Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 22, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 189

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jane Smith

R. Leonard

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Holodomor commemoration

L. Reid

Port Moody Arts Centre

R. Glumac

Peace Seniors Connect and Care

D. Davies

Multiple myeloma awareness

S. Furstenau

Wild salmon

A. Olsen

Mission Youth House

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Activities of communications contractor

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Ride-sharing services

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Government recordkeeping policies

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

G. Kyllo

Child care spaces

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Compensation to guide-outfitters for moose hunting

reduction

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

(continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation

and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

S. Bond

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2018

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: Today we have in the gallery two friends of mine, Dave Lundy and

Sheila Gorman, who hail from New Westminster. They’re really good friends,

helping me out, always eager to volunteer. I want to ask the members to give

them a warm welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have three very special guests here in the Legislature. I have known

Leanne Watson for quite a long time. She has kindly brought her husband,

Ken, and her daughter, Taylor, here to visit and see the proceedings today.

I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Henk Snoeken, the

newly appointed consul general of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in

Vancouver. Most recently the consul general was at the Dutch Ministry of

Infrastructure and Environment, where he worked on urban planning, water

management, logistics and sustainability. As many are aware, the Dutch

community is prominently represented in British Columbia, with over 213,000

people identifying themselves as of Dutch descent.

I met with the consul general earlier this morning to discuss trade,

technology and the investment relationship between our jurisdictions. We

also acknowledged the powerful bond that formed between our two nations

during the liberation of the Netherlands almost 75 years ago.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the consul

general.

D. Barnett: It gives me great honour today to welcome two gentlemen to this House.

My first introduction is Chief Willie Sellars of the Williams Lake Indian

Band. He’s a young chief, a new chief and works very hard with all our

communities throughout the region and has had nothing but great success

within the Williams Lake Indian Band. He’s also the goalie of the Williams

Lake Stampeders, who are another success in our community. With the Chief

today we have Kirk Dressler, who is the economic development officer and CEO

of the Williams Lake Indian Band. Would the House please help me welcome

these gentlemen.

Tributes

JANE SMITH

R. Leonard: A week ago today at 12:57 a.m., I had the privilege of holding the

hand of a best friend of 42 years as she passed from this world. She

suffered from metastasized breast cancer. She was not only one of my

staunchest political supporters; she was also a very keen friend to so

very many people. She was born Jane Norlie Porter Harris, but she

couldn’t resist the joke of marrying her husband and taking his name so

that she became Jane Smith.

[10:10 a.m.]

I’d like to just read the comments of one of her closest friends,

who she knew for about 45 years.

“Every day Jane put her head, her hands and her heart to good use.

She didn’t just help to rehabilitate drug addicts; she taught others how

to help. Friends treasure her gifts of stained glass, cabinetry and

finely turned wooden bowls. She was a loving helpmate and a business

partner to her husband, Rankin. She was a happy cook, a reluctant

gardener and a doting attendant to a succession of equally devoted

Siamese cats. Jane always had a shoulder, an ear, sage advice and a

carload of canned goods for everyone in need. To say she will be missed

doesn’t begin to describe the loss.”

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOLODOMOR COMMEMORATION

L. Reid: As a woman of Ukrainian heritage, I dedicate my remarks today to

the University of Victoria Ukrainian Students Society. This year is the

85th anniversary of the Holodomor, the Ukrainian famine, which resulted

in the horrific death of millions of innocent Ukrainian children, women

and men.

The term holodomor is derived from the words moryty

holodom , meaning “extermination by hunger.”

In 1932-1933, a cruel campaign of deliberate starvation was waged

upon the Ukrainian people to quash their aspirations of a free and

independent Ukraine. As many as ten million Ukrainians were killed

through a deliberate state-induced famine. One-third of those were

children. This widespread starvation was caused by the seizure of

Ukrainian peoples’ lands and crops. Grain quotas were set, not met, and

the remaining seed confiscated.

In British Columbia, home to more than 203,000 Ukrainian

Canadians, the fourth Saturday of November is recognized as an

opportunity to remember the victims and pay tribute to the survivors and

their descendants, many of whom have helped shape our great province and

educated others about this tragic crime against humanity.

Let us also think of all of those around the world still in

pursuit of human rights, freedom and justice. Ukraine issued

independence in 1991, but to this day, we must continue to stand firm

and safeguard Ukrainian sovereignty.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population,

behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.5 million Ukrainian

Canadians living across the country. Among them are members of my

family, many who still reside near the family homestead in rural

Saskatchewan. I can tell you that my mom was one of 19 children, so we

are well planted in Canada.

PORT MOODY ARTS CENTRE

R. Glumac: In 1913, the city of Port Moody was incorporated, and the people

of the community came together. They built a beautiful city hall, which

served the city for 85 years. But in 1998, a group of passionate art

lovers came together to transform that city hall into the Port Moody Art

Centre. Today it’s a thriving community institution celebrating its 20th

anniversary as Port Moody’s premiere centre of excellence for artistic

practice, exhibition, education….

Mr. Speaker: Please continue, Member.

R. Glumac: Can I start again?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you can. Technical glitch.

R. Glumac: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1913, the city of Port Moody was incorporated and the people of

the community came together to build a beautiful city hall, which served

the city for 85 years. Then in 1998, a group of passionate art lovers

came together to transform that city hall to the Port Moody Arts Centre.

Today it’s a thriving community institution, celebrating its 20th

anniversary as Port Moody’s premiere centre of excellence for artistic

practice, exhibition and education. It offers, in fact, 380 classes

annually in visual, ceramic, theatre and media arts, summer camp and

after-camp programs, and 170 private music and voice lessons.

And 40,000 people a year visit the arts centre to attend free

exhibitions showcasing the work of local, national and international

artists. These include Art for Life, featuring art for and by Port

Moody’s youth, and Winter Treasures, an exhibition-style Christmas

market featuring locally made arts and crafts. The arts centre also

hosts art walks, poetry slams, comedy evenings and much more.

