governments backing the project to determine the merits of the

economics. I think all Canadian taxpayers would want other governments

to take a long, hard look at the economics of a project in which they’re

considering investing billions of dollars.

[10:35 a.m.]

Our job, as the government of British Columbia, is to look at the

interests of our environment and our economy, and that’s what we’re

doing. That’s why we are considering every measure, every inch of our

constitutional jurisdiction, to protect against a catastrophe that’s

possible and that could have significant and awful economic interests on

British Columbia. Tourism alone — 19,000 tourism businesses in British

Columbia, employing 133,000 people in every corner of this province, in

every constituency represented by members in this chamber.

It’s our duty, it’s our responsibility, to look out for those

people. It’s not our responsibility to ignore them because a large

project comes along. Our job is to ensure that if there are large

projects, they don’t impact and take away the livelihood of those people

or the $17 billion in revenue that the tourism industry generates every

year in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for his answer there and his commitment to

protecting British Columbia, but I respectfully disagree. I believe it

is the government’s responsibility to inform British Columbians about

the economics of this proposal.

Why? Because the previous government claimed that the economic

benefits for British Columbia were very large and, in fact, claimed that

the government’s fifth condition was apparently met. Now, unfortunately,

the fifth condition was based on assertions that were put towards the

2012 National Energy Board in the submission. It’s now six years old,

and many of the fundamental assumptions of that submission, of that

economic case, on which the government claimed its fifth condition was

met, are no longer valid.

Keystone XL and line 3 have been approved. That means that we have

more than a million barrels a day of export capacity, which was

unaccounted for. We’ve got North America now having the ability to ship

through VLCCs. That was never able. And we know that you can’t get

bigger ships in Burrard Inlet. This government, I would argue, has a

responsibility to review those numbers so that British Columbians are

given correct, accurate and up-to-date information about the economics

of this project.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and then to the

Minister of Finance, who still has laryngitis. The previous provincial

government made claims about the economic benefits to B.C. from this

pipeline that have been cast into serious doubt. Why isn’t this

government examining the economic case more closely?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I thank the Leader of the Third Party. As he respectfully

disagrees with me about the role of our government in this regard, I

respectfully assert again to him that this is not a project that this

government thinks is good for British Columbia. We’ve made that clear.

We think the risk is so great and far outweighs the reward.

What we are doing is ensuring that within our jurisdiction, within

our ability to regulate and place conditions on a project that is

federally decided upon, subject to an appeal to the federal court, we

ensure that conditions and regulations are in place to protect our

economy.

It’s important. It’s important up and down our coast. We have a

fisheries and seafood industry that contributes more than $660 million

every year to our gross domestic product, and it employs 14,000 people,

paying almost $400 million in wages.

Just yesterday 450 businesses understood why we were taking this

position; 450 B.C. businesses signed a joint letter calling on the

government to continue to stand up for our coast and the tens of

thousands of jobs that depend on protecting our coastline and our

environment from a spill.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

M. Lee: On October 4, 2017, the Attorney General announced that British

Columbians would be asked to vote on proportional representation before

the end of November 2018. Over six months later, the ballot question of

this referendum still has not yet been announced.

[10:40 a.m.]

To the Attorney General, when will he inform British Columbians of

the referendum question they will be asked in just a few months’

time?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and for his interest in this.

We had an exceptional level of participation by the public in our

engagement process — 180,000-plus site visits, 88,547 questionnaires

completed in multiple languages; British Columbians feeding back from 30

organizations spending an average of 14 minutes on the site, spending an

average of 16 minutes completing the questionnaire.

This is a huge amount of feedback for us, and I can assure the

member that we are taking that feedback very seriously. There will be a

report that summarizes all that feedback — it will be available to all

members — with recommendations about the question or questions, the

rules, whether third parties should be funded and so on, and it will be

based on the feedback of British Columbians. The ultimate question about

our political system and the voting, how we send representatives to this

place, will be decided by British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: While the Attorney General views himself as a non-partisan,

neutral arbiter, no one else does. He has yet to inform voters of the

ballot question. He has yet to announce the campaign rules. He has yet

to even provide the exact date of the referendum. Key information that

voters need to make an informed decision is being withheld while he

continues to manipulate the process.

Can the Attorney General explain why he hasn’t told voters

something as basic as what the question will be, when we’re mere months

away from this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure what the member hopes would happen here. We went to

British Columbians, and we said: “What should the question be? What

should the rules be?” They participated. I hesitate to say it, but this

was certainly one of the largest engagements of British Columbians, in

terms of the number of people participating, in the province’s history —

in multiple languages.

We are compiling that information for all members to be able to

review. All of the information will be available to them. What better

process than this to set the question and the rules? And the member will

have that information as soon as we can get it to him.

J. Martin: Last fall the government released a questionnaire that many have

claimed is skewed in favour of proportional representation. I happen to

have a November 15 email from a director in the Attorney General’s

ministry that might explain why. In this email, the director reveals

that political staff in the Attorney General’s office directly provided

input to shape the questionnaire.

To the Attorney General, what input did his political staff have

in the drafting of the questionnaire?

Hon. D. Eby: We had several academics that assisted us in the process of

setting up this questionnaire. They were of various backgrounds, but

their expertise was in consultation with the public in British Columbia.

Certainly, I agree with the member that I have political accountability

for the questionnaire, for the referendum process. That is the job that

the Premier has given me. I accept that responsibility.

The questionnaire has been criticized by people who are

pro–proportional representation, and it has been criticized by members

who are anti–proportional representation. I think that’s exactly where

we should be.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: Well, absolutely no one views the Attorney General as non-partisan

or neutral in this matter. We now know his political staff had direct

input into the drafting of a questionnaire widely seen as being skewed

in favour of proportional representation.

As the supposed neutral arbiter, will the Attorney General table

in this House all input his political staff had into the drafting of the

questionnaire?

