Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 132

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Emergency wireless alert system

J. Rice

Tributes

James Paxton

I. Paton

Introductions by Members

Tributes

James Paxton

S. Thomson

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M215 — Legislative Assembly Management

Committee Amendment Act, 2018

P. Milobar

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Emergency preparedness

J. Rice

Geoffrey Cowburn

S. Bond

Paramedics and emergency dispatchers

R. Kahlon

Marty Bootsma

G. Kyllo

Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre

M. Dean

Big Green Egg BBQ festival in Chilliwack

J. Martin

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

M. Hunt

Hon. C. James

Hon. R. Fleming

T. Redies

Bus service on Vancouver Island

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. Trevena

E&N rail line and transportation

corridor

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. Trevena

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

S. Cadieux

Hon. R. Fleming

Budget provisions and planning for school

districts

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on school

districts

J. Isaacs

Hon. R. Fleming

Premier’s meeting with West Kelowna mayor on real

estate speculation tax

B. Stewart

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 27 — Pill Press and Related Equipment Control

Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

Reporting of Bills

Bill 27 — Pill Press and Related Equipment Control

Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Local Government Statutes (Residential

Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Robinson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act,

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

(continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

J. Isaacs

J. Tegart

N. Letnick

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. A. Dix

J. Isaacs

N. Letnick

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018

The House met at 1:38 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we’ll have introductions by members, but before we do, if I could

call upon the Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Preparedness to make a short

announcement about something which is going to happen at 1:55 today.

Statements

EMERGENCY WIRELESS ALERT SYSTEM

J. Rice: Today at 1:55 p.m. — hopefully, if all goes well — B.C. will be

testing its new wireless alerting system, at the same time as our

regular testing of TV and radio public alerting systems. This is an

opportunity to make sure that the system is working correctly, allow

people to ensure their device is compatible and also raise awareness

about the importance of emergency preparedness.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, understanding the standing orders of how we conduct ourselves

with electronic devices during question period, today members may want

to keep their phones on, but on silent or on vibrate, so that they will

actually experience and receive the first text message of the public

alerting system. This is to broaden our reach to make sure more people

have access to critical and possibly life-saving information in the

event of emergency or disaster.

Given the number of British Columbians who have wireless devices,

this evolution in alerting is the next logical step in emergency

management to save lives and promote greater resilience in the face of

disaster. So I appreciate everyone’s participation today, with your

permission, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We might extend that invitation to people in the gallery, if you

have your phones on mute.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: They don’t have phones? Okay. Apparently, I’ve been overruled on

that.

Tributes

JAMES PAXTON

I. Paton: Roughly three weeks ago today I got asked, and it was an honour,

to throw out the first pitch for Ladner Minor Baseball. Does anybody

know where I’m going with this?

I was so honoured that a graduate of Ladner Minor Baseball, James

Paxton, yesterday, last night in Toronto, threw the first no-hitter

since 1945 by a Canadian. James Paxton grew up in Ladner. He went to

Delta Secondary School, which is my alma mater. Even my son and his

buddies are friends with James. They holidayed together this past

winter.

We’re just so proud of James in Ladner and Tsawwassen and Delta,

in general. What a game last night. He went the full nine innings, and

even on his last three pitches, he hit 98, 99 and 100 miles an hour in

his pitches — the first no-hitter since 1945 by a Canadian.

Congratulations to James Paxton.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: I have the pleasure of welcoming new staff to the parliamentary

education office today. This summer 15 post-secondary students have been

hired to work in the parliamentary tour program. Over the next four months,

these nine summer tour guides and six Parliamentary Players will provide

free guided tours to about 100,000 school children and tourists from around

the world seven days a week, starting on the May long weekend.

Spanish, German, Mandarin and Hebrew. You will certainly notice the

Parliamentary Players, as they will be in period costume, to bring history

to life as Queen Victoria, Francis Rattenbury, Thomas Uphill, Nellie

Cashman, Hamish the stonemason and Amor De Cosmos.

I would like you to please welcome Madeleine Humeny, as team lead;

Stephan Bagan, Aidan Guerreiro, Teanna Lackner, Kaylyn Olynyk, Gabrielle

Parent, Joy Peters, Naomi Reuveny, Maria Wallis, Alec Xu, Sheldon Graham,

Nicholas Guerriero, Ellen Law, Avry Payne, Douglas Peerless and Daniel

Saretsky. Would the House make them very welcome.

T. Redies: I’d like to welcome two constituents from South Surrey to the gallery

today — Paul Hague, a local realtor, and Shelley Coburn, who is with the

B.C. and Yukon legion and also a Langley school trustee.

The reason why they’re visiting us here today is that Paul bid on a

lunch with the member for Surrey South and myself for a very worthy cause,

our Peace Arch Hospital Foundation. I know there are some members on the

other side of the House that might wonder about a prize with myself for

lunch — if that’s really a prize — but not Stephanie. Stephanie is

okay.

Anyway, I’ve broken multiple rules here with this introduction, but I

just want to make sure I welcome Paul and Shelley and thank Paul for all his

support for the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It is my privilege today to introduce MLA Pargat Singh Powar, who is

joining us on the House floor today. MLA Powar has been a member of the

Punjab Legislative Assembly since 2012. He is a dear friend. I first met him

at hockey tournaments, of all things, because he is also a very well-known

and renowned hockey player. That’s grass hockey, not ice hockey. He is

considered one of the world’s best defenders. That’s when he used to play a

lot. We have a member from North Delta who’s had the privilege of playing

hockey with MLA Powar.

I would also like to recognize that we have other guests who’ve come

with MLA Powar, and that is his son Harnoor Kaur Powar, his son Hartaj

Pargat, his daughter Harnur Pargat and his friends Harpreet Singh Atwal and

Paramveer Sohi. Please may I ask all of those in the House today to make

them very, very welcome to our warm Canada.

P. Milobar: We have several people here today representing the cement industry in

British Columbia. From the Cement Association of Canada, we have Michael

McSweeney, Adam Auer and Shane Mulligan. We have Kent Stuehmer from Lehigh

and Jonathan Moser from Lafarge. Will the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Today is a day that we recognize and celebrate ambulance paramedics

and emergency dispatchers in B.C. I had the honour this morning to meet with

four members of the delegation. I’m going to do them in order of importance

to me. Tim Lehman, who was extremely eloquent at the meeting, also happens

to be my constituent. Secondly, of course, is Cameron Eby, who is the new

president, since last fall, of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. Local 873

and also — interesting thought — is actually tied for first place on my list

of favourite Ebys. Also there were Christian Andersen and Steven

Boaly.

I’d ask the House to make all of them and all of the ambulance

paramedics with us today welcome.

A. Weaver: I was just looking at the B.C. portraits Twitter feed. Quite

remarkable, hon. Speaker.

Please let me welcome Jacob Kreiser and his son Vince, who are here

today. Jacob moved into my riding in 1968 and has lived there on and off for

many, many years. He’s a retired high school teacher, the majority of which

was at my wife’s alma mater, the glorious and magnificent building of

Victoria High School, as well as Spectrum Community School here in the

greater Victoria district. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s a pleasure to welcome some distinguished parliamentarians to the

Legislature today. A delegation from the European Union Parliament, led by

Chair Bernd Kölmel, is on a five-day visit to Canada. The group,

representing various member states, held interparliamentary discussions in

Ottawa and is now, obviously, here on the west coast, spending the day in

Victoria before heading to Vancouver.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for receiving and welcoming our guests today.

I know that they have meetings, as well, with my colleagues the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, and

that will strengthen our interparliamentary relations.

Would the House please congratulate those representatives of the

European Union as we celebrate Europe Day today, and make them all feel very

welcome.

G. Begg: I’m delighted to welcome to the House today the Rotary Club of Surrey

essay contest winners. They’re all from Kwantlen Park Secondary, in my

riding. I don’t see them here yet, but I’m sure they’ll join us momentarily.

They are Jagjyot Parmer, Mike Ghost, Emily Best and Hanibal Reda.

Accompanying the students are Rich Greczi, teacher of social studies at

Kwantlen Park Secondary; Dick Wareham, member and secretary of the Rotary

Club of Surrey and a longtime personal friend; a member and past president

of Surrey Rotary Club and former MLA for Surrey-Tynehead from 2001 to 2013,

Dave Hayer. Would the House please join me in making them all feel very

welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: Today with so many paramedics here, it is an opportunity to give a

shout-out to all the ambulance paramedics and all the first responders of

British Columbia and to just say there’s an untold story in this overdose

crisis. That untold story is the thousands of lives that are being saved by

our ambulance paramedics and our other first responders.

The province of British Columbia owes you a great debt of gratitude.

Thank you to all of your members.

D. Ashton: It’s my great pleasure today to introduce a gentleman. He’s a longtime

employee of the provincial government and a gentleman that had the

unenviable and almost impossible task of balancing the freshet flows into

the Okanagan system and trying to keep the pooling heights at a reasonable

height for all those that are affected by flooding — Brian Symonds from

Penticton.

Brian, welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: From the government side of the House, I’d like to also welcome the

members of the cement industry who are here and from the cement association

who are here. I know we’ll be having many meetings with them in the coming

days. I look forward, also, to their event this evening. I hope the House

will once again make those people from Lehigh, Lafarge and the Cement

Association of Canada very welcome.

N. Letnick: I would also like to offer my thanks to the paramedics from British

Columbia. One of my first jobs in this House was to travel the province and

look for a way to help paramedics and firefighters and all first responders

to avoid contracting contagious diseases, like hep C and HIV.

We in this House introduced the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

thanks in large part to the paramedics in British Columbia. On behalf of the

official opposition and people all over B.C. that rely on the paramedics,

please make them feel very welcome.

R. Singh: In the House today, we have members from Diabetes Canada. We have

Joanne King, Sheila Kern, Russell Williams, Keith Godfrey, Colin Mallet,

Mario Miceli, Karnjit Sarai, Ellen Stensholt, Brian Symonds, and also from

Better PharmaCare Coalition, Dr. Ganive Bhinder. Would the House please make

them make them feel welcome.

B. Ma: I don’t get a lot of opportunity to exercise, so I appreciate the

opportunity to stand up and sit down.

I am very pleased today to be able to introduce to the House someone I

know as a constituent, a volunteer, a supporter but, most importantly, a

friend. You may all know him as the former executive director of the B.C.

Council of Film Unions, for 20 years. Mr. Tom Adair is now enjoying a

relaxing retirement by serving as the chair of the health benefits trust for

IATSE 891, the largest film union in Canada; as the chair of the mental

health and addictions task force of Calltime: Mental Health, which is a

joint initiative by B.C.’s motion picture industry unions; and by getting

involved in several affordable housing projects.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends, this is a man who doesn’t know what the

word “retirement” means. Please help me welcome him to the House

today.

Tributes

JAMES PAXTON

S. Thomson: I just wanted to stand and make sure that the member for Delta

South didn’t take all the credit for James Paxton’s no-hitter. I know he

learned a lot in the Ladner baseball system, but James also pitched for

the Kelowna Falcons. That’s where he really honed his craft.