Congratulations to the Port Moody Arts Centre on this milestone

year. I invite everyone to drop in for a visit the next time you’re in

Port Moody, City of the Arts.

PEACE SENIORS CONNECT AND CARE

D. Davies: I’d like to speak today about a local group that we have in Fort

St. John. The group is called the Peace Seniors Connect and Care. This

group was started in 2016 with the goal of being able to connect with

local seniors who had little to no visitors throughout the holiday

season.

[10:15 a.m.]

The group is run by Vanessa Siemens-Ford, Tracy Thompson and Becky

Grimsrud. Currently they have a Facebook group with about 400 members on

it. They work with the Peace Villa extended care facility, Abbeyfield

House, the Better at Home program and the North Peace Seniors Housing

Society.

During the fall, the Peace Seniors Connect and Care puts out a

call to the community to bring in donations such as outerwear, pyjamas,

toiletries, games, puzzles, personal care items and, of course,

chocolates and candies. They have drop-off locations around the city as

well as a drop-off location in the district of Taylor. The donation

deadline for this year is Friday, December 14. Then, starting on

December 15, the real work begins as the group comes together to sort

and wrap all the donations that they’ve received.

When the work is all done, it’s time to party. On December 15, the

group will then head to Abbeyfield to bring the donations and have a

party, so everyone can connect. The Peace Villa care centre will also be

having a party with the group on December 18, and word has it that Santa

and Mrs. Claus will also be in attendance. They also plan to have a

tea-and-treats party at the seniors housing society on December

These get-togethers are the true purpose of this group, to spend

time with those who otherwise might have a lonely Christmas. The smiles

and the sparkles in the eyes and the Christmas joy that this group

brings so many that might otherwise have been lonely throughout the

holidays show the real spirit of Christmas.

MULTIPLE MYELOMA AWARENESS

S. Furstenau: Dad was one of those people who was always healthy. He avoided

colds and flus and, in a 25-year career, didn’t have a single sick day.

He was active and fit. In the deep winter on cold dark nights on our

acreage in Alberta, Dad would run up and down the basement stairs in the

evenings to ensure he got a workout every day. And then something

changed.

For the first time ever, he came down with a terrible feverish

flu. Then he fell and broke several ribs. In his whole life, the only

thing he’d ever broken twice was his nose while playing soccer and

having an unfortunate collision with another player. Suddenly Dad was

not only getting sick and injured; he was also deeply tired, too tired

to be the active person we’d always known him to be. What we didn’t

know, and what I so, so wish we had, was that these changes we saw in

Dad were, in fact, symptoms of a disease that none of us had ever heard

of.

Multiple myeloma is a cancer of the plasma cells that are found in

our bone marrow. These are immune cells that produce the antibodies we

need to fight infections. Each day eight Canadians are diagnosed with

multiple myeloma, but the disease and its symptoms remain relatively

unknown. Bone pain and fractures, fatigue and persistent infections are

symptoms of this cancer, and while it is not curable, it is treatable,

and early detection and diagnosis help to result in better

outcomes.

I wish we had known this in 1999, when Dad’s symptoms appeared. He

was diagnosed two years later, in April 2001, and because access to

therapies was difficult then, as it is today, Dad was not able to get

the treatment that could have prolonged his life, possibly for many

years. He died six months after his diagnosis on October 16, 2001. He

was 61.

Myeloma Canada is working to raise awareness of this disease and

working to improve access to effective therapies. I’m grateful that they

are helping to create better outcomes for individuals diagnosed with

myeloma.

WILD SALMON

A. Olsen: Many times throughout this year I stood in this House and spoke

about the plight of our relatives, the

SĆÁÁNEW̱ , the

salmon. I told the story of their creation through the words of my

uncle, STOLȻEȽ. They were a good

people, a hard-working people that didn’t have an enemy anywhere. They

had no enemies, he said. They worked well with everyone, and XÁLS

appeared to them and said: “The way you are living is good. You have no

enemies, and you work hard, so I’m going to keep you that

way.”

[10:20 a.m.]

He changed them into the

SĆÁÁNEW̱ , the fishes and

the salmon. He sent them out to sea, and they all worked together. He

sent them out to sea as families. They go out to sea as a family, and

they return back home as a family, he said.

Goldstream was an important place for the WSÁNEĆ because it was a place

that supplied a good run of fall chum. My father recently began

volunteering with the group up there. On the day that we visited, they

were excited because there were fish in the river. “We were more

successful in getting broodstock today than we were the entire season

last year,” one of the gentlemen told me.

All of my uncle’s stories tell of a responsibility that we have

for each other and for everything. “You look after them, and they will

look after you,” he says.

This is likely the last time in 2018 that I will get to stand in

this House and talk about

SĆÁÁNEW̱ . As you all

know very well, I have raised the plight faced by our salmon relatives

dozens of times this year. Some steps have been taken to improve their

well-being, and I am so grateful for that. But there is so much, much

more that we can do.

As we head into 2019, I’m expecting this House to start

demonstrating real leadership in this area. My expectations are high

because we have so much to lose. There is no more time for excuses,

deflections or distractions, no more time for politics or games playing.

There is only time for action. They are our relatives, and we have a

duty to them.

MISSION YOUTH HOUSE

B. D’Eith: Recently I had the pleasure of touring MY House in Mission with

the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. It’s MY House,

which is the Mission Youth House, which is a welcoming place for youth

at risk.

The house provides meals, showers, laundry, counselling, medical

care, advocacy, connections to essential services and programs,

employment support, reintegration into school systems and other

important youth services. Since opening in September 2015, the house has

been accessed 6,591 times by 308 different youth. The house visits are

averaging about 40 a month and ten per day. The average age is about 21,

but the house sees youths from 14 to 24 years of age. It’s important to

note that approximately 15 percent of these youth are

Indigenous.

This safe space operates on an unconditional love approach so that

the youth see MY House as their home and refuge to find loving

connections to caring adults and supports. The collaborative model means

that all supports are available to be accessed through this

house.