Hon. D. Eby: There have been a number of freedom-of-information requests in

relation to this. They have all been responded to, and I imagine that’s

how the member got the document he’s talking about. He already has the

information. I’m not sure of the basis for the question.

[10:45 a.m.]

What I can say is that I will not be lectured by members from a

government who put forward a referendum called by pollster Angus Reid as

“one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will

that I have seen in my professional career.” That referendum about

whether or not First Nations people had rights —

unacceptable.

M. Stilwell: Last April the Premier promised that he would “set up an all-party

committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at

the conclusion of that process.” But as this hasn’t happened, it seems

the government has either blundered or chosen to manipulate the process,

or both.

Why is the Attorney General in charge of the process, instead of

an all-party committee — breaking the Premier’s promise?

Hon. D. Eby: Members throughout the Legislature had the opportunity to stand up

and provide submissions. They told me they did during the second reading

debate about the referendum process. Their feelings about the values

that needed to be represented…. All of that will be incorporated in the

report that will be available to all members.

Every political party had the opportunity to provide submissions.

We had submissions from the Conservative Party, from the Greens, from

the NDP, and certainly, we had submissions from B.C. Liberals. So with

respect to the member, all parties have participated. There will be a

full report of how their submissions were considered and recommendations

going forward. I heard from members across — concerns about rural

representation, about local representation. Those concerns were heard

loud and clear, and they will be incorporated in the final

report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Well, that’s certainly a new definition for all-party

committees.

The Premier also broke his promise that the referendum ballot

would be a written, simple yes-or-no question. Groups like Fair Vote are

actively out there campaigning for a more confusing, two-ballot

question, as they feel it will increase their chances of

winning.

Will the Attorney General recommit to the Premier’s promise of a

simple single-ballot question, yes or no?

Hon. D. Eby: The hypocrisy of these questions — on one hand, saying that we

shouldn’t go out to British Columbians and consult with them, that there

should have been a different process; on the other hand, saying that the

Premier himself should have set the question. I’m not sure which the

members favour here, but I can tell them the process that we are

engaging in.

Every British Columbian had the opportunity to provide feedback.

Mailers to every house in British Columbia. Every political party had

the opportunity. Statements in Hansard from second reading

speeches. Every party had the opportunity to provide written submissions

as well — all compiled by public servants into a report with

recommendations for all members to see before it goes to cabinet. That

is the process that is being followed here, and whether or not the

member, individually, agrees with that, that is what is

happening.

J. Sturdy: Last April the Premier made a clear promise that he has since

broken. He said that the amending formula for our constitution is

similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing

how we elect people in B.C.

Can the Attorney General explain what happened to the regional

threshold requirements the Premier promised?

Hon. D. Eby: The legislation was in front of this minority parliament around

how the referendum would be held. It passed with a majority of votes.

The rules are very clear. A majority of British Columbians, one British

Columbian and one vote, will decide the future of our electoral system

in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, let’s look at this Premier’s broken promises. He said he’d

set up an all-party committee; he didn’t. He’d said the ballot would be

a simple yes-or-no question, but now it looks like it won’t be. He said

that there would be regional threshold requirements similar to the

constitutional amending formula. So far, there are not.

Will the Attorney General recommit to the regional threshold

requirements, or is this yet another broken promise?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m trying to figure out why the members are so unhappy about a

process where, in a minority parliament, a bill was passed that set out

the rules for the referendum where every British Columbian gets a vote

about the future of our electoral system in the province. Not only that,

one of the largest engagements…. I’d guess the largest, but certainly

one of the largest engagements in our province’s history about what the

rules should be, what the question should be.

I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson wasn’t happy with

that process. When he heard that there were tens of thousands of

completed questionnaires, he said, “Well, it would be interesting to

know how many of those questionnaires came from outside B.C.,”

suggesting, perhaps, Russian influence.

Let me tell you that the responses to the questionnaires reflected

the population of British Columbia almost exactly. We had communities

that were underrepresented, like greater Vancouver, Squamish-Lillooet

and Similkameen. Kootenay-Boundary, Sunshine Coast, Mount Waddington and

the capital region were more heavily represented. Overall, it reflects

the geographic diversity of our province, as did the

feedback.

C. Oakes: The Premier made a promise to British Columbians. The Premier

promised a referendum would need broad regional consensus, but the NDP

have lowered the bar to the weakest possible 50-percent-plus-one

majority threshold. The NDP has also said voter turnout as low as 10

percent would be valid.

Can the Attorney General clarify how low voter turnout has to be

for the government to reject the results?

Hon. D. Eby: First of all, these are…. The voter turnout rules are the same

that elected the member, so I’m not sure why she’s so concerned about

that.

Secondly, the largest engagement in B.C.’s history, tens of

thousands people spending 14 minutes to fill out a questionnaire on

voting systems. The engagement of British Columbians on this question is

through the roof. We expect huge participation in a

referendum.

I thank the member for her question very much, but I can assure

her that if this questionnaire is any indication, there will be a record

voter turnout for this referendum.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: Tens of thousands, largest engagement in in British Columbia. How

disrespectful can this Attorney General be to those people? What is the

question? When is the referendum?

Look at what happened in 2005 and the 2009 provincial referendum.

It required a 60 percent threshold in favour across the province, and at

least a 60 percent threshold of ridings. The member opposite said he

would be happy to incorporate all of the things that he heard. So are

you changing the threshold? Are you prepared to change that

threshold?

The provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island had the same

requirements. In fact, it is standard in British Columbia to require a

75 percent threshold just to change your strata council.

Why is the Attorney General afraid to seek a strong consensus for

such a fundamental change in our democracy?

Hon. D. Eby: So 180,880 site visits, 88,547 questionnaires completed by British

Columbians across the province — a remarkable level of participation

that indicates that the member’s fears are groundless.

British Columbians are incredibly engaged on this question,

engaged in ways that they have never been engaged before, and I am

thrilled about that. I am thrilled about every British Columbian getting

a vote about how we send members to this place. What better reflection

of our democratic system than that?