So on behalf of all of us, again, congratulations for his great

feat yesterday.

Introductions by Members

A. Kang: It is not very often that I have 42 of my friends come to Victoria to

visit me on this very special day. I have seniors here who have worked on

campaigns, who have helped other seniors. For many of them, it’s the first

time for them to be here in Victoria.

They are from the CCSA, the Canadian Community Service Association,

with the senior branch. They have a junior branch, a senior branch and a

general branch. I belong to the general branch, age-wise.

[1:55 p.m.]

I would like to introduce their presidents. The past president for

Burnaby is Jen Ching Wang. The current president for Vancouver is Linda

Pang. The Surrey president is Annie Mue. A very dear friend of mine is

regional president of seven branches in Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley,

Wendy Hu.

As well, we have here the Northern Star Lions Club and their members.

I want to thank Harry Hsu for bringing your members over as well.

A very special thanks goes to Tian-Jin Temple and TJ Living for their

seniors program, for enabling these seniors to come over. And ferry fares

were free today, because Monday to Thursday.…

As well, I would like to make a special mention that my executives are

here. Vice-President Trevor Morgan is here, as well as three youth

volunteers: Ella Dee, Jamie Hahn and Latina Pankova. And a very, very

special thank you to my CA, who’s here today making sure no one got lost,

Apollo Chung.

Everyone, please make them feel welcome.

A. Wilkinson: I’d just like to welcome the Cement Association of Canada. They are,

of course, the foundation of our society. I do hope that the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Transportation will hear them, because they

bring a wealth of data and information from their worldwide industry to

British Columbia. It’s been a long-standing relationship between the

association and government, no matter who’s in office. We’ll look for a

strong, structural response from those two ministers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Management

Committee Amendment Act, 2018.

P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first

time.

With this bill, as the current rules stand, MLAs who are exempt

from the capital city living allowance are able to claim per-diem

allowances for meals and vehicle mileage while they are in Victoria,

while the Legislature is sitting. This bill will align the rules around

per diems with the rules around the capital city living allowance to

make sure they are synchronized, and that will no longer

occur.

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

Motion approved.

P. Milobar: 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 M215, Legislative Assembly Management Committee 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)

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: I’ve just returned from visiting flood-affected regions in the

South Okanagan and Similkameen communities.

As government, we’re doing everything in our power to help these

folks and communities. We recognize it’s a trying time, and in many

places, the water is still rising. On top of this, we still have to

prepare for and contend with the upcoming wildfire season. Furthermore,

in British Columbia, we have some of the highest seismic risk in North

America.

Monday was the start of Emergency Preparedness Week, and

hopefully, if it was turned on, you received B.C.’s first wireless test

of the Alert Ready system on your LTE phone.

I’d like to talk to you about the critical importance of getting

good and ready for what Mother Nature may send your way, and to

reinforce three simple steps that we need to keep ourselves, our loved

ones and our families safe: learn the risks, develop a plan and prepare

a kit.

When disaster strikes, it could take days for help to reach you.

That’s why it’s so important that everyone takes the time to collect a

minimum of three days of supplies — and, ideally, as much as seven.

According to a recent PreparedBC survey, many British Columbians aren’t

prepared for a disaster and don’t have the supplies necessary to take

care of their families. Why? We’re lazy, and we don’t know what to put

in our kits.

[2:00 p.m.]

Our government and our partners, though, are committed to changing

this. This week we’re launching the new Partners in Preparedness program

to help British Columbians get prepared. Under the program, B.C.

retailers will champion emergency readiness by promoting and selling

disaster supplies in their stores. The goal is to make it easier for

people to find and purchase supplies that they need and to help them

learn about their risks.

I’m thrilled to announce the first two B.C. retailers to come on

board: London Drugs and Save-On-Foods. British Columbians will be able

to visit London Drugs or Save-On-Foods, grab a premade emergency supply

list and build their kits in one easy shopping trip.

But emergency preparedness goes beyond the consumer and the

retailer. Emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility. We all have

a role to play. I call on British Columbians to get your emergency kit

stocked and get good and ready, and I encourage all B.C. retailers to

get on board with Partners in Preparedness and help British Columbians

be prepared.

GEOFFREY COWBURN

S. Bond: On March 27, the Robson Valley lost a health care legend. Dr.

Geoffrey Cowburn passed away at the age of 90. His life is celebrated in

a recent

article in the Valley Sentinel newspaper, beautifully

written by Birgit Stutz.

Dr. Cowburn served McBride and the Robson Valley region for

decades. Born in England, Dr. Cowburn and his family emigrated to Canada

in 1967. While originally destined for Quesnel, a practice was for sale

in McBride, and that became their new home. Quesnel’s loss was the

Robson Valley’s gain, and Dr. Cowburn served not only McBride but the

entire region.

He did just about everything. As the

article notes, that included

suturing wounds, delivering babies, saving lives — basically, anything

from prescribing prescriptions to doing emergency surgery in both

McBride and Valemount.

Dr. Cowburn loved to read and garden, and he loved horses. He also

loved to fly. You couldn’t miss him in his bright yellow Tiger Moth

biplane. While flying may have been part of his hobby, it was an

important part of his practice, as he would use his plane to fly to

Valemount and Blue River to care for his patients. Dr. Cowburn’s

daughter, Lisa, recalls: “If he was needed at the McBride Hospital when

he was out flying his plane, Mom would put a white sheet on the front

lawn of their residence to signal that he was needed at the

hospital.”

Dr. Cowburn was compassionate, caring and hard-working. He cared

deeply for his patients, and he loved living in McBride. He retired from

his medical career at the age of 85. After the death of his beloved

wife, Jane, he spent the last few years of his life in Qualicum Beach

with his daughter, Lisa. The Robson Valley region was blessed to be

served by this incredible physician. He will be missed but never

forgotten.

PARAMEDICS AND EMERGENCY DISPATCHERS

R. Kahlon: Members of the Ambulance Paramedics and Emergency Dispatchers of

B.C. are in Victoria today for a day of advocacy, to offer us a view

into the extraordinary work they do every day. We welcome them. Many

MLAs are planning to meet with these caring and heroic professionals to

discuss issues of concern.

These are jobs that come with unique stresses and challenges. Both

historically and today CUPE 873 and its sublocal, representing 4,000

ambulance paramedics and 500 emergency dispatchers in B.C., has a long

history of advocating for its members. They’ve come a long

way.

There was a time not long ago when ambulance services were

provided by a mix of private and public organizations, including funeral

homes and community groups. Consider this. In 1963, metropolitan

ambulance attendants worked 86.5 hours a week and got paid

$90.

In 1974, the B.C. government, under the leadership of Premier Dave

Barrett, formed the B.C. Ambulance Service. Hours for members were

reduced, pay was increased, and outcomes for patients improved vastly.

Today BCEHS is in the midst of making more improvements, hiring more

full-time and part-time paramedics, adding more ambulances and hiring

more dispatch staff.

As a first step towards providing more support for first

responders, the Minister of Labour announced legislation that will add

post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental injuries to a list of

presumptive conditions. This means workers will no longer be required to

prove their disease or disorder is work-related.

Our emergency health care workers are there for us during some of

the most difficult and frightening times of our lives. On behalf of my

colleagues, I wish to thank them.

[2:05 p.m.]

MARTY BOOTSMA

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the life of my friend

Marty Bootsma, who passed, April 20, at the age of 69 after a brief bout

with cancer. Marty’s memorial was attended by well over 500 family,

friends, dignitaries and members of the community. The large attendance

was telling of Salmon Arm’s admiration and respect for Marty. Heartfelt

stories were shared by Marty’s son Roger and daughter Grace and other

family members and friends, providing personal insight into Marty’s

ambitious, adventurous and family-centred life.

Tributes were also extolled by former Salmon Arm mayor and MP

Colin Mayes and Coun. Alan Harrison, who shared that along with a strong

work ethic and a great sense of humour, regardless of the politics

involved, Marty always voted with Salmon Arm’s best interests at

heart.

Marty was born in the Netherlands and immigrated to Vancouver with

his parents at a very young age. He met Margaret in Vancouver, and they

were married in 1971 and had three children. In 1980, they moved to

Salmon Arm, where Marty pursued careers as a carpenter, a real estate

agent and the owner of Bootsma’s Bakery.

Marty lost his wife Margaret to cancer in the spring of 1999.

These were difficult years, but Marty remained an involved member of the

community. Marty was a volunteer firefighter, a Rotarian, a city council

member and mayor of Salmon Arm from 2005 to 2011.

Marty found love again and married Wendy, adding to his growing

family. Marty enjoyed his time as a member of the Salmon Arm barbershop

project and having morning coffee with his closest friends. Marty

enjoyed people, was quick-witted and had the ability to form and

articulate an opinion on almost anything. But his greatest joy was

spending time with his family, especially his growing number of

grandchildren, who affectionately called him “Opa.”

To his wife, Wendy; children and stepchildren Roger, Kim, Grace,

Gord, Jon, Christine, Curtis, Michelle, Emily, Justin; and grandchildren

Harley, Jaron, Kierra, Nikki, Josie, Riley, Rachel and Joy: please

accept my sincere condolences.

Marty Bootsma, cheers to a life well lived.

DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE WOMEN’S CENTRE

M. Dean: “My comfort zone and second home is the Downtown Eastside women’s

drop-in centre,” says Marie.

Women in the Downtown Eastside are severely marginalized and face

multiple challenges, including systemic racism and poverty, endemic

violence and rampant abuse and exploitation. Indigenous women, who make

up about 70 percent of DEWC members, are disproportionately affected by

intergenerational trauma and the housing and fentanyl crises. Chinese

senior women, who comprise another significant part of the DEWC

community, face persistent racism, isolation and housing

uncertainty.

DEWC provides a place where women can come as they are, find

resources, support and sisterhood, and build personal capacity so as to

bridge the gap from survival to self-sufficiency. Hundreds of women

access DEWC daily, where they can find hot, nutritious meals, toiletries

and clothing, phone and computer access, as well as a safe space and

emotional support — or something as simple as, in one member’s words, “a

shoulder to cry on.”

The drop-in centre is a cornerstone of the Downtown Eastside

community, hosting grief and support groups, counselling, art workshops

and healing circles. Starting out from serving soup from a household

kitchen, the DEWC currently operates a low-barrier drop-in centre and

emergency night shelter, offering a safe, women-only space, supportive

surroundings, meals and basic essentials as well as a continuum of care

that nurtures and empowers members towards long-term change.

This is their 40th year since incorporation. On behalf of the

passionate and supportive MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I’m honoured

to recognize their members, volunteers, staff and community, which is,

as they say, a fierce one that continues to survive and thrive despite

all odds.

BIG GREEN EGG BBQ FESTIVAL

CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: Let’s save the date, May 27, as Grandpappy’s Home Furniture and

Appliances in Chilliwack hosts the second annual B.C.