This house exists because of the collaboration of many local

organizations that came together, in true Mission fashion, to make MY

House a reality. Special thanks to the advisory group that provide the

18 staff of MY House, Mission Community Services, Greater Vancouver

Youth Unlimited, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Fraser

Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society, Fraser House

Society, the district of Mission, IMPACT Youth and Family Substance Use

Services, youth participants and also many volunteers. In addition to

that, there are 13 other consulting partners that contribute to MY

House.

MY House is an amazing example of what can be achieved when

organizations, government and volunteers work together in our community.

I want to thank them, the partners and the people and the volunteers for

their time in making this important safe place for our youth

possible.

Oral Questions

ACTIVITIES OF

COMMUNICATIONS

CONTRACTOR

S. Bond: Well, two weeks ago the Minister of Citizens’ Services was asked

to explain the many emails between Marie Della Mattia, the Premier’s

office, the NDP party officials and even the Public Service Agency using

private Gmail and B.C. NDP email accounts. The minister promised to look

into these issues and report back.

Well, the minister always thanks the opposition for our questions

and then completely avoids an answer, so here’s her chance. Can the

minister now, two weeks later, tell us why Della Mattia and others are

business?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said previously, Marie Della Mattia is no longer in the

employ of government. She does do some contract work, and when she does

contract work, she uses her email to communicate with people. It is not

out of the ordinary that those who are on contract do not have access to

government emails or are assigned them. She is doing the

work.

You know, my colleagues across the way keep quoting things out of

context out of the hundreds and hundreds of emails that we have handed

over to them out of FOI. I want to reassure them once again that we are

getting this right.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, no one believes the minister. Let’s be clear. Della Mattia

sure does do some contract work. In fact, she billed taxpayers for eight

hours of work at $150 an hour for a Premier’s office planning session

last April. That sounds an awful lot like government business to

me.

On April 5, she emailed political staff in the Premier’s office

and government communications staff, including Geoff Meggs and Matt

Hannah. The attachments for the planning session include a document

described as “Branding Work for the Premier from the NDP Election

Campaign.”

Why is Della Mattia circulating NDP campaign documents as part of

her taxpayer-funded non-partisan government communications

employ?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me state again that once again my colleagues across the way

are quoting things out of context. Let me assure them that the

individual mentioned does do contract work, does give advice to

government on communications.

As we know, GCPE provides communication support for government, as

it did under the old government. That hasn’t changed. Communications

staff support the work of ministers consistent with the direction and

mandate of the government, and this particular individual gives advice

on contracts. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? That is not out of the

ordinary. Nothing has changed here.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the minister is just dead wrong. When you have Marie Della

Mattia sending information to the Premier’s office, the NDP party

officials and the public service using private Gmail and B.C. NDP email

accounts…. Obviously, this minister does not know her file. That is not

appropriate, and she knows it.

Yesterday the minister promised to report back. Once again,

questions asked, zero answers about Della Mattia’s failure to produce

monthly written reports. The minister just said Della Mattia was doing

her job. Where are the reports?

We know that she did partisan political work, emailing B.C. NDP

accounts and circulating NDP election campaign documents. The minister

must surely understand how inappropriate that is, but the monthly

written reports listed in the contract details are missing.

It’s time for the minister to answer a question. Will the minister

fire Della Mattia for her breach of contract?

Hon. J. Sims: You know, I’m always amazed by the direction of some of the

questions we are receiving on this file. The fact that my colleagues

across the way have the invoices, have the emails is the very reason

they’re able to be up here asking questions.

This particular individual is a contractor. As my colleagues

across the way know, contractors are not required to have government

emails. You know, there’s one thing about this B.C. NDP email: it was an

autofill, it has been pointed out to my colleagues, that drops

down.

Let me tell you, this contractor has filed invoices which included

details on the nature of the work she was billing for. All of these

reports went out with the FOI package, which is why the members opposite

are now asking about it.

[10:30 a.m.]

Once again, the opposition is making things seem some­thing

they are not.

J. Johal: To comply with the law and her legal duty under FOI, Della Mattia

billed taxpayers nearly $2,500 to look through emails in her private

Gmail account. It would have taken a matter of minutes to submit the

requested sent emails had Della Mattia used her government email

account, not 15½ hours charged at $150 per hour.

The minister promised yesterday that she would report back. Why is

Della Mattia billing taxpayers thousands of dollars to go through her

Gmail?

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said, Ms. Della Mattia’s OIC was rescinded on January

15. After that, she was hired to do some contract work. We know that

contractors — this hasn’t changed, folks — typically don’t use

government-issued email addresses. This is the norm across the

government, as it was under the previous folks.

Records prepared by contractors in carrying out government work

are under the control of government and are responsive to FOI requests.

So Ms. Marie Della Mattia did exactly as she was supposed to. She went

through her Gmail, and she submitted those records. Those records were

requested by the colleagues on the other side. They’ve got them, and now

they are complaining that that costs? Yes, it costs.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: I want to remind the minister that a government email account was

created for Della Mattia, and non-partisan government staff advised her

to use it. Had she done so, taxpayers would have been spared thousands

of dollars — $150 per hour to go through her private Gmail account. She

insisted on using Gmail. She overruled staff.

Will the minister ensure today that Della Mattia will now use

government email to conduct government business and not her Gmail

account moving forward?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say once again that this individual is a contractor, does

some contract work with the government. Contractors are not required to

have government email. But the FOI process works, because when the

opposition asked for her emails, they were sent to them. That is why

they are asking the question. The system is working, Mr.

Speaker.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

A. Olsen: Ride-hailing services are popular around the world because they

are a flexible, accessible…

Interjections.

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

A. Olsen: …and affordable transportation option. As members in this chamber

know, British Columbians have been waiting for years for these services

to be allowed to operate in our province.

New technology has always challenged government and society to

adapt. It’s not government’s job to pick winners and losers as

technology empowers new business models and fundamentally challenges old

ones. Instead, government’s focus should be on protecting public safety

and the broader public interest by setting a fair regulatory

environment.