[10:55 a.m.]

J. Isaacs: The NDP–Green Party confidence and supply agreement was signed

almost 11 months ago. It reads: “The parties agree that they will work

together…to determine the form of proportional representation that will

be put to a referendum.”

A simple question: what exactly is that form of proportional

representation?

Hon. D. Eby: That is exactly one of the questions that we asked in our

engagement process. We asked people about submissions, what should the

ballot question be, what system should we put to British Columbians. We

are taking that feedback very seriously, and it will be contained in a

report for all members to see.

Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Isaacs: The confidence and supply agreement is the basis by which the

government itself exists and, therefore, the basis by which the Attorney

General holds his position. But after nearly 11 months of manipulating

the process, the commitment to determine the form of proportional

representation that will be put to referendum has not been

kept.

Has there been disagreement between the NDP and the Green Party

about which form of proportional representation should be presented to

voters, and if so, when will it be resolved?

Hon. D. Eby: I know the member is new to this place. She may not know the

history of referenda in our province here. When the members…. Many of

them are still sitting opposite. When they held a referendum on whether

First Nations people have rights, it was described as “stupid,”

“immoral,” “amateurish” and “racist.” “By the May 15 deadline, only

one-third of the mail-in ballots were returned. Many were burned. Others

were turned into paper airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet

paper.” That is, of course, from news reports.

Now, I know the members opposite support a referendum. The member

for False Creek: “I know that we’ve had referendums in 2005 and 2009,

but there will be another one.”

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson: “We are committed to

enabling a third referendum.”

The member for Richmond-Steveston: “The discussion around

electoral reform is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy

debate on our system is important.”

The member for Vancouver-Langara: “For many, it’s important that

we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British

Columbians an opportunity to consider once again what is the best

electoral system for this province and its people.”

Again, we listened, and we acted. I take his advice. We are

acting. We will have the referendum.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

REFERRAL OF JURISDICTIONAL

DISPUTE TO COURT

M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the

House to discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance,

specifically the necessity, advisability and consequences of referring

to the Court of Appeal the question of British Columbia’s ability to

regulate or limit the transportation of energy products on federally

approved and regulated pipelines and rails.

I’ve provided copies of my statement. One will make its way over

to the Government House Leader, and the Table has one. Presumably, all

members of the House will agree that the importance of this issue is

beyond question. B.C. is in a full-on dispute with the governments of

Canada, Alberta and others on a matter that is central to the

functioning of our federation. That dispute was triggered on January 30,

2018, when the government of B.C. issued a press release threatening to

limit interprovincial transportation of energy products by pipeline and

rail. This has led to retaliatory measures being brought by other

governments against B.C.

The government of B.C.’s approach to resolving this dispute, we

are told, relies almost exclusively on a judicial reference that it has

repeatedly referred to but thus far not initiated. There is, clearly,

much at stake. Proponents of moving ahead with the project, which has

received federal and provincial approval, deny any jurisdictional

ambiguity and point to the thousands of jobs that are at stake, the

importance of facilitating movement of Canadian natural resources to

market, and the reputational blow that will be dealt our province and

country if those seeking to invest and build infrastructure can no

longer rely upon properly secured approvals.

Those advocating against the project, including the government of

British Columbia, which campaigned on a pledge to “use every tool in the

tool box” to stop it, insists that a reference case is essential in

order to clarify the jurisdictional uncertainty that they claim

exists.

[11:00 a.m.]

This application under Standing Order 35 is not about resolving

that fundamental difference of opinion, nor does this application rely

upon the obvious importance of the issue for the province and

country.

The authorities for this House are very clear. The test upon which

an application for emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 35 must

be determined is the urgency of the debate itself. That urgency was

highlighted yesterday when the Attorney General advised the House that

the reference to the Court of Appeal would be initiated within ten

working days.

Thereafter, any opportunity for this House to offer meaningful

input on the approach being advocated by the government will disappear,

or it will be the government and the Attorney General himself who reject

any attempt by members of this chamber to initiate a discussion or pose

questions, on the basis that the matter is now before the

courts.

In determining whether the matter I’ve raised qualifies under

Standing Order 35, I commend to you several previous rulings of the

House. The ruling of August 8, 1977, by the Speaker, approving a

Standing Order 35 application with respect to issues, ironically,

pertaining to the construction of the Alcan natural gas pipeline, and

the ruling of April 9, 1992, by Speaker Sawicki, confirming that a

private member’s statement or reference to a matter in question period

does not disqualify the matter for debate under Standing Order 35,

pursuant to Standing Order 35, sub(10)(d).

Finally, a reminder that Standing Order 35 contemplates a very

time-limited debate of one hour. This is not a question of hijacking the

House agenda for any extended period. On a matter of this magnitude,

where the opportunity for debate of any sort will disappear within four

sitting days, I am hopeful that the government and Third Party will

agree that it is reasonable and appropriate to take 60 minutes to

canvass the views of the House.

Surely the government would want the opportunity to explain the

rationale for its approach and share the nature of the question it is

proposing to have the court answer. Surely the government would want the

benefit of the views of members of this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, if you find my application to be in order, my hope

and suggestion would be that prior to seeking leave to commence the

debate, the respective House Leaders meet to settle upon an agreeable

time for that debate to occur.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his presentation. Though I do have to ask a

number of questions around Standing Order 35, the fact of the matter is,

it is about the urgency of debate as opposed to the urgency of the

issue. But the reality is, when it comes to the urgency of debate, that

we have just spent 40 hours in the Ministry of Environment dealing with

the very issue that the member raises. So to suggest that there has not

been opportunity to debate I think is wrong.

The other issue that the member raises. Again, I would say that

question period, for the last several weeks, has been preoccupied by

this very issue. So again, has there been a lack of opportunity to

debate? There has not been a lack of opportunity to debate.