Eggfest.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with our thriving poultry

sector in the eastern Fraser Valley. What are we talking about? We’re

talking about a barbecue food festival, absolutely — B.C. EggFest. It’s

a gathering of Big Green Egg fans and experienced cooks from all over

the province. Among these will be Brian Misko from the House of Q. He’s

one of the most decorated pitmasters in the country, if not North

America.

Fifteen different cook teams will be showcasing their skills and

talents while preparing, demonstrating and sampling their special

recipes all day long for the hungry tasters to enjoy.

Big Green Egg aficionados — or eggheads, as we like to refer to

ourselves — are devotees of an ancient outdoor cooking method that

originated 3,000 years ago in China. Over time, the Japanese embraced

this clay cooking vessel, and this eventually became known as the kamado

cooker.

But enough with the history lesson. It’s going to be a great day

for the entire family at the B.C. EggFest. Anyone with an appetite and a

love for great barbecue is invited to come out and taste what all the

teams have in store.

There’ll be live music, courtesy of Mr. Entertainment himself,

Trevor McDonald; and for the first time ever, the Axewood axe-throwing

crew is going to be at the B.C. EggFest. Everyone is invited to join the

battle for a little bit of friendly axe-throwing competition.

Food, axe-throwing — I mean, what more do you want? It’s all

happening May 27 from 11 to four at Grand Pappy’s Home Furniture and

Appliances, just a couple of minutes off Highway 1 in Chilliwack.

[Laughter.]

I don’t know what’s so funny here. Will the House join me in

wishing the organizers and everyone involved a successful EggFest

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

M. Hunt: Further evidence has come to light that the employer health tax

was announced without any regard for its impact on school districts. I

have an email written by the Minister of Education on February 22, after

he downloaded an additional $7 million on Surrey schools through the

employer health tax. In this email, the minister forwards a news

article

about the budget challenge faced by the Surrey school district with the

question: “What is the shortfall this

article refers to?”

Will the minister explain his disconnect from the budget challenge

he imposed on the Surrey school district with the NDP’s new higher tax

on schools?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to be able to talk

about all the good things we’ve done in education in this government

over this last year, particularly the investments we’ve made in the

Surrey school district.

When it comes to building schools, when it comes to seismic

upgrading, when it comes to getting rid of portables, we have invested

in the Surrey school district. We are supporting education in a way the

other side never did as they picked a fight with teachers.

The normal implementation process for the tax continues. Further

information will be available in the coming weeks, as I said yesterday,

as I said the day before. And as I’ll continue to remind people, this

will eliminate medical service premiums, a savings of $900 for

individuals and $1,800 for families. I’m not sure why the other side is

against the affordability for families.

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

M. Hunt: Well, when asked on March 12 if he was aware, going into the

budget, that the tax would be applied to school districts, the minister

said: “I wasn’t aware of the contours of the tax.”

Now we find out that he was unaware of a significant school budget

shortfall in Surrey when he imposed the new health employer tax. How can

the minister justify his ignorance of Surrey’s budget when he imposed an

additional $7 million tax on the Surrey schools?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: First of all, it’s great to hear from that member there. I know he

missed the opportunity to show up and see 2,500 new spaces in Surrey be

announced the other week in his own riding — and $100 million of capital

investment since Labour Day that will benefit students in his riding and

every constituency in Surrey.

The member is absolutely wrong about the 50 percent cut that we’ve

introduced to MSP. In fact, the Surrey school district gets to keep $1.8

million of additional savings this year.

Here are the discussions that I’ve had with Surrey parents and

Surrey trustees about the difference between this school year, the next

school year and the ones previous under the last government: $59 million

of new operating funds, 600 new teachers in the classrooms and the

smallest class sizes in Surrey’s history in generations.

We just disclosed those numbers, so I’m sure the member is

thrilled to hear that there’s more one-on-one time with teachers and

support staff in the schools that he represents in his riding under our

new government than there ever was under his.

We said to the Surrey school board: “Keep the savings from the

broadband Internet cut that we’ve made this year. Invest it in kids.”

They’re doing that.

The pension fund savings they’ve achieved — we didn’t claw it back

like the previous government did. We said, “Invest it in classrooms and

kids,” because Surrey parents have waited long enough for a government

that cares about education and stands up for the kids.

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

M. Hunt: Well, I would be more than happy to attend the announcements that

this government makes for Surrey schools if I got more than one business

day announcement of it so that I could have changed my

schedule to

attend.

Let’s recap what we know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

M. Hunt: Let’s recap what we know. The minister imposed a $7 million tax

grab on Surrey schools. He writes a bewildered email when he reads in

the media that they’re having a budget shortfall in Surrey. Then to add

insult to injury, he can’t even tell Surrey parents if he has money to

exempt the schools from this tax grab. This, in my opinion, is

incompetence.

To the minister, will the Surrey school board have to find another

$7 million or not?

Hon. R. Fleming: I apologize for the late notice to the member, but I suppose he

prefers the days when there were no school announcements in

Surrey.

We have worked very closely with the school board chair, with

trustees, with the superintendent in that district. We have worked with

parents very closely on the finances of that school district. They have

never been higher. There have never been more teacher or instructional

staff in the district. We have worked hard with them to get rid of

portables, which their kids have studied in for way too long in terms of

their school careers.

The investments that we are making in Surrey schools are at record

levels. We’ve just announced a new playground fund. Just yesterday I had

the pleasure to be with the Premier.

I know that for the member opposite, when you have 550 million new

dollars in the school system this year than in the last full year of his

government, when they were in power, that the sky is somehow falling.

But that’s not what I’m hearing from Surrey parents and families, and

the school district has thanked our government for all the initiatives

that we’ve made to finally fund an investment that will pay dividends

for this province.

T. Redies: School districts across this province were blindsided by the

surprise employer health tax. So too, apparently, was the minister.

Unfortunately, over 2½ months later, school boards are still being left

in the dark by this minister.

The Surrey board of education is meeting later today to approve

their 2018-2019 budget submission. To the Minister of Education: will

the Surrey board receive an exemption or be forced to pay an additional

$7 million for the NDP’s new higher tax on schools, yes or

no?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The reception that I’ve had from the B.C. School Trustees

Association and other organizations was to thank this government for

finally listening to their concerns about a whole range of issues. They

are glad that finally, a government that fought for 12 years against the

teaching profession in this province — literally ripped out hundreds of

millions of dollars of annual funding, took it away in terms of learning

supports for kids…. They have seen record levels of investment in the

education system. It’s long overdue.

The Minister of Finance has been very clear that she’s working

with school leaders around the province. She’s working with others in

different sectors around the health tax. Those discussions are

ongoing.

I’ve told the members opposite about the $1.8 million savings from

getting rid of 50 percent of the MSP this year. The tax will be

completely eliminated, and that’s wonderful news for Surrey

families.

The member opposite knows that this government is dedicated to

pursuing measures that will make life more affordable for B.C. families.

We’ve eliminated a regressive tax. We’re the last province to even have

it. That will save working families in Surrey $1,800 a year. We’re proud

of that.

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

T. Redies: If I may, I just would like to point out to the Minister of

Education that $7 million is higher than $1.8 million. The minister’s

email reveals he is completely disconnected from school board budgets,

even as he imposes significant additional costs. He doesn’t seem to care

about the impacts of downloading $7 million on Surrey schools. He

doesn’t even care enough to tell the school boards if they will be

exempt or not. He can’t answer a yes-or-no question.

To the minister, how is the Surrey school board supposed to

approve a budget tonight with a $7 million unanswered

question?

Hon. R. Fleming: The member’s numbers are completely inaccurate and wrong. We have

worked with the school districts through the B.C. association of school

board officials to look at what this transition to the elimination of

the MSP will look like for school districts, and we are managing that

transition right now.

The Finance Minister has met with school leaders and is continuing

discussions with them. For the time being, there’s a $1.8 million

savings by the 50 percent cut in MSP.

There are record levels of funding in the Surrey school district.

We’ve hired hundreds of new teachers there. That’s good news for Surrey

families. We’ve made record investments in school capital in

Surrey.

I think the member should celebrate all of the great news, with

this side of the House, that’s going on in her constituency and all over

Surrey, because it’s long overdue.

BUS SERVICE ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Furstenau: This February Greyhound announced that it was discontinuing its

only bus routes on Vancouver Island, one of which ran from Victoria to

Nanaimo. This was a blow for students in Cowichan who attend Vancouver

Island University in Nanaimo. These campuses are 39 minutes apart by car

but essentially impossible to reach by transit as there are no routes

that link Duncan and Nanaimo.

Transit is a critical need for youth in communities across B.C.

This government continues to emphasize the importance of education, and

I applaud them for that — for giving our youth the tools they need to

thrive. Yet these efforts are overlooking areas where our youth are most

in need — even when, as in this case, there is a simple fix

available.

To the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, there are

ongoing plans to improve transportation infrastructure and access in

major cities, but less populous communities are in dire need. What is

your ministry doing to prioritize transit infrastructure in underserved

rural and semi-rural regions?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. It’s important to recognize

that people, wherever they live in the province, need to be able to

travel safely and affordably to get to work, to visit family, to visit

friends, to go to school. Our government is absolutely committed to that

— investing in transit through the province.

B.C. Transit is in collaboration with local governments and is

working on future plans for transit in the area the member talked about

over the next couple of years. Part of this looks at new connections

between Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley.

[2:25 p.m.]

Once partners have reached an agreement on the service levels and

funding, the work will go ahead. In the Cowichan Valley itself, the

regional transit system is in fact getting this summer, July 2, 1,500

hours of new service.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that people can travel,

not necessarily by car: have access to bus service, have access to

transit. We’ll continue to invest in transit around the province to make

sure people can travel affordably and safely.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

E&N RAIL LINE AND

TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR

S. Furstenau: I appreciate that we’re looking at plans over the next few years;

however, there are students who are actually leaving school right now

because they can’t get between Duncan and Nanaimo. So we are in a bit of

a crisis.

We also have a transportation corridor on Vancouver Island that

links Victoria to Courtenay, but it has sat unused for years. This

corridor could provide much-needed relief for communities, for

commuters, for youth, and it presents an untapped economic opportunity

for the tourism industry on Vancouver Island.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. What steps has

the minister taken to see the E&N rail corridor restored so that

Vancouver Island can benefit from this unused transportation

solution?

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re very aware of the E&N corridor and the love and passion

that people across Vancouver Island have for this. It is something that

the previous government ignored and let fall into disrepair for many

years. If that government had acted sooner, we wouldn’t be still having

a debate right now on what we could be doing with that

corridor.

This government is looking seriously at ways of ensuring that

people can travel — as I say, travel affordably and safely — whether

we’re looking at transit, looking at alternatives for the rail corridor,

looking at alternatives both in the south Island and the rest of the

Island. We have an absolute commitment to invest in public transit,

public infrastructure, to ensure that everyone, every person in B.C.,

has options, has the ability to travel safely and affordably.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

S. Cadieux: Well, in fact, the Minister of Education is wrong about Surrey

schools. Doug Strachan, with the Surrey school district, says the net

result for them from…. The replacement of the MSP with the new, higher

employer health tax will mean a difference from $5.3 million to almost

$12 million, or a net increase of almost $7 million that will come out

of the schools’ operating budget.