I think the most charitable description for most people’s reaction

to the government’s ride-hailing legislation is uncertainty —

uncertainty about whether this legislation is capable of really seeing

ride-sharing operate in B.C. Interestingly, despite vocal opposition

from the taxi industry previously, we’ve heard almost nothing from them

on this legislation.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. How does the

minister respond to stakeholders and the public, who are uncertain about

the approach this government has taken and who are concerned that

government has already picked its winner?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for his question. What is important

is that we are meeting people’s transportation needs. We’re meeting them

with safety — as the member said, safety is the foundation — as well as

looking at good public policy.

[10:35 a.m.]

We are bringing in ride-hailing. We’re trying to make it right for

B.C., and we’re working collaboratively to make sure that happens. So I

would also like to thank the Third Party for their work on this and

their collaborative nature. They have been willing to talk about

this.

We are using a customer demand–driven approach, based on data.

We’re going to be reducing jurisdictional overlap. We’ve also been able

to learn from other jurisdictions on what works and what doesn’t work

well. Shauna Brail, a ride-hailing expert from the University of Toronto

said: “B.C. skipped right over ride-hailing 1.0, and they’re at

ride-hailing 2.0.”

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

A. Olsen: People are rightly concerned that the timelines, again, are

shifting. Last year government committed that by 2019, ride-hailing

companies would be able to apply for operation in B.C. Doubt was cast

earlier this week when we started hearing about ride-hailing coming to

B.C. in 2020.

British Columbians have put up with government’s games-playing on

this issue for far too long. The last government notoriously ragged the

puck on this issue. The B.C. Green caucus has submitted legislation

three times that could have been debated. That was never done. It was

ignored. Instead, we got a too little, too late desperate election ploy

from the former minister. The fact that B.C. does not have ride-sharing

services showcases a lack of political will and a failure in our

political system.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the

minister recommit that this will be the last holiday season that British

Columbians will not have access to ride-hailing services?

Hon. C. Trevena: For years — years — people have been asking for new, convenient

and safe options to get around. We do know that ride-hailing companies

approached the government back in 2012.

I think everybody can agree that it’s unacceptable if you’re

waiting for hours to get a ride home, whether you’ve been to a bar or to

hospital or are waiting at the airport. We know that for many people,

new services can’t come soon enough, which is why we have moved…. As I

say, the previous government had five years; we’ve done more in a year

than the former government did in five.

We have been very clear that this legislation will bring

ride-hailing companies to the market in 2019, offering new services to

people. So we reconfirm: 2019. We are on track to have companies apply

to the Passenger Transportation Board so we have a single regulatory

approach.

Given the interest among all three parties…. I know that the Third

Party and the opposition are very eager to see ride-hailing in B.C. I’m

anticipating unanimous support for the bill that is on the floor, and I

look forward to seeing ride-hailing in B.C. in 2019.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

P. Milobar: I think we’re starting to see where the Minister of Citizens’

Services is having trouble with our question. She seems to be thinking

that an itemized invoice is the same as a monthly written report

detailing activities.

Let’s go back all of two weeks. Let’s go back to two weeks ago,

when the Minister of Citizens’ Services promised to this House to report

back on the mass deletion of emails of 18 individuals. In fact, the

Minister of Education deleted all but one, single email in May, a month

where there was decision-making happening to approve quotes on at least

a dozen different news releases.

Again, when will the minister provide a full report, which has

been promised to this House, of these improperly deleted

records?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say that we are following the processes and rules that

exist for keeping government records. You delete transitory records, and

you keep those that are non-transitory. That is exactly what is

happening. We’re not doing anything that isn’t advised to us by

officials, that isn’t part of the training.

[10:40 a.m.]

We know that if you just leave everything in your email…. I don’t

know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I can get hundreds and hundreds of

emails, and most of them don’t really have a lot to do with government

business. Some of them are private, some of them are leading up to

decisions, and some of them are about scheduling meetings, and those

kinds of things. Those get put into my calendar.

This is what I want to say. It is very, very important that

everybody follows the processes we have to keep and dispose of records

according to the Information Management Act. We are committed to holding

ourselves to a higher standard. That’s why we have ongoing training.

That’s why we are cleaning up our emails and getting rid of transitory

emails, because it’s the right thing to do.

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

P. Milobar: Well, the minister refers to the act and policy. The reality is

the policy was actually stricter than the act. The minister yesterday

couldn’t explain the decision to change that existing policy that

required ministers and staff to retain all of their sent

emails.

In fact, we know that the Deputy Minister, Don Wright, wanted to

maintain the policy that said — and was in place when this government

took office — that the ministers and their staff must retain all sent

emails. That was the policy Don Wright was recommending stay in place.

But a decision was made to scrap that policy.

To the minister, who is responsible for overruling the most senior

public servant in the province around this policy?

Hon. J. Sims: We have the same question from yesterday, so let me try to give

the answer again. The old government, the people who are sitting on that

side of the House, brought in their directive, a superficial damage

control, after they broke the rules, tried to cover it up, got caught

and a staffer was charged. In fact, the former Premier’s directive goes

against — and I want to stress this — best practice and the advice of

officials. We follow the advice of officials, who are the experts, and

we are advised….

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would really like to be able to give a

response that we follow the advice of officials. We are advised that

disposing of transitory emails is critical to managing storage costs and

ensuring the functioning of the FOI system. This was also the advice of

the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

G. Kyllo: This government has a serious problem. The Premier acknowledged

it, claimed that he was profoundly disappointed and appointed Don Wright

to fix it. But there’s been no report, no accountability, and we now

know that Don Wright wanted to maintain the policy for maintaining all

sent emails.

To the minister, who ordered senior staff to delete sent emails

against the direct recommendation of Don Wright?

Hon. J. Sims: I notice that once again, yet again the opposition is selectively

reading sections from one of the thousands and thousands of pages of

emails that have gone out from our government in FOI

requests.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Sims: Just be patient. Just give me an opportunity to answer. I want to.