Finally, I would make the following point. I understand — and the

member knows full well — the rules of this place. Often, when these

kinds of matters are the subject of an interest by the opposition, then

if the opposition is truly interested in saying, “We think this is

important,” there is no reason why the opposition, as opposed to, at the

end of question period in almost a gotcha moment, trying to say, “We

need this….” They could have approached the government to say: “You know

what? We think this is important. Would you consider having a one-hour

debate on this?” That also did not happen, which is

unfortunate.

At this point in time, we do not see the need for a Standing Order

35 debate on the matter, because there has been ample time both in

estimates and in question period to debate the matter before

us.

[11:05 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the application for Standing Order 35. We were

informed of this about a minute ago when this was put on our desk, so

we’ve had a quick caucus meeting here.

I will suggest that I do have a lot of sympathy for the arguments

brought forward by the Government House Leader. I will also remind you

of precedent. In the previous government, I rose pursuant to Standing

Order 35, and I pointed out that it was critical at that juncture for

the House here to have a debate on the issue of climate change in the

lead-up to the Paris Agreement, because government was deliberating on

what it was going to do there. And both sides of the House, at that

time, suggested that the urgency test had not been met.

I have been talking about the issue of Kinder Morgan for five, six

years now. I would argue that the urgency test is not met either, in

light of the fact that I listened to estimates, in light of the fact

that I’ve been here in this chamber for the last number of weeks and

there has been time after time after time where this has been debated.

Some of the motions in private members’ time, some of the statements are

on this topic. We’ve had ample opportunity to discuss this.

Again, I come back to the precedent. I come back to the

application of Standing Order 35 in the last parliament, when I rose

precisely on an issue similar to this, and the Speaker at the time ruled

that it was not a matter of urgency. I would argue that the parallels

are very similar. The argument at the time was that the issue of climate

change had been debated in question period, it had been debated in

estimates, and it had been debated in statements on Monday

morning.

The analogy is direct. So our advice, hon. Speaker, as you make

your decision, is that we find it difficult to see how this test of

urgency is met.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Abbotsford West, I will take your statement under advisement and

provide a statement later today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14. Unfortunately,

I have some sad news for those members going to Committee A, the Douglas Fir

Room. There will not be estimates of the Ministry of Environment today. I will

be calling estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and

Child Care.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps I could just say that I’m standing in for the Minister of

Finance. She’s a couple of seats away, but given her laryngitis, she

thought it more prudent to have me answer the questions on her behalf. I

think she’s close enough that if she wants to intervene, she can prod

me.

S. Bond: Good morning. We appreciate the opportunity to pursue some

questions on Bill 14. We certainly are wishing the Minister of Finance

well as she recovers. I know it’s been difficult for her not to be

engaged. We send signals across the aisle every now and again, so we do

wish her a speedy recovery with her throat.

We appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions. As was

pointed out in the opening comments when we went through second reading,

this is a very technical bill. It relates to a number of taxation

statutes. It is not our intent to spend a lengthy period of

time.

I do want to express our gratitude to the minister and the staff

who did a very capable job of walking through the bill, but it is

important to bring some of those changes to the record so that people

understand what’s happening. In several cases, we’ll ask questions. I

think it’s important if the substitute minister is prepared to just

identify….

Many of these are housekeeping. I think it’s important to put it

in that context. We’re not seeing significant and overwhelming changes

of taxation statutes. We’ll deal with those issues in another

venue.

To begin the questions, if the minister could explain for us

exactly the…. We are “repealing the definition of ‘regulation’ and

substituting the following,” and we substitute with “regulation”. Could

the minister explain the change?

Hon. B. Ralston: The previous definition defined a regulation and gave the

regulation-making power only to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council —

that is, cabinet. The amendment, which is a housekeeping one, expands

the definition of regulation to include those regulations that are made

by others — in particular, the Commissioner of Income Tax — so that it

expands the definition of legal regulations.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

[11:15 a.m.]

T. Redies: Could you explain what the purpose of this change is?

Hon. B. Ralston: This amends the definition of “qualified relation,” as it’s

described in the act, to ensure that the spouse of a taxpayer is also a

resident of the province in order to qualify.

T. Redies: We understand what you’re doing. I guess what we’re trying to

understand is the context and what problem you’re trying to

fix.

Hon. B. Ralston: The purpose of the change is to ensure that the spouse of a

qualifying taxpayer who is a non-resident of British Columbia would not

qualify for the credit, and this amendment makes that clear.

T. Redies: All right. Perhaps the minister could explain what the broader

implications are of this amendment, in terms of how income is taxed in

the province.

Hon. B. Ralston: There are no broader implications. The Canada Revenue Agency

interprets this

section in the way that it is proposed to be amended

already. Administratively, that’s taking place. This amendment enables

the letter of the regulation to catch up with administrative practice.

Therefore, it’s, I think, properly classified as a housekeeping

amendment.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. I think I know the

answer to this, but just again for further clarity. Will this have any

impact or change on the way that people with spouses or common-law

partners in British Columbia file their income taxes?

Hon. B. Ralston: No.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Bond: This is related to sales tax credit for a taxation year. It talks

about the timing of the return. Can the minister outline the changes in

the timing?

Hon. B. Ralston: At present, a taxpayer who wishes to make a claim for the

refundable sales tax credit must do so within three years. This amends

that and brings other provisions of the federal Income Tax Act into

play, which will give them ten years to make that claim.

S. Bond: I’m assuming that this could be characterized, then, as a benefit

to people who previously, after three years, would not have filed their

claim. Is there a sense that that was an issue? Three years, for most

people, extended past the due date is fairly significant.

[11:20 a.m.]

Is it a matter of legislative consistency, was it related to a

sense that there needed to be more flexibility, or is it simply lined up

with other legislative expectations?

Hon. B. Ralston: I agree with the member’s sense of the three years being, probably

for most people, a reasonable period of time. But in the act, generally,

ten years is the ordinary time that is permitted to claim these credits.