To the Minister of Education, who billed taxpayers $10,000 a day

on a European tour at the same time the health tax is going to cost

Surrey schools a net increase of about $7 million a year, can he explain

to Surrey parents why there’s enough money for his globe-trotting, but

he doesn’t care enough to spare schools from the NDP’s new tax

grab?

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m surprised to hear an element of that question from the member.

She’ll know that hundreds of Surrey parents have been waiting and

camping overnight to get spaces in French immersion programming that are

in too short of a supply in Surrey because her government did

nothing.

She might want to have a conversation with the Canadian Parents

for French, Surrey chapter, about just that. They appreciate this

government is trying to meet the aspirations of today’s parents to have

bilingual education in the province of British Columbia, and we make no

apologies for that.

The member’s numbers are wrong that she’s quoted again. It’s a

$1.8 million savings this year. We’ve said to Surrey: “Keep that.” In

addition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve said for them to keep that 50 percent cut in MSP. In

addition, with the reduction in broadband Internet service, we’ve said:

“Keep that savings as well.” Reductions in the millions of dollars in

pension overcontributions — retained by the school district.

[2:30 p.m.]

All of that in addition to the largest investment we’ve ever seen

in the public education system in British Columbia: 60 million new

dollars in operating money for the Surrey school district. That’s great

news, Mr. Speaker. It’s why we’ve hired specialist teachers, librarians,

school counsellors…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. R. Fleming: …and ELL instructors in Surrey. We’ve hired them; they fired

them.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Maybe the minister should take a math class, because the reality

of him saying that we did nothing over 16 years…. In my eight years

alone, there was $400 million worth of new schools and new additions —

14, in fact, in my ridings.

While I appreciate the additional investments that are coming, and

I appreciate that that’s continuing, the reality is that this new tax

grab by the government will cost the Surrey school board a net increase

of $7 million. Meanwhile, he’s prepared to spend taxpayer money to tour

France, the Netherlands and Belgium. The four-day trip cost an estimated

$40,000.

To the minister, British Columbians paid for his European tour,

and they deserve some answers. How many teachers did he hire?

Hon. R. Fleming: We have a serious problem in British Columbia around the

recruitment of French teachers. It’s one that the previous government

ignored for years.

It’s a good problem to have in this sense: that British Columbian

parents today have aspirations for their kids to learn in both

languages. We have 60,000 French immersion kids all across the province,

but we have thousands that can’t get into those programs.

We are developing a strategy that trains more teachers

domestically in British Columbia. We’ve invested $1 million for new

French-language-teacher training programs in B.C. universities starting

September 1. We have recruited teachers from out of province, but we

also have to look internationally if we’re to have teachers come to

British Columbia. We went to Europe to explain the pathway to

citizenship to teach here in British Columbia.

We went, quite frankly, to tell them that British Columbia is a

dynamic bilingual province with a large francophone population, and we

went to tell them that it’s a place that’s dynamic and beyond Ontario

and Quebec, quite frankly, to get us on the map in Europe. I look

forward to….

The teacher regulation branch is already certifying teachers

today. We have dozens and dozens of applications coming forward, because

this problem doesn’t exist just in her community. It exists in the 48

school districts that have French immersion programming today in British

Columbia. It’s a problem they neglected. It’s a problem we attempt to

work with parents to solve.

BUDGET PROVISIONS AND PLANNING

FOR SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

M. de Jong: It wasn’t meant to be a trick question. Just put your Camembert

aside and tell us how many teachers were hired.

For 16 years, British Columbia worked hard and established a very

positive reputation for our budgeting process. It’s one that was

professional, predictable and certain. Even the Finance Minister these

days, I hear, is standing up and bragging about the reputation and the

legacy that she and her government have inherited.

You contrast that with the situation that existed the last time

the NDP were in government, when school boards were forced to wait,

sometimes months and months and months into their fiscal year, before

understanding what their contributions from the provincial government

would be. The Finance Minister knows that’s true because she used to be

one of those trustees complaining about the behaviour of the NDP

government. Today she’s creating the same uncertainty. Today she and her

government are creating the same uncertainty for school

boards.

My question to the Finance Minister is: how are school boards

supposed to finalize their budget — in some instances, hundreds of

millions of dollars’ worth of budget…? How are they supposed to finalize

their budget when she and her government refuse to state clearly to what

extent, if at all, they will be reimbursed for the millions of dollars

of additional costs caused by her MSP replacement tax?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m not really sure what the member across doesn’t understand

about more money and more investment in education, record levels of

investment in education made by this government on this side. We are

proud of those investments: 3,700 teachers hired this year alone,

starting in September.

Most importantly, what is the difference that happens for children

in classrooms? The difference is that students have more support. The

children are able to get better support. It’s smaller classes, so

teachers have time to be able to spend with children. That’s the

difference that this side is making in education. We have provided more

support to school boards, more support to education.

The normal implementation process for the tax continues. There

will be further information available in the coming weeks, as we move

towards legislation.

I do have to take issue with the member’s comments about fiscal

responsibility in this government. I am proud to say that today we had

our third rating agency. Moody’s came forward with a triple-A rating

once again for British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: What a remarkable achievement. How did you do it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. de Jong: Yet far from building on that legacy, the Finance Minister, I

regret to say, is putting it at risk. She is putting it at risk by

playing precisely the kind of politics that she decried when she was a

school trustee in this province.

She’s preparing a first-quarter update. I know she is. She knows

what the cost of this MSP replacement tax is for school boards. She

knows that. I dare say she probably knows what, if anything, the

government intends to do about it. Is she providing that information in

a timely way to school boards? Absolutely not. What she is doing is

waiting for a politically convenient time to disclose what her

intentions and those of the government are.

Why is the Finance Minister and her colleagues and her government

forcing school boards to twist in the wind — and, in the process,

compromising B.C.’s hard-earned positive reputation for budgeting — by

refusing to be forthright today, now, while this House is in session,

and telling school boards what, if anything, they can expect to offset

the cost of her MSP replacement tax?

Hon. C. James: Well, I find it incredible that this member and that side of the

Legislature would talk about playing politics or being forthright when

they did just the opposite — which is why they’re sitting on that side,

and we’re sitting on this side. ICBC, B.C. Hydro, picking a fight with

teachers — I could give a long list of reasons, if the members were

interested, about why they’re on that side of the

Legislature.

Let’s take a look at a comment from the member’s own school

district: “Abbotsford School District,” the headline says, “‘Not

Panicked’ by the Added Cost of New Health Tax.” In fact, they’re saying

that the district will save $650,000 this year, and the transition will

mean a wash for that school district.

The member knows full well that we’re continuing on with the usual

implementation process. We’re making sure that further information will

be available in the coming weeks, as we build towards the legislation in

the fall. And most importantly, I’m not sure why the other side is

against giving more money in people’s pockets. Families in this province

will be better off by $1,800 a year.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

J. Isaacs: The Minister of Education can deflect and deny all he wants, but

he just doesn’t care about the budget challenge he is forcing on

schools.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Coquitlam school district is going from $1 million in MSP to

over $4 million for the employers health tax. Will the minister provide

new money for Coquitlam schools to pay for this higher NDP tax, or has

he used up all of the money on travel and meals?

Hon. R. Fleming: I know the member will be very pleased that the school district

that she represents has saved $400,000 this year that they get to keep

because we cut the MSP in half. I know that she will appreciate what it

means for families that are struggling for affordability in Metro

Vancouver to have 1,800 bucks in their family’s pockets to afford life

better, when her government neglected affordability for 16

years.

The members this afternoon have put up numbers that are

fictitious. They don’t account for the fact that employers, generally

school district employers, have paid 100 percent of the MSP for all

employee groups — support staff, teachers, administrators — and we’re

getting rid of that tax. They don’t put that out there. They try and

scare people.

As we’ve seen and as the Minister of Finance has demonstrated,

we’re working with school districts on this. For now, what school

districts have in terms of leadership from this government is a

government that has tabled a budget that’s before the House today that

has the largest school capital budget in B.C. history. It has the

largest amount of operating funding, and we’ve hired 3,700 teachers so

that students in her district can have more learning resources, which

they deserve.

PREMIER’S MEETING WITH

WEST KELOWNA MAYOR ON

REAL

ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

B. Stewart: Last month the Premier agreed to a face-to-face meeting with West

Kelowna mayor Doug Findlater concerning our community’s overwhelming

opposition to the so-called speculation tax.

According to Mayor Findlater: “There’s been no response to what

was agreed to as to have a meeting, no reply to my email, and others who

have requested a meeting with the Premier have had no reply. Bad form at

best.” Not even a reply.

Premier, my question to you is: why have you broken your promise

to meet with Mayor Findlater?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I have spoken to the mayor of

West Kelowna by telephone. I met with him in Penticton not that long

ago, and I committed to meet with him. The member might not realize

this, but in this parliament, the Premier likes to be in the Legislature

and likes to be in Victoria.

Although it hasn’t been past practice to occupy this chair for

question period day after day after day, that I believe, is a

responsibility of the leader of the government. You can assure the mayor

that I will be seeing him in due time.

[End of question period.]

S. Bond: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Bond: This petition, signed by almost 1,300 residents, asks the Minister of

Health to investigate the problems that have been highlighted with the

Orkambi drug review; to restructure the Drug Benefit Council so these

mistakes are not made again; and asks that Orkambi undergo a fair drug

review that considers the scientific data thoroughly, accurately and in the

appropriate context.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for third reading of Bill

17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call the continued estimates

debate on the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[2:45 p.m.]

Because we’ll be going into committee here and the Mental Health estimates

may in fact finish this afternoon, after them, I will be calling the estimates

for the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is Bill 17. We had a good discussion on it already, and I

think that in the interests of time, we’ll just get it going right to

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

section 1.

M. Morris: I’d just like to make a general statement here if I could,

Chair.

I’ve gone through the bill. The numbering system is a little

confusing. The amendments are a little…. It took me a while to read

through them. But I understand where the minister is coming from and

where his staff is coming from — the fact that the federal legislation,

the Criminal Code amendments, are still tied up in the Senate. That’s

been problematic for us.

I don’t have any issues up until

section 7. In

section 7, I just

need some clarity here going through that. It’s got….

The Chair: Member, are we passing sections 1 to 6?