Let me….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, please proceed.

Hon. J. Sims: I’d like to read out one of the parts they seem to be missing from

what they selectively read out yesterday. This is from the same package,

Don Wright’s actual advice on sent emails.

[10:45 a.m.]

It goes on to say: “Keeping in mind the recommendation of former

Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis that government

should retain only that which has value in law and policy; for greater

clarity, former Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham,

that the routine destruction of transitory records is necessary to

reduce the volume of government records and the cost of managing

records.” This is the bit they forgot to read out: “Sent emails should

be a priority for careful management to ensure that the records of value

are retained.”

The opposition can continue and continue to selectively read

emails to try to make something that’s not there. We will continue to

follow the rules and focus on making life better for British

Columbians.

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

G. Kyllo: Well, Don Wright is the head of the public service. We know that

he wanted to maintain the policy of maintaining all sent emails. As the

minister has just shared with us, apparently he had a change of heart. I

think the question to the minister is, if the minister can share with us

who….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: If the minister would be so kind as to share with this

House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed when you feel that it’s quiet enough for you to be

heard.

Proceed.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think what this House and British

Columbians would like to know, and I hope that the minister can share

this with us, is: who actually directed Don Wright, the most senior

public servant, to change his direction that was initially given to all

staff to maintain all sent email records?

Hon. J. Sims: I’m absolutely flabbergasted that the same question gets asked

after I gave a very specific and detailed answer. My colleagues across

the way keep quoting little snippets out of context. We know what

happens when you take things out of context because you think you’re

having a gotcha moment.

Well, let me tell you…. This is a direct quote from the deputy

minister — from that same kind of email that they seem to be quoting

just a little paraphrase from — where he goes on to say, in that same

email, where it is stated: “Keeping in mind the recommendation of former

Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis that government

should retain only that which has value in law and policy. For greater

clarity, former Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham,

that the routine destruction of transitory records is necessary to

reduce the volume of government records and the cost of managing

records. Sent emails,” the official goes on to say, “should be a

priority for careful management to ensure that records of value are

retained.”

The opposition can keep taking things out of context and trying to

mislead the House. But let me tell you that the opposition is being

selective and not giving the whole context. It’s very clear the

direction that we’ve done since we have come into government. We follow

the policies that exist for good record management. We listen to the

advice of our officials. You know something, we are getting this

right.

CHILD CARE SPACES

L. Throness: In its February budget, the government made big promises about

child care spaces but the numbers are coming in, and they show that

their child care program is failing.

Let me give an example from Nanaimo. Between February and the end

of October this year, government documents tell us that eight new child

care centres opened in Nanaimo, for a total of 76 new spaces. But the

Ministry of Health also says that double that number closed, for a net

loss of 80 child care spaces.

[10:50 a.m.]

How can the minister be spending $182 million this year on child

care and lose 80 child care spaces in Nanaimo?

Hon. K. Chen: I’m more than happy to talk about the investments our government

is making into child care in B.C. For many years, families have been

struggling to look for high-quality child care spaces and also to afford

child care and early learning opportunities.

The member’s question is about space creation, and we have

committed to create up to 22,000 spaces in three years with our $1

billion budget — to create a universal child care system. To put it in

context, that is more than five times the spaces that the members

opposite, when they were in government, had ever created in five to six

years.

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

L. Throness: Actually, the B.C. Liberals left 106,000 child care spaces for

this government to inherit. They are spending big money now, but they’re

not creating the spaces. Three groups in Nanaimo applied to be one of

the lucky prototype child care centres in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: They were all turned down — this is in spite of the fact that this

government has made 80 child care spaces in Nanaimo disappear since

February.

Why is this big-spending child care program failing Nanaimo? Why

did this minister refuse to listen to the child care needs of

Nanaimo?

Hon. K. Chen: Really, this is the first time in history that we are creating a

child care–early learning system in B.C. that will benefit all families

in B.C.

I’m not so sure how reliable the information is that the member

opposite is mentioning here, but we are accelerating the creation of

child care spaces. In fact, since we launched and made sure that our new

spaces funding is way better — we launched the program in June — we have

already received applications representing more than the number of

spaces that we’re targeting for this year. We’re working through those

applications.

I’m happy to share that one of the first applications that we have

approved is actually, for the member opposite, from his colleague’s own

riding in Kelowna–Lake Country. We’re really happy to work with all

members from this House to accelerate the creation of child care

spaces.

We have good news to come. Keep in mind that after years of

neglect from the other side of the House, this is the first time in

history that we are making child care more affordable. There are

thousands of families in Nanaimo that are benefiting from our child care

program through our affordability measures.

COMPENSATION TO GUIDE-OUTFITTERS

FOR MOOSE HUNTING

REDUCTION

D. Barnett: On November 1, I wrote the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resources on behalf of 13 guide-outfitters who have had their moose

allocations cancelled by this government. The guide-outfitters were told

they would be financially compensated, but neither they nor my office

have heard any word back from this minister.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resources. When will the minister follow through on his promise to

compensate these guide-outfitters?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The guide-outfitting business and sector is an important sector in

B.C. It contributes to local economies, it contributes to the provincial

economy, and it employs people at a local level. I know it

well.

We are very concerned about the moose populations in the member’s

constituency and across B.C. That’s why we have had consistent

reductions in the LEH, limited-entry hunt, in her constituency — and

under the previous government as well. We are working with the

guide-outfitters. We’re looking at the compensation issue for the fact

that some of these hunts were decreased after the hunts were sold at

trade shows around the province.

[10:55 a.m.]

I also want to mention that we have come to an amazing agreement,

a round-table agreement, with the Tsilhqot’in National Government around

moose management — unprecedented, unheard-of and a demonstration of this

government’s commitment to the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

[End of question period.]

A. Olsen: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to stand today and introduce this House to

TSUNUP. Those of you who know me know that I also carry the WSÁNEĆ name, the

Lummi name, TSUNUP. So I am technically introducing you to my brother, who

sits up in the gallery today, along with Shirley Williams. They are from the

Lummi community in Bellingham.