So this amendment will make this particular provision consistent with

the general legislative scheme.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

T. Redies: It’s my understanding that the family bonus is a spent program and

this

section simply enshrines that in the law. Is that

correct?

Hon. B. Ralston: The program has ended, and there’s no longer anyone eligible to

make a claim under that previous program.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

S. Bond: Maybe the minister could walk through the changes in

section 7 for

us. As I understand it, this repeals the definition of “specified

partnership income” and then makes a consequential amendment following

that repeal. Could the minister explain exactly what that change is

doing?

Hon. B. Ralston: There was previously a provincial definition of specified

partnership income. The federal definition has changed. This amendment

will make the provincial definition the same as the federal one. So it’s

an effort to harmonize the two provisions.

S. Bond: Is it fair to say, then, that there is no change in practice? A

number of these provisions are about aligning with federal changes or

federal legislation, to be consistent. Is there any change in practice,

or is this simply an alignment and consistent language across the

acts?

Hon. B. Ralston: There was a change in the federal rules which was given royal

assent on December 15, 2016. This change catches up with that

change.

S. Bond: I want to explore the extent of these changes. As I’m sure the

minister would recall — and I absolutely know the Finance Minister was

aware of this issue and will continue to be — there were other

significant changes, taxation changes, that relate to small businesses,

which the federal government intended to consider. As the minister would

be well aware, there was a significant reaction across the country from

small businesses.

What my colleague and I want to have British Columbians be assured

of today is that this in no way has implications to small business

owners — that there is no connection to the consequential tax changes

that the federal government has made that have a potential for a

significant impact on small businesses.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: These amendments are not related to the recently announced changes

to the federal tax planning for private corporations regime tabled in

the federal budget in 2018 which were the subject of the debate,

nationally, that the member refers to. As I referenced earlier on advice

from the staff, these are designed to catch up with a change that was

given royal assent on December 15, 2016, so they antedate these changes

in this year’s budget by a couple of years.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

T. Redies: Can you outline a bit about what the purpose of this

section is?

And what, if any, on-the-ground impacts will there be to the mining

companies in this province?

Hon. B. Ralston: This amendment aligns the British Columbia definition of the

mining exploration tax credit with what’s called, in the federal act,

Canadian exploration expenses. It’s the same activity. It aligns the two

definitions.

T. Redies: Will there be any mines that will pay more tax as a result of this

alignment?

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s a little bit of a complicated explanation, but I think I have

it.

Under the previous scheme, the intention of the credit is to

enable the company to claim for expenses. Under the way in which the

scheme was operated before, the company received revenue — and this was

not the intention of the scheme — but they would still be able to

receive a full credit.

[11:30 a.m.]

The way in which these

definitions are now aligned will change

that and prohibit that kind of a claim. It was not the purpose of the

statute and not the purpose of the credit.

The member asked if companies will receive less revenue.

Conceivably, if they’re in that position, they will, but the intention

of the statute was never that they received a credit in those

circumstances.

T. Redies: I guess the answer is yes. Some companies will be paying more tax.

Does the province have any understanding of how many companies will be

affected by this and to what extent?

Hon. B. Ralston: The view seems to be, based on officials’ discussion with the CRA,

that there would be very few companies that would be in this position.

In fact, most companies have relied on the federal definition, so this

would not be unexpected.

Sections 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

S. Bond: I’m wondering if we could start with the minister just providing

an explanation of this section. The minister can imagine that any time

we see (

a) the words “regulation-making power” and (

b) the word

“retroactive,” there are concerns about that. This is a

section that

talks about looking at retroactivity to January 2008 or a later date.

Could the minister just walk through what exactly this provision is

meant to accomplish?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate that the member is concerned about retroactive

regulation. What this legislative amendment does is it gives the

provincial authority the power to make retroactive regulations that

conform with federal retroactive regulations. In other words, the

initiative would have to come from the federal government making

retroactive regulations, and then this amendment would give the very

high degree of specificity necessary to empower retroactive

change.

It must be explicitly stated in the Income Tax Act. There are

powers in a number of statutes, but this is a general power, in

circumstances where the federal government makes those changes, for the

provincial government to follow.

S. Bond: This does not give, then, unique retroactive reg-making authority

to the provincial government. The trigger, the catalyst for the use of

this clause, would be that if the federal government changes legislation

related to taxation and it is deemed to be retroactive, the province

would follow suit. It would align.

Would the minister please clarify: does this specifically align

with the federal government saying their legislation is changing and it

will be retroactive, or can the province somehow apply this to some

unique situation that is distinct to British Columbia?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just so that it’s clear, it would not be in every case that it

would require a federal action. Let me give an example. There are a

number of statutes or credits where there are existing retroactive

regulation-making powers — for example, the B.C. education coaching tax

credit, the film and television tax credit, scientific research and

experimental development credit, training tax credits, interactive

digital media tax credits.

[11:35 a.m.]

There are specific powers, in the case of those individual

statutes, to grant retroactive regulation power. There’s no additional

regulation-making authority that’s granted by this. So it would be in

the case where the specific statute did not have an existing power to

make a retroactive regulation that this amendment would authorize

that.

S. Bond: I think just more an observation than a question. I mean,

obviously, the ability to create regulation has been a discussion in

this House for as long as I’ve been here, which is a fairly lengthy

period of time. What it does is it takes the details of initiatives, of

changes, of suggestions outside of the public domain. It gives

ministries, government, the authority to add regulations.

Once again we see — and we’ve seen this in virtually every piece

of legislation that we have spoken to as co-critics — that the

government is adding regulation-making power all over the place. I’m

wondering what compelled this addition. If we’ve managed it this long,

what specifically is driving the requirement to add retroactive

regulation-making power?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member’s concerns. I recall asking similar

questions and making similar statements myself at a certain point. But I

would disagree that regulations are outside the public domain, in the

sense that they’re not open to public scrutiny. They are published on

B.C. Laws. They are a part of the public record for those who are able

to…. Usually, the interest is a very specific one in a very specific

statute. They are not outside of the public domain in that

sense.