M. Morris: Yes, Chair.

The Chair: Okay, let me do that first.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

M. Morris: The effect of the driving prohibition — I just require some

clarity here. I was reading through that. The prohibition starts

immediately. Just let me have a look here. Under

section 94.2(2)(a), it

“takes effect immediately on service of the notice of driving

prohibition.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Then further in the section, under subsection 3(a), it talks about

“the notice acts as a temporary driver’s licence that expires 7 days

after the date it is served, and (ii) the driving prohibition takes

effect on the expiration of the temporary driver’s licence referred to

in subparagraph (i)….” I’m a little confused as to when it takes effect

immediately and when this temporary driver’s licence takes effect for

seven days.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently the ADP, the administrative driving prohibition, for

alcohol doesn’t take effect for 21 days. It’s been that way for a very

long time. This act is now being modernized and bringing it into line

with what’s already at the federal level. So it will now take place

immediately upon the serving. For drug-impaired driving, though, it will

not take effect for seven days.

M. Morris: If I understand this right, the alcohol

part is effective

immediately, and the drug impairment takes place seven days later. Is

this as a result of the federal legislation? Is this the timeline that

the federal legislation has, or is this unique to the prohibition

section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of alcohol, it brings it in line with the IRP, which

we currently have in place, so that’s the same. In the case for drugs,

the reason for the seven days is because if, for example, you have to

take a blood sample, it has to go get tested, and it’s going to take

time to do that. It puts it in line with the…. When the penalty comes

in, it’s seven days after, and you’ve got seven days to get your affairs

in order. So it coincides with that, and that’s the reason for the

changes and the time around the drug impairment.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Morris: Again, just a bit of clarification for myself in reading through

this. Section (1)(

a) talks about alcohol. It’s three hours attributable

to alcohol, so anytime within three hours after operating a motor

vehicle pertaining to impaired driving, right? The next sections, (a.1)

and (a.2), talk about the drug concentrations within two hours after

ceasing to operate a motor vehicle.

I’m wondering why we have three hours for alcohol and then two

hours for drugs and then two hours for a combination of drugs and

alcohol in the system.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The three-hour time for alcohol mirrors existing legislation. The

two-hour time for drug and drug and alcohol mirrors what is in the

proposed Bill C-46, which is currently in the Senate.

M. Morris: So section (1)(

a) represents existing legislation. Is that what I

heard you say? Okay.

And sections (a.1) and (a.2), the proposed legislation that is

coming with that federal bill…. Will

section (

a) then be changed, or is

the federal legislation changing with respect to that three hours? Is it

going to be two hours?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is just an example of the complications that we are facing

with this.

Part 1 is what is. Parts 2, which you talked about, are what

will be when C-46 comes into effect. But C-46 has two parts — one that

will come into effect sooner, and then

part 2 will come into effect

later. When

part 2, which is later, comes into effect, then

section 14

of this bill will, in effect, override that part of section (1), and it

will go to whatever is in C-46. We expect that to be two

hours.

M. Morris: So this

section basically talks about what the superintendent

considers when he’s doing a review. I believe I’m right,

there.

So in looking at

section (a.3), in respect to a driving

prohibition resulting from the circumstances described — evaluation of

the person was conducted by an evaluating officer, who complied with the

requirements that are prescribed for the purpose of the subsection, and

then the analysis of the body fluid.

If we’re looking at a…. A peace officer is driving down the road,

and somebody is driving erratically. He pulls him over. They do the

sobriety testing — the bodily fluid testing and whatnot — and they

prohibit him from driving from that point forward.

What’s the difference here versus a roadblock that’s set up, a

CounterAttack program set up downtown, and people are coming through?

There’s no driving evidence; they’re just caught in the line. The

officer suspects that an individual is probably high on THC. Is there a

sequence that needs to follow for the police officer if he suspects that

there’s THC?

[3:00 p.m.]

Does a drug recognition expert need to be there, right on the

spot, to identify — if I follow this — the fact that that individual is

intoxicated by drugs? Then the demand for the bodily fluid — the saliva

tests, or whatever — the result might come…. Is this laying out a

sequence for the superintendent to look at, to make sure that sequence

is followed, or does it matter which happens first?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. It is laying out a sequence. If you’re at

the roadblock and the officer suspects, it would be the standard field

sobriety test that takes place. If they feel that you are impaired, then

it would be to the station for the drug recognition expert.

That would be the sequence that then would go on to the

superintendent.

M. Morris: Just with respect to the sequence. If it’s a CounterAttack

roadcheck program, the individual…. When is the saliva test

administered? If we have a drug recognition expert back at the office,

it would be a significant burden on resources to have to go back to the

office all the time to have that individual checked.

When is the demand made? When does the prohibition take effect in

a roadcheck, in a CounterAttack roadside check type of a situation,

without involving going back to the office for further testing? If that

makes sense.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, the member is outlining some of the challenges we face, so

we know exactly how this is going to function at the federal

level.

The sequence that we’ve outlined to you — the roadside standard

field sobriety test, then to the station for the DRE — is what will be

in place until such time as we know exactly what the saliva test,

assuming that the saliva test is what we end up with…. At that point,

then, the saliva test would be administered at the roadside check, and

then it would go to the next step. I hope that makes sense.

M. Morris: Just so it’s clear in my mind. So pulled over. Officer suspects

that the individual’s been using cannabis or some drug. The saliva test

or the body fluid test is administered. Looking at this

section and the

superintendent’s things that he has to check off in a review here, can

the officer prohibit the driver from driving at that particular point?

Or does it need to go to that next level, to the drug recognition expert

at the office?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under this legislation, it will be going back to the office for

that DRE, regardless of what model is done at the roadside.

M. Morris: I take it from looking at this, this is going to have a very

significant impact on policing resources for the CounterAttack

roadchecks by adding this element to it, versus the previous legislation

where there were no drug impairment provisions in the immediate roadside

prohibition legislation. Just by alcohol, a blow on the roadside

screening device, you’re over .05 percent or whatever it is, and it

blows a fail. They can do that right at the site there as

well.

This is going to add an extra element and probably a significant

impact on policing resources at the local level.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process that’s in place in fact actually mirrors what would

happen today if you were suspected of drug-impaired driving. The

challenge, of course, is that the technology for detecting drug

impairment is different from that for alcohol. Right now you can detect

the alcohol level right at roadside. We, at this point, cannot do

that.

Now, maybe the feds know something that we don’t know, but you

still have to do that DRE, which would be done back at the station. Now,

as legalization takes place and as, all of a sudden, there is a lot of

attention that has been focused on the technology around this, I would

fully expect the technology to improve over time.

At some point, you’re, no doubt, likely to have something that

would work at the roadside in the same way it does for alcohol. But at

this point in time, under this legislation and within the framework that

C-46 is taking place in, it would require the DRE to take place back at

the station.

Sections 13 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I report the committee rise and report the bill complete, I

would like to recognize the very capable ministry staff who assisted us

in answering the critic’s questions: Steve Roberts, deputy

superintendent of road safety; Jeremy Wood, director of legislation,

RoadSafetyBC; and Patrick Glanc, policy analyst, RoadSafetyBC. I’d like

to thank them for their assistance today.

With that, I ask that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:10 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 27.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED

EQUIPMENT CONTROL

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:14 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, a piece of legislation that my colleague, the critic, and I

have had some discussion around, pill presses, as part of the

initiatives dealing with the opioid crisis from the enforcement

perspective. With that, I welcome the remarks and questions from the

critic.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Morris: I just want to make a couple of general comments at the beginning

here. I, too, think that everything needs to be done to address the

opiate crisis that we have in British Columbia and across Canada and, in

fact, around the world.

The only criticism I suppose I have on this particular bill is

the…. I truly believe, and I’ve gone through the federal legislation,

the CDSA, that Bill 27 is very comprehensive. It covers a lot of ground,

but I think it’s a duplication of the CDSA in many, many

respects.

It’s creating another level of bureaucracy at the provincial level

that legitimate pill press owners have. They need to comply with the

federal legislation. They need to comply with Bill 27 once it comes into

effect here….

Interjection.

M. Morris: Sorry. Very comprehensive legislation, another level of

bureaucracy for the legitimate pill press individuals in British

Columbia, but it covers all of the bases here. It might cause some

confusion in the law enforcement field, as well, when you’re dealing

with the federal legislation and a provincial piece of

legislation.

Other than that, I don’t take exception with any of the sections

in Bill 27.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to

section 28.1 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 28.1,

by adding the following section:

Amendment to this Act

28.1

Section 5 (2) (g) (

i) of this Act is repealed

and the following substituted:

(

i) this Act or the Cannabis Control and Licensing

Act , . ]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment modifies

section 5(2)(g)(

i) of the bill by adding a

reference to the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. This was put in

before, and now we have to do that because of the Cannabis Control and

Licensing Act, which will need to be as part of this.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED

EQUIPMENT CONTROL

ACT

Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, reported

complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: With leave, now.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker: Leave has not been granted. When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 23, Local Government Statutes

(Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL RENTAL

TENURE ZONING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential

Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, be now read a second

time.

I’m pleased to be introducing this important piece of legislation.

We know that we urgently, urgently need more rental homes in British

Columbia. Communities across our province are experiencing low vacancy

rates due in part to a shortage of rental supply and the high demand on

rental due to the increasing costs of home ownership.

We also know that it’s been years since many communities have seen

purpose-built rental being built in their communities. As a result, too

many British Columbians are suffering because of these conditions, and

we know that, collectively, we need to act.

We know that local governments are seeking innovative new tools

that will help them deliver the housing that is needed throughout

communities in our province. And we heard from the Union of B.C.

Municipalities that one of the authorities that could assist local

governments to respond to the housing crisis is the ability to zone for

rental housing.

Under B.C.’s local government land use planning framework, zoning

bylaws are a key tool for managing land use and density in specified

areas. Currently, a zoning bylaw cannot regulate the tenure of a use,

whether that person is an owner or a renter.

[3:25 p.m.]

This bill will provide local governments with a new enabling

authority to zone lands such that rental is the only form of occupancy

permitted. This authority will apply to multifamily residential, and it

will be scalable. That is, if the local government so chooses, they will

be able to apply the authority broadly, or they can limit it to a

portion of housing units within a building.

It will not, however, override any existing rules regarding rental

that a strata corporation may have in place. And, importantly, this

authority can also protect existing rental tenure. It’s an opportunity

for local governments to protect their existing rental housing stock.

While we know that a new rental supply is an important component of any

community’s housing stock, it is really, really important that they have

the ability to protect housing stock that is currently being used as

rental.

We also want to ensure that housing owners are protected. That’s

why we’ve made sure that there are provisions that will allow existing

housing to continue as non-conforming in any area where a local

government chooses to adopt a residential renter tenure bylaw.

Similarly, any development that is in process and has been issued a

building or development permit will be protected as non-conforming if a

residential rental bylaw would otherwise apply.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Finally, the bill also makes a number of amendments that will

ensure that this new authority works within the existing land use

planning framework, including ensuring that changes to a residential

rental tenure bylaw cannot be made through different permitting

processes.

Everyone in this chamber represents communities where housing is a

real significant challenge, and I would encourage all members to support

this bill in order to have yet one more tool that is available to local

governments, that is available to people in our province, so that we can

have the kind of diversity of housing stock that has been sorely

lacking. I look forward to hearing from other members of this

chamber.