I’m honoured to carry this name along with him and to those sacred

places that we represent.

Would this House please make my brother and Shirley feel

welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure…. Oh, excuse me. I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Weaver: Thank you. It was rather presumptuous of me.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of school children who

are here today from my riding, Maria Montessori Academy. There were 24

children accompanied by two adults and their teacher Rachel Hartsook. They

were in the gallery there during the member statements, and they left after

the first question. They enjoyed their experience. Would the House

retroactively please make them feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call in this chamber committee stage on Bill 51, Environmental

Assessment Act, and in

Section A, I call committee on Bill 45, Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 51; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 10:59 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Section 26 as amended approved.

S. Furstenau: I’m going to ask leave of the House if we can go back to

section

25 for some clarifying questions.

Leave granted.

section 25.

S. Furstenau: In

section 25, it says, “The following matters must be considered

in every assessment” as part of No. 2, but in

section 1, it says: “The

effects of a project on Indigenous nations and rights…must be assessed

in every assessment.” Could the minister clarify the difference between

assessed and considered?

Hon. G. Heyman: For greater clarity in

section 25, I think because No. (1) refers

to rights recognized and affirmed by the Constitution Act, they must be

assessed in every assessment.

Item (2) lists a broad range of matters, including “other

prescribed matters,” which must be considered in every assessment. But

considering may determine that, depending on a particular assessment,

one of them may not apply — in which case, it wouldn’t be

assessed.

S. Furstenau: Our caucus is very glad to see that “greenhouse gas emissions,” in

section 25(2)(h), and “effects on current and future generations” in

25(2)(f), are on this list, but we would have liked to have seen climate

change separated from this list and included as its own section, to be

assessed, like the First Nations rights.

Can the minister explain why this distinction was not made, and

hypothetically, what the impact would be if it were?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think because No. 1 refers to constitutional rights that it

needs to and must, out of respect for the constitutional rights of

Indigenous people, stand on its own.

With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, I’ll say that of all the

matters to be considered in every assessment, greenhouse gas emissions

are tied very specifically to another piece of legislation where targets

are set. It says: “meet its targets under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Targets Act.” It is, I would say, impossible to know if that’s the case

unless you had a project that simply everyone agreed had zero

emissions.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister possibly walk us through a case of what would

happen if a project with associated greenhouse gas emissions that would

exceed our provincial emissions reductions targets applied for an

environmental assessment?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a bit speculative, but with respect to a project that has

emissions — where those emissions are assessed and would push the

province beyond its capacity to meet the greenhouse gas reduction

targets that are set by legislation — it (

a) must be assessed, and (

b) the recommendations to the minister must deal with the matter. The

minister must consider all of the aspects of the recommendation and,

presumably, give reasons for why a project would be approved.

[11:10 a.m.]

If it did not, if it was assessed as not fitting within the

legislated greenhouse gas emission targets, it would be…. Difficult

would be an understatement, because it would be explaining why the

minister was prepared to violate the province’s own legislation under

the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

S. Furstenau: I think, given yet another report out of the United Nations on the

rapidly closing window on our capacity to act on climate change, these

are very important considerations.

Does the minister think that the government indeed has tools

strong enough to be making these challenging decisions that we must

begin to make in terms of recognizing our essential responsibility to

meet those targets and to reduce our greenhouse gas

emissions?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes. We are engaged, as the member knows, in

finalizing our climate action strategy. Incorporated in that strategy is

the quantification of both the possibility of emission reductions in a

number of areas through a number of actions, as well as areas where

emissions will go up. That is the job of the climate action secretariat.

We have expertise in-house, there’s expertise out of house, and the

environment assessment office would be able to access both of

those.

S. Furstenau: One more on climate here. Could the minister clarify how

section

25 interacts and relates to

section 29, in particular, with reference to

the climate test?

Hon. G. Heyman: There is a very direct relationship. It’s a purposefully direct

relationship that we had extensive discussion about including — and the

best way to include

section 29.

First of all, the environmental assessment office must consider

all the matters in

section 25. The ministers must consider — and it’s

clearly laid out in

section 29 — all of the elements of the report and

recommendations that go to the ministers. And

section 25 is specifically

addressed: must consider the sustainability purpose and reconciliation

purposes set out in

section 2 and the matters assessed under

section

25(2), which includes the particular sub (

h) that the member has been

speaking to.

S. Furstenau: This is my last question on this section. Did the ministry

consider adding the gender-based analysis plus framework to this list of

things to be considered, or is that represented in

section

25(2)(d)?

Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, we did, and that is specifically referenced in 25(2)(d),

although not by the term the member uses but by “disproportionate

effects on distinct human populations, including populations identified

by gender,” and that’s specifically why it’s included.

P. Milobar: On 25(2)(h), around greenhouse gas emissions, I’m just wondering

if I can get a sense — and for proponents to get a better understanding

as well — in terms of how they’ll be evaluated in terms of meeting the

greenhouse gas reduction targets. If they’re seen as a positive, would

that actually play in their favour towards their application, regardless

of some of the other measures?

The reason I raise that is…. Obviously, large-scale mining

projects will be subject to an environmental assessment, regardless of

what cabinet comes up with other ideas or not. I think it’s safe to say

everyone can agree that the mines would.

We’ve heard from the Leader of the Third Party about the need,

actually, for increase — in this House, not too long ago — about how

much increased mining would have to happen as we transition to more of a

green future.

[11:15 a.m.]

You look at the announcement around EV vehicles just the other day

and the amount of extra copper that goes into an EV vehicle, compared to

an existing vehicle, to try to transition. Obviously, there’s a direct

correlation to that type of a policy, to try to reduce our greenhouse

gas targets, with an increase in demand for copper. And obviously, we’re

a large copper jurisdiction in the world.