S. Bond: Well, we’re not going to verge off. We’re not going to diverge and

have a conversation about reg-making and where it happens. The

difference is when we’re discussing legislation, we’re actually standing

here in the Legislature today. A lot of that work, and having been a

minister for many years…. Regulation-making is a different process, and

there’s always some skepticism about the degree of public attention that

it gets. In essence, is this a correction?

Hon. B. Ralston: The way in which I’m advised is it’s better to describe it as

filling in a gap.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

T. Redies: To the minister, could the minister explain what the purpose of

this

section is?

Hon. B. Ralston: The explanation for this change is very similar to the one given

section 5 in that it extends the time to claim the credit for

apprentices from three years to ten years.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

S. Bond: This is a transition amendment related to small business rates.

What are the implications of the transitional measure on how small

businesses will file their income tax in the province?

[11:40 a.m.]

R. Chouhan: Madame Chair, may I have leave to make an introduction,

please?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: Today we are joined by Mr. Bachan Bedil, a poet, musician and

novelist. More than 700 songs written by Mr. Bedil are sung by famous

singers in India. He’s now in Canada to release his next novel, called

Sandli Kheda . He is joined by my friend and a well-known

veterinary surgeon, Dr. Hakam Bhullar, Baghail Bullar and Tajinder Sharma.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to extend my welcome to Dr. Bhullar as well. He’s someone

that I know quite well.

If I could answer the question here, what I am advised is this

will harmonize the rules between the small business tax rules in the

B.C. act and the federal act. Again, I’m advised that there will not or

should not be any change in the way in which small business taxpayers

file.

S. Bond: In other words, is this

section aligning the practice of small

businesses today, and they will not be surprised or find…? They’re

having enough changes to deal with, as we speak. So I’m assuming this

does not have significant implications and would be operating under the

expectations that this amendment is bringing to our

Legislature.

Hon. B. Ralston: I think that I can provide the assurance that these are the rules

that have been in place federally since 2016 and that small business

filers have been following. So there should be no surprise to any

filer.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

T. Redies: On

section 21, could you explain the purpose of this section? What

is the specific issue about it being after 2014, and what particular

problem is this correcting?

Hon. B. Ralston: This is consequential to the changes we have spoken of in

section

11, earlier in the bill. I’m advised that the amendment is beneficial to

taxpayers. The amendments are required to adopt the amendments to the

federal act which reduce the taxpayer’s penalties when the taxpayer’s

income was subject to withholding by the payer of the income. So it

applies to the 2014 taxation year and beyond on the same basis as the

federal enactment.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

S. Bond: Again, we have a retroactive regulation. We understand, obviously,

that it’s dealing with the Insurance Premium Tax Act. It is a

retroactive regulation. Could the minister tell us exactly what this is

expected to do?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There was an amendment to the Insurance Premium Tax Act — and this

was passed under the previous government — which calculated the way in

which the refund was calculated. What this amendment does is align the

calculation of the rate of interest with the previous legislation and

the way in which the obligation to pay the excess was calculated, if I

have it correctly. I think I see a nod here, so thank you.

S. Bond: What I’m hearing is that it’s a consolidation of regulations.

That’s what it looks to be.

We want to be assured that…. When the minister references tax

rates and interest rates, for example, are there any changes that will

monetarily impact people on the ground?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m told that it won’t make any change. It simply ensures that the

rate of interest, the table that’s used, will be the one that was

intended when the original legislation was passed and it was not

included.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

T. Redies: What is the purpose of this particular section? Why is it

retroactive, and will there be any monetary impact on entities involved

in the logging industry?

Hon. B. Ralston: This change is similar, or identical, to the provisions that we

just debated in the

section on the Insurance Premium Tax Act. The

amendment is required to have the regulations for calculating interest

apply to calculating interest in respect of an excess refund.

T. Redies: Again, a clarification. Will this mean that entities will pay more

tax or less tax — or less interest, rather?

Hon. B. Ralston: What this does is simply confirm, in legislation, the rates that

they were paying administratively and makes sure that the authority for

doing that is clear.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:50 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 14, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the Minister of Health says, we must be fed.

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 Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,792,612,000.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to start by introducing the staff that we have with us

today — Allison Bond, our deputy minister; Christine Massey, the

assistant deputy minister, early years and inclusion; Philip Twyford,

our assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer; and

Teresa Butler, executive director for child care policy.

I understand that we’re going to start the estimates today on

child care. I’ll hand it over.

L. Throness: First, I want to thank both ministers for coming today. I

understand that the minister of state has not been delegated the

responsibilities for child care, but the Minister of Children and Family

Development has those responsibilities. So as the accountable minister

and the Minister of State for Child Care, I’m really pleased that you’re

both here today. As a matter of convention, I will simply direct my

questions to the minister and then whichever minister wants to can

respond to them.

Just to let the ministers know, people are watching today on line.

Providers are concerned right across B.C. The things that I have to say

are echoing many of the concerns I’ve heard over the past little while.

I’m sure they’ve heard them directly as well. So I want to just set the

context for my first question today by giving a few remarks to put

things on the record.

First of all, I think it’s good that the government is intent on

supplying more child care. It’s something that the B.C. Liberals

promised in their platform as well. So I think that’s good. I want to

affirm that there are many legitimate ways of raising children. To give

a few examples, there are kibbutzes in Israel. There is a tradition of

nannies in North America and a tradition of governesses in England.

There are boarding schools around the world from time immemorial. Of

course, there’s raising kids at home with parents, in the way many of us

grew up.

There are many ways to raise children. All of these modes of care

were undertaken within great nations, and none of them seems to have

damaged the national character. So I want to be — and I sincerely am —

flexible with regard to child care. I say this to counter those who

might want to stereotype or distort my own views, or B.C. Liberal views,

on child care.