T. Stone: It does give me pleasure to rise and speak to second reading of

Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure

Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018 — a bill with a title that’s quite a

mouthful.

That being said, there’s certainly no quibble on the part of the

official opposition with the suggestion that there is an urgent need for

additional rental supply in communities across British Columbia. No

question about that. There are indeed, as the minister pointed out in

her opening remarks, low — and in many communities, historically low —

vacancy rates that reflect the challenge that exists for many British

Columbians today. That is, an inability to access rental units in the

communities within which they choose to live.

There is no question that more purpose-built rental units are

needed in communities across not just the Metro region of the Lower

Mainland but in communities all over British Columbia. Now, this

legislation, this bill, as presented by the minister, is being

positioned as yet another tool, as the minister describes it, a tool for

municipalities to play their part as partners in addressing the

affordability challenges across British Columbia.

This bill allows municipalities to zone specific areas exclusively

for rental properties. They must undertake a hearing to make this

change. So as is currently the case for any zoning change that a

community or a local government wishes to make, there is a requirement

to undertake a public hearing to make that change. I’m pleased to see

that that requirement will also apply to these exclusive rental

zones.

The rental-only zoning would not apply to or would not affect the

following:

(1) stratas that have rules preventing rentals;

(2) any homes that were existing prior to the change of zoning to

rental only, and that’s very, very important, I think, for homeowners to

know across British Columbia;

[3:30 p.m.]

(3) any homes that were already under development when rental-only

zoning is implemented, also very important;

(4) any renovations that do not add additional housing units to a

property; and

(5) sales of an existing home within rental-only

zoning.

Those are all items that would not be affected by a rental-only

zoning area.

Rental-only zoning does apply to the following: if a strata is

dissolved, the property will then be bound by the rental-only zoning

that is in place. Secondly, if renovations or construction of an

exempted property would add any additional or new units, those would be

bound by the rental-only zoning.

Of course, there is a power within this bill that provides cabinet

with the ability to prescribe regulations regarding when rental-only

zoning is authorized and no longer authorized.

Those are the technical highlights, the details, of this bill,

Bill 23. Certainly on the surface of it, it doesn’t appear that this

would cause a tremendous amount of disruption. But I do want to say that

I think it must be noted that the development community can build rental

units today. They don’t need to be told.

In my own home community of Kamloops, we seem to be entering a

period of pretty significant construction of purpose-built rental units

by the private sector. We have a development that will go a long way to

meeting the needs of students up by our university on McGill Road. At

Thompson Rivers University, a private developer is putting up four

buildings. It’s all been approved. The permits are all in place. They’re

in in the ground, doing work now. This will provide, I believe, up to

several hundred units of rental housing.

This is the same company that built two purpose-built rental

projects on Summit Drive, not too far of a distance from the university.

There’s another company that is about halfway through construction of a

purpose-built rental property, also on Summit Drive in Kamloops. I

believe it’s about 75 units of rental housing. These developers are

making these decisions absent of being told, through zoning, that that’s

the type of product they have to build at these locations.

My point is that I don’t actually believe that this tool, as the

minister describes it, is really going to make that much of a

difference. The development community has the ability to build this kind

of product today and, in communities like Kamloops, is building this

product.

Again, I do not want to underplay or understate the importance,

from an affordability perspective, of ensuring that we see the kinds of

results that are taking place voluntarily in Kamloops through the

construction of significant numbers of units of purpose-built rental

housing.

We certainly want to see that in communities across the province.

I think we can all agree that that’s not happening in every community

across this province. But I don’t believe that this piece of legislation

is, in and of itself, going to do much to change the status

quo.

[3:35 p.m.]

The true cynic in me would go so far as to suggest that, this

being one of 30 points of a 30-point plan, the government seems to be

intent on focusing more attention on a 30-point plan than the actual

effectiveness of the points in that plan. I don’t believe that this tool

will be that effective. I don’t believe that very many municipalities

will actually utilize this tool. I believe that it’s largely window

dressing in the context of a 30-point plan on housing

affordability.

I also think that we have got to keep our eye on some unintended

consequences. Talking with some mayors around the province and some

folks at the UCBM, there is, in the back of some people’s minds, a worry

that this tool, if not used appropriately, in certain communities could

have the impact of actually downzoning property, reducing the value of

land in different parts of different communities.

There are also others in local government that have suggested to

me that when they consider the pursuit of the ideal neighbourhood, they

think of a mix of people living in that neighbourhood. They think of,

you know, Bob and Edith, who’ve lived in their wartime home down the

street two blocks away for the last 50 years, as well as university

students living in purpose-built rental housing, as well as some

affordable housing, as well as residential neighbourhoods where people

own their homes — modest homes.

It’s when you have that really nice mix of different types of

housing product, different income levels, different types of people all

living in a neighbourhood together that you really achieve that true,

vibrant neighbourhood that I think we would all, in this House, suggest

we live in or we have lived in. We know what that looks like. I’m not

sure that this tool, if used inappropriately, lends itself well to

actually creating that kind of a truly broad, mixed

neighbourhood.

Or we could see in some communities huge swaths of land being

zoned for purpose-built rental housing only, and those areas would be

absent the other types of housing product and, therefore, the folks that

would live in those other types of homes. So I think we want to keep our

eye on that.

Also, I’ve heard from some that, again, if this tool, when used,

has the effect of driving down the value on certain parcels of property,

some developers may choose not to actually develop those pieces of

property. So you may actually end up with the perverse effect of

reducing supply with a measure like this. These are potential unintended

consequences that I think we all would be well obliged to keep our eye

on.

The last point that I think is worth noting at this juncture,

second reading on this bill, is that this bill again represents another

missed opportunity to actually address the lack of affordable market

housing — people who want to get into the market and purchase a home. I

refreshed my memory again today in looking through the government’s

30-point plan on housing, and there’s a lot in there that I think is

really just window dressing. There’s certainly not a lot in there that I

can find — and certainly not many announcements that this government has

made — that relates to the development, incenting the development, of

market housing and housing that people can afford.

There have been arguably…. I will credit where credit is due, and

I think it’s largely built on a good track record of our former

government. This government has built on that and is moving forward with

investments on the affordable housing front.

[3:40 p.m.]

We had announced almost $900 million for affordable housing

projects across British Columbia, and we built hundreds and hundreds of

millions of dollars worth of affordable housing projects. That’s all

worthy. That’s all important, and we need to see more built.

We also know that more needs to be done on the rental housing

side, which is what this bill specifically attempts to address through

this one new tool. We also know that while much progress was made,

there’s more that needs to be done from an assisted-living perspective.

I know in Kamloops, ten or 12 years ago, there were long wait-lists.

That’s not the case today. Why? Because a lot of that product was built,

and thankfully so. Do we need more? Absolutely.

If you think of your kids in their late teens or early 20s or

perhaps even a little bit older, in their mid-20s, and they have got

that first job. They don’t want to rent anymore. They want to actually

get into the housing market. They want to purchase.

Where are the initiatives from this government that actually are

about driving market supply of homes — not for rent but for purchase?

This government hasn’t addressed or embraced strategies related to

densification and working with local governments on densification along

transit lines.

We passed legislation in this House three or 3½ years ago to

assure the province’s air rights along transit lines. That was all with

densification in mind so that when the Millennium Line extension was

completed, you would hopefully see — in communities like Port Moody and

Coquitlam — the community going up and going up near transit

stations.

You look at the existing transit lines and where they intersect in

the city of Vancouver, and where is the densification? We have the

opportunity, if done right, on the front end of massive investments in

transit… Through two lines in Surrey, which are desperately needed, and

the Broadway line that is also a worthy project in Vancouver…. It’s

billions of dollars of investment that if done right should also drive

density and should also, as a result, ensure that there is a broader

array of market housing available for people for purchase.

As well, why this government does not seem, to this point, willing

to embrace the suggestions coming not just from us in the official

opposition but from many other quarters with respect to working with

local governments to accelerate the approvals process for the housing

supply that developers want to build today…. Why this government hasn’t

taken any initiative on that front is quite baffling.

Pick whatever number you want. I’ll go with the number that I

understand to be accurate — roughly 120,000 units of housing in Metro

Vancouver that are in some stage of approval at the local level. We’ve

suggested, in the opposition, that the government could get creative

working with local governments to incent accelerated approvals at the

local level to get some of that product on stream faster.

I would point out that there is a component of that product which

is currently, to varying degrees, languishing in local government

approvals that represents purpose-built rental housing projects. Let’s

get creative here too. The minister likes to talk about tools. Let’s

develop a tool with local government to incent faster approvals

processes to bring some of that 120,000-unit backlog on line across

Metro Vancouver.

[3:45 p.m.]

Last but not least, there are other ways to incent the

construction of purpose-built rental product. One only needs to look

south of the border to Seattle, which is very comparable to Vancouver

and the Lower Mainland in many ways. It has many of the same kinds of

challenges — transportation and housing and so forth, rapid growth. But

there’s a much larger piece of the product that’s been built in Seattle

over the last ten years that’s represented in the form of rental product

than in Vancouver. And it begs the question: why?

When you have those conversations, you determine that there were a

number of targeted tax measures, incentives that had the desired effect

of actually incenting, encouraging, rewarding decisions of the

development community to actually build a rental product. And if people

aren’t…. If the vacancy rate gets too high, they dial back the amount of

product that they’re bringing on stream.

Again, I think this bill isn’t going to make much of a difference.

I think it’s largely window dressing. I think it’s an opportunity for

the minister to stand in the House here, for the government out in the

hustings, to point to another point of a 30-point plan as if it’s this

comprehensive plan that was developed with a lot of rigour and that’s

got a whole bunch of detailed initiatives that are going to really bite

and take hold and help.

This is not going to help. This is not going to make one iota of

difference to encourage more rental product in communities across

British Columbia — product that’s being built by developers in

communities like Kamloops, as I mentioned earlier today — without this

kind of a tool being required.

We will canvass these issues in a lot more detail in committee

stage. But I would, again, take this opportunity to encourage the

government, to encourage the Minister of Housing to

recognize….

The affordable social housing — absolutely critically important,

some good work being done there. Housing to meet the needs of the most

downtrodden in our province, those who are most down on their luck —

there are worthy projects there. Incenting purpose-built rental housing

— absolutely important to do.

But where is the plan to drive market housing, housing that people

can buy? That’s the thinnest piece of this government’s housing plan,

with no measures announced on that front to date whatsoever. Unless the

government begins to take some steps on that front, they will fail at

addressing the affordability challenge for many, many British Columbians

across British Columbia.

A. Olsen: I started with very brief notes, and they seemed to grow and grow

and grow, the longer that the previous member spoke.

It’s an honour to stand and speak to Bill 23, a bill that starts

to take action on developing a zone specifically for residential

housing. I think one of the most important pieces of this bill and one

of the first things that I want to highlight with this bill is that it

adds a level of protection and preservation of rental housing stock that

is currently in the market.

[3:50 p.m.]