There are also all other sorts of materials that we need, either

for wind turbines or other materials, for that transition. So will

mining projects actually be rated as a benefit to help us meet our

greenhouse gas targets within this bill? Or will they still strictly be

looked at, their own footprint, within their operations, not taking that

bigger picture view of the fact that they would actually be creating the

copper to build the electric vehicle that would help reduce the

transportation greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. G. Heyman: When we release the climate strategy, I think the member will see

that a lot of work has been done to quantify emissions that are expected

over time in British Columbia as well as emission reductions that we

will be promoting and supporting in a variety of ways to meet our 2030

target. So we’re not assuming that there is no industry in British

Columbia or no new industry in British Columbia.

The answer specifically to the member’s question is we would

assess the greenhouse gas output as well as all the measures that can be

taken. The mining sector is a good example of applying technology to

reduce greenhouse gases that otherwise would have been released had that

technology not been used. Their contribution to reducing emissions in

other ways would also be a consideration.

The Chair: Hon. Members, although we previously passed

section 25,

further questions were asked again. The Chair will ask again: shall

section 25 pass?

Section 25 approved.

section 27.

P. Milobar: Just a couple of questions here because 27 came up repeatedly as

we were all the way back in

section 22 yesterday. As well,

section 23

actually interlays in with 27.

At the time yesterday, when I was asking about the skill set

needed for the technical advisory committee in 21 — 21, 22 and 23 all

start to tie in with 27 — the minister said that it would tie in with 27

because the technical advisory committee has a significant role within

But when you read 27, it’s about the proponent is getting in

writing — about the reviewable project…. Within six months, the CEAO has

to…. In (b), it says “provide notice to the proponent (

i) of the results

of the invitation made under paragraph (a),” which is about getting

comment over a 30-day period, and “respecting matters addressed in

advice, if any, provided by the technical advisory committee or the

community advisory committee.”

It seems to me that the ministry yesterday was referencing that

the technical advisory committee would be doing extra work in the

section 27 part of the application process. But it looks like,

essentially, that work would have already been completed, and it’s

simply been provided back to the proponents so they know what the

advisory committee has said, not that they’re actually doing any

additional work at that stage. Am I reading this correctly?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: If I understand the member’s question correctly, he is correct on

both fronts. At the end of the 180 days, if the assessment is going to

go forward, the work of the technical advisory as well as the community

advisory committee will increase, in all likelihood, and continue. But

they may be established prior to that point and also do some work to

help inform the decisions and review that take place before that point

in time. So they’re active in both phases, potentially.

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

section 29.

S. Furstenau:

Section 29(4)(

b) states that the ministers “may consider any other

matters that they consider relevant to the public interest in making

their decision on the application.” The concern is: could this not

undermine all of the important considerations that have been previously

listed under

section 25? I appreciate that the minister requires

flexibility to be able to address unexpected issues as they arise, but

could this be used contrary to the very purpose of the bill? Did the

minister consider adding something to the effect of “consistent with the

purpose of this act” to this section, and what would be the implication

of adding a line like that?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The short answer is no.

It cannot be used to undermine the purposes of the act or the other

matters that must be assessed, but there may well be situations where

there is a legitimate consideration. For instance, there might be a

project to repair a failing bridge that would require an assessment that

will not be without some significant, adverse environmental impact, but

for which the overwhelming interest of protecting public health and

safety is a balance.

I use that as an example. I’m not predetermining the outcome of

the assessment. But the requirement of the ministers, in making a

decision, is to…. It says “must.” It must consider the sustainability

purpose, must consider the rights and title issues and must consider the

matters outlined in

section 25. All of those were phrased in that manner

to ensure that the purpose could not be thwarted. If a minister

attempted to use one tiny clause to thwart the overall intent of the

act, this gives guidance to the courts in judicial review.

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

Section 29(5) says, “If a recommendation under subsection (2) (b)

(

i) is contrary to consent or lack of consent…” the ministers must offer

to meet with the participating Indigenous nation. Could the minister

clarify the extent of this section, and does he think that offering to

meet is good enough? Why not try to reach agreement or

consensus?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The member’s point is expressly addressed in (6)(b): “attend the

meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus with the participating

Indigenous nation on the decision to be made by the

ministers….”

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

S. Furstenau: On

section 30, “Mitigation effectiveness reports,” my

understanding is that this is a new effectiveness provision that allows

for effectiveness monitoring to evaluate and work towards the intent of

government goals. Could the minister please explain this a little bit

further and give an example?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s an excellent question by the member because this is a new

clause, so let me use an example. An assessment certificate is issued

with some specific conditions to ensure the protection of grizzly bears.

Through the mitigation monitoring and reports, it’s determined that

they’re not being effective and that other measures could be.

Section 32

gives, for the first time, the ability of the conditions to be amended

or new conditions to be added to achieve the intended result.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister please explain: how does this

section compare

to the existing Environmental Assessment Act, and why the

changes?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The member is correct

that this provision extends the certificate to not more than ten years

after the issue date of the certificate, as opposed to the current five.

But the current five allowed for an extension. The experience of the

office has been that there often were applications for extension to ten

years. They usually had merit, and they were therefore granted. So we’re

simply reflecting the experience and practice of the office.

S. Furstenau: Ten years, particularly in the rapidly changing world and

landscape that we’re in, does seem like a long time. A lot of key

environmental and social factors could change in a decade. We’ll have

more climate data. Species previously threatened could now be

endangered. So would there be some review required, and should that

review be automatically triggered after five years?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s exactly, for the member’s information, where sections 30

and 32 come into play. And 32 specifically says, in (5)(c), “in the case

of an environmental assessment certificate that has a deadline specified

under

section 31 (1) of 5 years or more, the fifth anniversary of the

issuance of the certificate has occurred,” and that’s with respect to

reviewing and amending the certificate.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

section 33.

S. Furstenau: Just one question here for the minister. Could he give an example

of what conditions could be used in

section 33(1) that may transfer the

certificate or order to another person or any conditions the chief

executive assessment officer considers appropriate?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: There is a transfer provision currently in the act, but under the

current process, holders of a certificate or an exemption order are

required to seek permission prior to a transfer. But there is no

specifically legislated process. The environmental assessment office

currently addresses these requests through conditions, which can lead to

uncertainty.