Second, when we look at the mode of child care that the government

chooses and makes policy for, we need to keep some priorities uppermost

in our minds, and I’ll be looking to the ministers for these on an

ongoing basis.

The first priority, of course, is the best interest of children.

The second is parental choice. Here I don’t mean choice as a euphemism

for pushing everyone into public daycare but true, free, equal and

neutral choice across the panoply of choices that are out there — choice

that empowers parents to do, in their judgment, what is best for their

unique family situation, choice that liberates rather than constrains

the parent. Third, I think we need to be driven by data, by evidence,

and I’m going to be asking questions about that.

I want to go on for a moment to wax philosophical and say that

over my 60 years, or nearly so, things have changed a lot in our country

with respect to child care. When I was a kid in Fort St. John, every

child in my neighbourhood that I can think of was raised in the family

home. I never went to kindergarten. I played until I was six years old,

and then I went directly into grade 1. Probably the minister did, too.

It was completely normal and standard in my day. Only a few kids went to

this new thing called kindergarten.

I had a wonderful childhood. It didn’t affect my intellect —

although some may differ on that point. I went on to get a PhD and so

on. But over my lifetime, the raising of children has changed and may

have suffered something of a reduction in status in our culture. People

are having children later. When they do have children, their families

are smaller.

[11:20 a.m.]

Increasingly, as I see it, having a family is not the default

activity that everyone used to do — where everyone did it. Families are

increasingly turning to others to assist them in raising their children.

This is partly for economic reasons but also partly for cultural or

social reasons, as parents aspire to have a career and raise children as

well.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just

different. But it raises a whole new set of opportunities, as well as

challenges, which the government needs to recognize and respond

to.

I say this because I think the change in status of child-rearing

has affected the family, but it will also affect the supply of early

childhood educators as well, because people don’t usually choose a

career merely to make money. They go into it for fulfilment and other

more philosophical reasons. If potential caregivers don’t think that

taking care of children has a high value, a high status in society, they

may not enter that field.

We are looking, in the future, at a severe labour shortage on the

horizon getting ever closer in which 700,000 British Columbians will

retire in the next five years or so. Given that competition in the

labour market is already fierce and intensifying, as I hear constantly

from employers, it could be that we’ll have growing problems recruiting

early childhood educators unless the role of caregivers, caregiving, is

very highly valued in our culture today.

My first question is to the Minister of State for Child Care.

She’s not the minister for daycare. She is the minister for all child

care, not just licensed child care. Her job is to encourage and lift up

all children in B.C. and all those who raise children.

My question is this. What has the minister done to enhance the

status, recognition, value and esteem attached to the raising of

children in the province?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to thank the opposition member for this very

important question about child care services in B.C.

In my mandate letter, it has clearly stated that we want to

provide the options available for families who want it or need it — the

child care services and the early learning services that they need — to

make sure that they have more options. So I’m really, really proud that

our government has put together a very comprehensive plan to address the

child care crisis that has been going on for many, many

years.

Ever since we became government, we have been hearing from

parents, providers and professionals in the sector about the current

struggles that they have when it comes to…. For example, the cost of

child care has been increased so significantly during the past years. It

can be as expensive as someone’s rent payment, mortgage payment or even

as high as one parent’s paycheque.

The cost of child care has become a huge burden on the family’s

expenses. Many families are unable to return to work because they simply

cannot afford child care, and they have to live paycheque to paycheque.

There are many sad stories that I’ve heard ever since we became

government about how families are struggling with affordability, with

life getting so unaffordable, and child care costs have gone up so

high.

At the same time, some parents have shared with us that even if

they can afford child care services, they simply just cannot find the

services that they need. There’s very little space available in B.C.

communities, especially when it comes to infant-toddler care. The

wait-lists are very long. Even when parents have a good career or

educational opportunities waiting for them, they simply just don’t have

that option available. They’re struggling to find spaces. They’re

struggling between their child care needs and their career or

educational needs.

Many families have also shared with us how they’re struggling to

find inclusive, quality child care spaces. There is very little option

available in the community where they live, or again, they’re facing

long wait-lists or the high cost of child care pressures.

We’ve been hearing those stories from families and also from

providers, who have shared with us that they work hard. I know providers

throughout B.C. communities are passionate about the work they do. They

want to serve the families. They’re caring for their children, and they

want to provide the best services possible.

Many providers have shared with us that they also want to continue

to maintain affordable child care services, but they’re facing cost

pressures — rent increase, cost increase — for their operations, so they

have no other way to address that pressure other than putting it on

parent fees. We’re working together, and we’re excited to work together

with providers, professionals, parents and community members to see how

we can work together for that solution.

That is why, for the first time ever…. Unfortunately, the previous

government looked at the child care crisis, which has been happening for

so many years, and did some work around it but not really a

comprehensive strategy. So for the first time ever, a B.C. government is

putting together a comprehensive strategy with a $1 billion investment

for three years to start this work, to put together a comprehensive plan

to address the child care crisis so families can have more options when

it comes to addressing their child care needs.

We know that investing in child care is good for our children, for

their very important early learning years. Especially as a mom — I have

a four-year-old — I see how the first few years are so important for our

young children; also for parents, when it comes to affordability, when

it comes to choices; and also for our community, for our economy and for

our business community, who have been having a hard time recruiting and

retaining workers because families are struggling with the costs of

child care and their child care needs.

We are also working with many partners. Our plan is very

comprehensive. We’re working with, for example, the Ministry of

Education on early learning and quality early learning services to young

families. I want to emphasize, again, that the goal — the goal of this

government putting together such a huge investment — is to create a

and high quality. We need to continue to work with everybody —

providers, professionals, parents, community members, business

communities — to work together to make this work for

families.

[11:30 a.m.]

Our goal at the end of the day is to make sure families have

options — that families who want or need child care and early learning

services have those options available.