We’ve seen a history over the past number of decades — two, three

decades — where purpose-built rental housing, which we were doing very,

very well in our country and in our province for a number of years,

started to turn into strata units, condos. So we lost a lot of the

rental housing units that we had in our cities, and they turned into

condo buildings, strata buildings.

One of the things that this tool allows is for municipalities to

identify important buildings that exist as rental units and to say these

units are going to stay as rental. So whether they be in high-density

areas, and the property goes back up for sale, developers will know that

the future of that property will remain as part of the rental

stock.

I think that the previous member highlighted some important

reasons for why we would want to keep rental units in and around

universities, for an example, and colleges. We would want to ensure

that, in fact, those units stay within the rental stock. As well, there

are a number of other reasons why we would want to keep rental units,

and I think what we’ve seen is actually a gutting. What I hear on a

regular basis is that there’s been a gutting of the rental stock in our

communities and in our cities, and it’s created a serious

imbalance.

In fact, I would say that in the last election, the biggest issue

that I heard at the doorstep day in and day out was housing. The biggest

problem that people faced in my riding and in ridings right across this

province was a substantive housing challenge.

So while members in the official opposition stand and talk ad

nauseam about the amazing housing plans that were put in place, I would

suggest that, in this case, elections were either won or lost on a

substantive housing challenge — whether it be going and leaning in too

heavily to just the markets, saying: “The market’s going to fix

everything for us. We’ll just let the market fix it.”

I think that there is some confusion amongst the free enterprise

coalition on this really. Just leave the market. We’ll just increase

supply forever and ever and endlessly increase supply — like there’s an

endless supply of land out there to just keep building and building and

chasing — building new schools, increasing costs everywhere in our

society, in order to just continue to endlessly build supply.

We know that that doesn’t work. You can’t just continue to

endlessly build supply. You create communities that people don’t want to

live in. They’re not nice communities. They’re not diverse communities.

As the member before me was saying, it’s important that we have diverse

communities. I think that one of the things that this bill does is it

ensures that there are going to be renters and that part of the

demographic within our communities.

The narrative that we hear quite often is: don’t raise taxes and

ignore the social problems. Those two have to come hand in hand. You

can’t not raise taxes and pay for social programs and support people. So

that’s another part of it. We’re going to build houses endlessly, and

we’re going to ignore the social problems. As we found, that was

probably the quickest way to the opposition benches, to take that

approach.

We as a government have a responsibility to find balance and to

legislate balance. One of the ways that we do this is we create zones

such as this. We’ve created many zones in our cities. In fact, every

piece of property that has anything built on it is part of a zone,

whether it be a residential zone or a commercial zone or an industrial

zone. Then we take those zones, and we further break them down to

residential single-family or residential multifamily zones.

As those on both sides of this House that have been in local

government know, the reality is that we need to have zones to ensure

that our communities are balanced. I think that one of the threats that

was identified in the debate here today was that, all of a sudden, there

are going to be vast swaths of communities that are only going to be

rental — which would be similar, I guess, to the vast swaths of lands in

my communities that are residential single-family, or the vast swaths of

lands in my community that are residential multifamily.

[3:55 p.m.]

I would suggest that the planners and the city forefathers that

built our communities like that didn’t build enough diversity, frankly.

In fact, it’s causing a lot of these same problems — increasing costs,

pushing children and youth and young families out of communities, making

them essentially just retirement zones, which is a substantive

challenge. It’s happening in my riding. We’ve got great schools. Yet by

having it just left to the market, there’s less diversity in our

communities.

I think that this is the government’s role. I think it’s very

difficult to just argue that real estate is a free market. I think the

fact of the matter is that every piece of property, every building

built, is in a zone, is in a regulated environment. The real estate

industry is a highly regulated environment. Some would suggest it needs

to have more regulation even. So this is a highly regulated area. I

think that there are high costs to imbalance.

City planners and city decision-makers, community decision-makers,

have got to weigh those costs very carefully — the social, environmental

and economic costs of having too much of one type of housing or one type

of zone and not enough diversity. I don’t think that municipal

governments necessarily….

I mean, there is, obviously, a chance that they may zone vast

swaths of rental housing. I would suggest that they should use this and

that they would use this new tool at their disposal to preserve rental

units within their residential neighbourhoods. And to ensure that the

market, which would say, “This would be a great piece of property to go

from being a rental unit, a rental building, to a strata building or a

condo building….”

Of course, the developer and the development community could gain

a lot more profit from doing that, from making that move. It might not

be what’s in the best interest of the community. So this would be a tool

for city councils, for town councils, to use.

I think it’s important for us to be giving tools, and this is an

example of a bill in which the provincial government is enabling another

tool for municipal councils to use. I think that that is important. As

someone who comes from local government and someone who champions the

local level of government and the decision-making that’s made on the

ground, I think that it is important that the provincial government is

providing tools.

In fact, I think that we could do this a lot better. Provide tools

to local decision-makers. They’re the closest to the people and have the

most direct access.

To that point, I think another interesting point that was raised

is that the provincial government should get involved in accelerating

the approvals process — and then long and loud complaints, in fact, that

there are X number of units being held up by city councils, like that

is, somehow, just a recent situation, that it’s not been a situation or

a complaint that’s been going on for many years.

I would caution, though, in fact, the provincial government

getting involved in local government and “accelerating approval

processes.” Of course, there’s a public hearing process in which local

governments have to work with the local community to ensure that the

local community is aware of what is being proposed in their

neighbourhoods. That process does take some time.

Where I think that municipalities might be able to accelerate the

process is in some of the application timelines. Perhaps that could be

the case. But again, I think that it’s important that inspections and

building inspections and such play out over an appropriate level of time

to ensure safety.

It’s easy, I think, to say: “Oh, the provincial government should

jump into the middle of these and accelerate these approval processes.”

But I think that there are also some drawbacks to that in that a very

fundamental part of the job of a city or district council is to engage

the community and to ensure that they’re aware of how their communities

may or may not be changing.

[4:00 p.m.]

At this stage, I’m going to take my seat. I just wanted to point

out that I think giving the local governments the opportunity to use

this as a tool in order to direct, guide, preserve and, indeed, in the

future perhaps build new rental housing stock by using this zone, I

think, is a good start.

Perhaps, as we work to unpack some of the challenges that were

inherited and that have been dealt with over the past year with respect

to a wildly unsustainable housing market, more tools will be given to

the municipalities in order to be able to make some of the decisions

that they need to, in order to make both market and non-market houses,

homes, available for people.

I thank the minister. I look forward to the committee stage of

this bill, and I’ll take my seat at this time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciated hearing, from members of this House, their comments

around this bill. It’s interesting to note that the members opposite

don’t seem too hopeful. That might explain why things have gotten so

discouraging for so many, because we need to remember that this is about

people.

I appreciate the comments from down the way, my colleague from

Saanich North and the Islands. We need to remember that this is about

people. There are 1½ million renters in British Columbia, and there are

some people who want to continue renting. It’s their preferred style of

tenure.

Making sure that we have the options, again, for local governments

to deliver what their communities need is critically important. This is

a tool that local governments have asked for, and I’m very proud as a

minister to be able to deliver that for them.

With that, I would like to move second reading of Bill

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning)

Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, Insurance (Vehicle)

Amendment Act, for committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:04 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I look forward to the members’ questions about this

bill.

section 1.

J. Yap: On

section 1, would the minister explain the purpose behind the

proposed changes in definition to “driver’s certificate” and “owner’s

certificate.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The issue, in part, was ensuring clarity in the act. Sometimes a

certificate is not issued to the owner — for example, in the case of a

garage and a garage certificate, where they may not be the actual owner

of the vehicle. It was aimed at providing some clarity in the act around

that.

I apologize. I failed to introduce staff who are here assisting me

today — Holly Cairns, acting ED, Crown agencies; Nida Bindra, counsel,

Ministry of Attorney General; and chief legal officer from ICBC, Jason

McDaniel.

J. Yap: With this change, just to be clear…. I heard what the minister

said. What is the ultimate rationale or goal of this change, in terms of

insurance offered by ICBC?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no substantive change. It’s just meant to clarify

matters.

J. Yap: With respect to “health care practitioner,” the definition, how

inclusive is this definition? Doctors are referred to, nurse

practitioners — and then a reference to what seems to be all others. I’m

wondering how inclusive this definition is.

Hon. D. Eby: The intent here is to provide quite a comprehensive list of care

providers in terms of defining who is going to be able to prescribe fees

and receive payment for benefits under the act. It will include a broad

variety of practitioners in the regulations as well.

J. Yap: Just to be clear, the minister used the term “broad.” Potentially

could this, for example, include doctors of chiropractic, traditional

Chinese medicine, podiatry, optometry? Could these professions be

included?

Hon. D. Eby: Examples are occupational therapist, physiotherapist, massage

therapist, acupuncturist and psychologist.

M. Lee: I’d just ask about the use of the term “health care practitioner”

in the act. Obviously, we have to consider when this term is being

utilized in this proposed bill. For example, under

section 28.1, a

health care practitioner must provide what’s being proposed, a report.

Given the nature of the definition of the proposed term of “minor

injury,” I just wonder about the scope of this definition in terms of a

health care practitioner.

[4:10 p.m.]

There’s some wording in this act that suggests that depending on

the type of practitioner, they’ll provide a different form of report,

depending on the nature of what’s being….

I just wanted to sort of have the Attorney General walk us through

how the differentiation will work and whether a nurse practitioner, for

example, is intended to comment on psychological or psychiatric or

chronic pain syndrome — for example. How do they differentiate between

the use of “health care practitioner” with the reports that need to be

provided under this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: This requirement to provide reports has always existed in the

legislation. The member is correct in noting that the reason for

providing different reports for different practitioners is that you

wouldn’t want to be asking an acupuncturist about a psychological

injury. You want reports from people who have various specialties and

expertise based on their expertise, and that’s why there would be

different reports for different practitioners.

A. Weaver: On this actual theme of definition of “health care practitioner,”

I have four specific professions. I’m wondering if they’re included

within the present definition of health care practitioner and, in

particular, the subdefinition of a medical practitioner.

The first one is registered psychologists. The second one is

psychiatrists. The third one is chiropractors, and the fourth one is

physiotherapists. Would those four be considered health care

practitioners under the definition of “medical practitioner”

here?

Hon. D. Eby: Physiotherapist, psychologist and chiropractor will all be in the

regulations, so they would be under (

c) in the definition, “a person in

a prescribed class of persons….” And then a psychiatrist is a medical

practitioner so is captured by

section (

a) of the definition, “a medical

practitioner.”

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Yap: Can the minister walk us through why the definition for “accident”

included in the bill was chosen?

Hon. D. Eby: The act previously had multiple descriptions of accident. It

described accidents as vehicle accidents and also as motor vehicle

accidents. This is a housekeeping amendment to ensure the consistent

usage of the term in

part 1 of the act.