L. Throness: A year ago we were in the middle of an election campaign, if we

all remember that. One of the main planks of the government’s platform

was $10-a-day daycare. We don’t have it yet. The Premier later said in

the media that the phrase $10 a day was more of a brand than a literal

promise.

Is the government ever going to introduce $10-a-day daycare, or is

that officially off the table?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you so much to the opposition member for asking this very

important question and allowing me the opportunity to talk about our

plan and the $10-a-day plan. For the first time ever, government is

making significant investment in the child care system and also making

child care more affordable.

If you look at the $10-a-day plan, it is a long-term plan. It’s a

plan that has a lot of details, and it focuses on three pieces — exactly

the three pieces that I just mentioned about our government’s plan,

which are making child care more accessible, more affordable and high

quality. Those are the three pieces that our government’s plan is

focusing on as well.

If you want to look at the affordability measure when you’re

focusing on the $10-a-day amount, for example, our government’s

three-year plan has introduced two measures. One is an across-the-board

fee reduction, working with providers to make child care more

affordable, and the other one is going to come up later this year, which

is the new child care benefit. That’s an income-tested benefit that’s

going to be benefiting families up to the income of $111,000.

With those two measures combined, in the coming months and years,

actually, we’ll be seeing a lot of families…. For example, families

under the income of $80,000 will be getting, approximately, the $10 a

day child care service. Families who are making an income of less than

$45,000 will be getting very little cost for their child care services

or even free child care services.

Our government is spending $630 million in the coming three years

on the affordability measure to make sure that when it comes to

affordable child care, families will be seeing that impact in the coming

months and years. For now, we are already hearing from many families who

are really happy with our first fee reduction initiative. Some families

have been sharing with us that finally they don’t have to live paycheque

to paycheque. They have a little bit of room to buy more groceries, to

buy more food for their family and for their children.

We do understand that affordability is very important, and we’ll

continue to work on that and to make sure that, as we continue with our

plan, we continue to make child care more affordable.

In general, we have adopted the $10-a-day principles, but at the

same time, we’re also working with B.C. communities. We’re working with

professionals, providers, Indigenous community — working with families

to continue to make our plan work for B.C. communities. B.C. is a very

diverse province. We have a lot of different needs and, again, we talked

about how families want to have different options. We want to put

together a plan, working with everybody to make sure that our plan, in

the coming months and years, will work for B.C. families.

L. Throness: In its platform, the government, a year ago, explicitly endorsed

the plan of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. They, in turn,

had copied it entirely from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The government adopted some of its tax measures in the last two budgets,

so my question is: does the government endorse the CCPA plan in its

entirety, including plans for future personal income tax increases to

pay for more child care?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: As I have mentioned, we have adopted the principles of the

$10-a-day plan, but at the same time, we know B.C. is a very diverse

community, and B.C. families want to have different choices when it

comes to their child care and early learning needs. What we are doing is

to engage with providers, professionals, educators and also Indigenous

communities and community members on how we can put together a plan and

how our plan will work for all B.C. families.

In the coming years, our government’s plan has a lot of different

measures. I probably would need to spend at least two or three days in

order to go through all of the measures that we have. Some of the key

focuses…. For example, I talked a little bit about affordability

measures with the two initiatives that we’re rolling out — the fee

reduction initiative and also the new child care benefit. That’s going

to help a lot of families. For the first time ever in B.C. history,

child care is getting more affordable for many B.C. families.

At the same time, for so many families who are under the income of

$80,000 a year, they will get approximately $10-a-day child care

services, and for families under the income of $45,000, their child care

can be very little cost or even free child care services.

[11:45 a.m.]

We know that we also need to accelerate the creation of child care

spaces, because so many families simply, even if the parents can afford

it, cannot find the service they need at all. In the coming three years,

we are committed to creating up to 22,000 child care spaces throughout

B.C. communities.

We also want to make sure we’re investing in areas where the needs

are the highest — for example, infant-toddler care. That has the highest

pressures throughout B.C. communities. There are very little

opportunities available. So we want to make sure our initial investment

is focusing on infant-toddler care and any other type of child care

services that a B.C. community needs.

We’re going to be rolling out, for example, the major capital in

the coming months and weeks, and there will be more details to come. We

are also looking at our minor capital grant. For the first time ever, we

want to support more providers with their operation and with their

ongoing needs for their operation. So for the first time, we are

expanding the minor capital to family providers to help them to maintain

their services and keep up with their operations.

There are other things we are doing. For example, we are looking

at ways we can provide more child care and early learning services for

parents who are working shift work — more flexible hours, evenings and

weekends to serve different parent needs.

We are also providing start-up funding for licence-not-required

providers who have been sharing with us that some of them really want to

expand their services to create more spaces. We’re also looking at how

we can give them support so they can become licensed child care so they

can look after more children.

We’re also working with local child care resource and referral

centres to see how we can continue to support all types of different

providers in B.C. communities with their needs.

Last but definitely not the least, there’s a very important part

of our plan that we are working hard on every single day, which is our

top priority in the coming weeks and months. It is to make sure that we

support the sector. We support early childhood educators with their

training, education and also fair compensation.

Our staff and many professionals in the sector are working hard

every day to put together the strategy to make sure that we can look at

what the sector needs and how we can continue to recognize educators who

are working hard every single day to serve our young children, to

provide that important service to our families. So we’re working on

that, and we already have the funding of $136 million to invest in that

area, on which we are hoping to release more information in the coming

months.

We also need to make sure there are more opportunities to train

early childhood educators. So we’re working with the Ministry of

Advanced Education and public post-secondary education institutions to

look at expanding the opportunities.

There are many, many details of our plan. This is just a quick

overview, but there are so many other things we have to do. And again,

we need to continue to engage with providers, professionals, Indigenous

communities and many, many partners as we continue to build a better

system that can work for B.C. families so we can address their child

care needs. A need has been there for many, many years, and finally, our

government, as soon as we became government, is working on it right

away.

Hon. K. Conroy: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 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