J. Yap: I’m just wondering if there was consideration given for such a

narrow definition of accident and if there were any other possible

definitions of accident considered at the time of drafting.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s very specific because

part 1 of the act relates to basic

insurance — and this is car insurance — so “an accident arising out of

the use or operation of a vehicle.” This definition applies to

part 1 of

the act — which is, again, the basic insurance — without restricting

what optional insurance may apply to. Perhaps that addresses the

member’s question.

J. Yap: Can the minister walk us through the reason for repealing the

definitions of additional premiums, basic premiums and point

penalties?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a cleanup of provisions. The way that it works is that

your rate class and territory are related to your basic insurance cost.

Then the claims-rated scale, which is a based on…. We’ve been talking

about high-risk driver and lower-risk driver. The claims that you may

have made — and they may affect your premium — are the additional

premium.

This will all be under the rate review process that is underway.

It will all be in a global amount. It won’t be broken out into

additional and basic premium anymore. That’s why we don’t need these

definitions anymore.

This is a bit technical. I just want to confirm that I didn’t make

any errors in that. Okay, I’m getting the nod. That’s good

news.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Yap: What kind of personal information would the legislation be

requiring the applicant to share with the corporation?

Hon. D. Eby: ICBC can already request this information. The intent of the

amendment was to ensure that it was clear that ICBC could request this

information about any intended driver of the vehicle. That type of

information includes driving history information, accident history,

perhaps where the individual lives, the type of vehicle they drive and

how they intend to use the vehicle.

J. Yap: Will this information be decided through regulation, if it has not

already been decided on?

Hon. D. Eby: The regulations related to how ICBC sets rates — that information

goes through the BCUC application process. ICBC is limited, by law, to

only being able to collect information that’s relevant to setting rates,

so it can only collect information that is relevant to rates. There is

the BCUC application process for regulations related to

rates.

J. Yap: Will the minister confirm that the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner was or will be consulted in what information will

be shared with the corporation?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

[4:20 p.m.]

J. Yap: Does the corporation, then, have the right, under the way this

section is written, to ask for additional information from the

applicant?

Hon. D. Eby: As far as this section, this is only related to information

collected in relation to how ICBC sets rates, so any other information

would not be permitted to be collected, under this section.

J. Yap: I hear what the minister says, but in the event that there is a

disagreement on that, what powers or rights would an applicant have to

either appeal or dispute the requests of the corporation should they

feel the corporation has asked for too much information or information

they deem sensitive?

Hon. D. Eby: It depends. There are a number of remedies available to an

individual where they believe that a Crown agency is asking for

inappropriate information. They can complain to the Privacy

Commissioner. They could apply for a judicial review, for example, if

they were refused insurance on an illegal basis, for refusing to provide

information that ICBC was illegally attempting to collect.

There are safeguards in place to ensure that that happens, but

it’s a bit speculative because ICBC collects a very defined set of

criteria around setting rates: where you live, how you intend to operate

the motor vehicle and your driving history. These are key criteria that

are quite established in the car insurance world.

M. Lee: I just wanted to clarify. In terms of the way the Attorney General

just referred to information required to set rates, that seems to

include where you live, how you intend to operate the vehicle and

driving history. Is there any other information required in that

category to determine rates?

Hon. D. Eby: We will come in a later

section to an area where there is a

framework to expand the criteria that ICBC uses, specifically to

determine risk. Specifically, distance is one example of that. The

distance that you drive in your rate class may affect the risk that

you’re in an accident. ICBC is looking at that. That was one of the

engagement pieces that was in our consultation with British Columbians

about the rating review process.

There are some categories — it’s important to be clear on the

record — that are not and will not be part of ICBC’s risk rating process

that are used by other insurers. Gender is not and will not be used.

Marital status is not and will not be used. Age is not and will not be

used. Sometimes that’s conflated with driving experience. Driving

experience will be used, but it’s not based on age. And credit scores —

some insurers use credit scores. ICBC does not.

There are categories, in the spirit of the member’s question — I

want it to be clear on the record — ICBC is not using and will not be

using.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. When I look under subsection (2.1) as

proposed under Bill 20, against the current

section 11(2), the amendment

proposes that we strike the word “information,” and then this will

operate to only deal with information.

[4:25 p.m.]

When we read this together, having deleted the word “information”

from the current 11(2), then we’re left with “statements and reports,”

including “the content required by the corporation”. Is there a reason

why “information” was separated out this way to be qualified in this

manner?

Hon. D. Eby: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of B.C.

requires an explicit legislated ability to collect information. So

“information” was pulled out and given a broader provision so that it’s

really, really clear that ICBC has the ability to collect information,

not just about the applicant for insurance but also about intended

drivers for the vehicle.

Without this, you might be able to say: “Well, there’s not a

clear, legislated provision to collect information about an intended

driver of my vehicle. ICBC doesn’t have the lawful authority to do

that.” That’s why it’s set out in more detail, just to be completely

clear and avoid any concerns under the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

J. Yap: Can the minister tell us why April 1, 2019, was the date that was

settled on?

Hon. D. Eby: That was the earliest date that ICBC believed they could be

prepared for all these very significant changes.

J. Yap: With regards to information shared in the reports, how can British

Columbians believe that the corporation may not use a pre-existing

injury or condition to minimize amounts paid and possibly keep them

under the cap?

Hon. D. Eby: The basic principle of tort law is that it puts you back in the

position that you were in but for the injury that was caused to you by

somebody else. In that respect, pre-existing conditions are relevant in

determining the damages that were actually caused by the accident, and

it is information that is relied on by ICBC. It’s also relied on by the

plaintiff’s counsel in arguments and will be relied on in disputes that

go to the civil resolution tribunal under this system, as well, and it

will be relied on in matters that go to B.C. Supreme Court for injuries

that are not defined as minor injuries. That principle is not affected

here.

The question about: what if ICBC misused information somehow that

they had access to? There is no greater risk under this legislation than

already exists currently. ICBC has robust internal controls, audit

processes to ensure that information that is within the custody of the

insurer is not misused. In addition, anyone that has a concern about

that can file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner and, in

addition, could potentially sue ICBC for that misuse.

There are, as in all Crown agencies and government agencies,

safeguards in place to prevent and detect and ultimately to remove

anyone that would misuse information that they obtained as a result of

having access to it in their job.

J. Yap: On the regulation side, does the minister foresee any changes to

this

section with regards to information that can be shared?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ve just done a quick review. If the member could direct us to

the regulation-making power that he is concerned about, we’ll attempt to

address the question.

[4:30 p.m.]

J. Yap: How does ICBC plan to use the information that is shared by health

care practitioners?

Hon. D. Eby: There are three key ways in which ICBC anticipates using this

information from these reports. One is to assess an individual’s needs

for care. The second is to administer and pay benefits to practitioners

that are providing care. And the third is to quantify the value of the

individual’s claim in terms of compensation.

J. Yap: I thank the minister for that. Is ICBC required to inform the

injured victim on what information they have requested, what has been

received and in what form or manner they requested and received that

information?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of ways in which individuals could access these

reports in their entirety. The first is if there is a dispute over the

injury, for example, or compensation or access to benefits. Whether it’s

in the civil resolution tribunal or in B.C. Supreme Court, it would be

disclosed as relevant to the litigation or the dispute.

The second way an individual could access this is they could

potentially file a freedom-of-information request with ICBC for their

own records.

The third is they could get it directly from their practitioners.

The practitioners providing these reports are the individual’s own

physiotherapist or family doctor or psychiatrist or psychologist, so

they could get those reports directly.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Lee: Under what circumstances would a claimant need to make an FOI

request, though? They wouldn’t be able to get it from their own health

practitioner.

Hon. D. Eby: These are not exclusive ways to obtain these records. These are

complementary ways. So they could all be happening at the same time. You

could be asking your doctor at the same time as you file an FOI. It’s

important to note that an individual could file a freedom-of-information

request at any time in the process.

Also, these reports aren’t intended, really, to be secret. They’re

the basis on which ICBC is making determinations around benefits. If

they’re refusing to pay benefits, I can’t think of any reason why they

wouldn’t be quite explicit about what that reason is — that there was a

report from a health care practitioner that this will not assist

you.

There are just a number of ways in which individuals could get

this. If ultimately there was a dispute about, “I think that I’m

entitled to this benefit; ICBC says I’m not,” individuals can go to the

civil resolution tribunal to resolve the dispute, in which case they

would get access to the full report and be able to use it to make their

arguments in front of the CRT.

M. Lee: I know, of course, we’ve had the opportunity to go through Bill 22

and the CRT regime. In the context of that response, I’m curious for

this House just to know how a claimant will be informed of their

abilities to access information in terms of the ICBC file and in the

context of a dispute — just the way this is coming up in terms of

reports.

If there are other reports that are being done by ICBC, I’m

curious as to how that claimant will have the knowledge to know that

they can exercise his or her rights under the FOI regime.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of ways in which an individual could determine

how they might be able to access these reports. The civil resolution

tribunal process will have an on-line process for people to ask

questions and to resolve issues that they have, potentially even before

getting to the CRT. Once they’re in front of the CRT, they would be

advised by the adjudicator about documents and assisted through that

process.

If they ask the ICBC adjudicator that they were dealing with, “How

do I get a copy of this record?” that individual would tell them how to

get a copy of that record. If they ask their physician, I’m sure their

physician or their other medical service provider would advise them

about what the process is for that office, how much they charge for

copies, that kind of thing.

Really, at any door, whether it’s at their physician’s office, at

the CRT or at ICBC, they could ask the question, “How do I get a copy of

that record?” and they would get a response. There are a number of ways

in which they could get this information.

M. Lee: I suppose, as we hear that response from the Attorney General, it

suggests the complexity that a claimant will be faced with to navigate

the new CRT regime.

Obviously, going to something that appears to be more dispute

resolution–based, of course, which is the nature of the CRT, just raises

the question as to the onus that it places on the claimant to figure out

what questions to ask and what information to receive. And to actually

have to make an FOI request to get access to their medical reports

strikes me as something that is troubling, in terms of the onus and the

responsibility it places on the claimant, somebody who may not be as

fully understanding of the process that is being proposed by the

government.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll take that as a question. The current

section 28 of the

insurance act might alleviate the member’s concerns. “If any of the

following persons attends to, diagnoses, treats or is consulted by a

person injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, he or

she must, whenever the corporation requests, provide the corporation, as

soon as reasonably practicable, with a report of the injuries and their

diagnosis and treatment and a prognosis, in the form the corporation

prescribes” — medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, chiropractor,

dentist, a person entitled to practise physiotherapy, an employee of a

hospital defined under the Hospital Act.

This is very, very close to the current provision that’s in front

of the House for committee stage here. The policy of requiring these

reports hasn’t changed. In fact, instead of getting more complex for

minor injuries, individuals are going to the civil resolution tribunal,

which is designed to assist individuals who are unrepresented. That’s

the whole design of this system. B.C. Supreme Court is not designed for

individuals who are unrepresented.

Rather than getting more complex in terms of dispute resolution….

The member may have concerns about