This just clearly states that the chief executive assessment

officer may transfer the certificate with conditions and that the

application must be made in accordance with the requirements that are

set for such an application. So it codifies in the legislation the

process.

Section 33 approved.

section 34.

S. Furstenau: Just one…. Could the minister define and explain the difference

between a “partial class assessment” and “full class

assessment”?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for an excellent question of

clarification.

I’ll give an example that I hope answers the question. Let’s take,

for example, wind farms as a particular class that could be established.

Many of the impacts of wind farms are common everywhere, no matter where

they’re sited. They’re well known. Others are specific to the location.

The process may be set up in such a way that for those aspects of wind

farms where the impacts are predictable and known and the same, it’s

easier and speedier to assess those.

Whereas other aspects would need to

be done more fully.

A full class assessment would simply be everything.

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

S. Furstenau: This is a

section on regional assessment. Could the minister

please explain what would trigger a regional assessment, and why weren’t

the triggers included in the legislation?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Regional assessments are included here because they’re important,

and the

section enables us to create regulations that can provide the

specificity that the member seeks — but which we currently don’t have,

frankly. We will consult broadly as we develop the

regulation.

[11:35 a.m.]

These regional assessments are going to be tied to land use

planning, which is a process that’s under review by my colleague the

Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development. Let me try to give an example, though. One of the places

where a regional assessment might be considered would be a region where

there has already been very heavy development, which means that the

impacts of new development will be heightened, and the effects of the

regional assessment would have to be taken into account. It might be an

area where a species at risk has been identified, a region, so the

regional assessment would cover some matters that could be included and

considered here.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that. Would it be possible, for

example, for the community advisory committee to ask for a regional

assessment or to have it triggered in that way? I expect maybe the

minister will say that would have to be determined in regulations, but

I’m just curious.

Hon. G. Heyman: Although a community advisory committee would be appointed with

respect to a particular project, there would be nothing to preclude them

from recommending or requesting that a regional assessment take place

because of the reasons, for instance, that I outlined

previously.

S. Furstenau: The minister spoke about consulting broadly on the development of

regulations. Could he be a little bit more specific on who he

anticipates consulting on developing the regulations pertaining to

regional assessments?

Hon. G. Heyman: This is an area where we would want to coordinate, in the

interests of efficiency, the regulation development and consultation in

collaboration with my colleague who has responsibility for land use

planning. Generally speaking, our intent would be to have a broad

consultation, including Indigenous nations, the public, local elected

officials, environmental groups, other interested parties — industry, if

I didn’t mention them; I think I did — similar to what we did in the

construction of the act.

Section 35 approved.

section 36.

S. Furstenau: Just one question here. Could the minister give an example of how

and when

section 36(3) could be used?

Hon. G. Heyman: This isn’t an area where it’s easy to get very specific, but the

chief executive assessment officer and the environmental assessment

office are closest to the range of issues, particularly because they’re

monitoring the consultation and engagement that arise in the course of

an assessment.

They are not policy-makers; they’re policy takers. So if the chief

executive assessment officer identifies areas where there is a lack of

that point that they would refer the matter to ministers for

clarification.

Sections 36 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the members will know, this

section is subject to an amendment

that is now included on the orders of the day.

SECTION 40, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Project information centre

(1) For the purpose of facilitating public

access to information , data and records relating to assessments

conducted under this Act, the project information centre is continued

and must is to be administered and maintained by

the chief executive assessment officer.

(2) The chief executive assessment officer may

determine

(

a) which information, data and records or classes of

information, data and records relating to any matter under

this Act are to be available to the public through the project

information centre,

(

b) in which form or format the records or classes of records

are to be available, and

(

c) the time during which the records are to be

available.]

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Heyman: I just wanted to speak briefly to the amendment. Again, I thank

the House Leader for the Third Party for her contribution in discussions

around exactly what we meant by this

section in response to some

concerns that had been expressed that it was not complete with respect

to ensuring public information and transparency.

So what we have done in this

section is add “data” to “information

and records.” Even though we believe that “information and records” is

pretty complete, we want people reading the act to also know fully

what’s encompassed.

The purpose of this

section is clearly laid out. It says: “For the

purpose of facilitating public access to information….” That is the

guiding principle of this section. It also says that the project

information centre is continued — that’s an existing centre — and must

be administered and maintained by the chief executive assessment

officer.

Amendment approved.

section 40 as amended.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for the amendment and for some of the

clarification. Just a little bit more on this. There remains flexibility

built in, in terms of the chief executive assessment officer may

determine which records in which format and the time. Is it too

constraining to be more specific on that? Or how can the public be

growing their trust in this if there is that built-in

flexibility?

Hon. G. Heyman: There are two things that direct this and should give the public

complete confidence. The purpose of the language that the member

referenced is to simply say that in some cases, the chief executive

assessment officer may determine that some information must be

displayed. There’s a certain time frame in which it’s most

relevant.

What guides the duties of the chief executive assessment officer

here are two things. One is in

section 2(b)(i)(B), which is the purpose

of the office. It guides the legislation. The purpose of the office is

to facilitate “meaningful public participation throughout assessments.”

Obviously, meaningful public participation cannot be facilitated without

information.

Again, in sub 40(1), it says: “For the purpose of facilitating

public access to information, data and records….” So those are the two

purposes that guide the actions of the chief executive assessment

officer and, again, are testable.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 to 46 inclusive approved.

section 47.

S. Furstenau: This is the

section “Assessment costs may be recovered.” Does the

minister have a sense of an expected cost range? Would proponents know

what to expect in terms of costs? How does this compare to the existing

Environmental Assessment Act?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently the average cost for an environmental assessment is

about $150,000. Cost recovery currently is typically around 10 percent

of that. We can’t say at this point what we will end up with. We need

some experience with the act to determine what costs will be. We also

need to consult to determine a fair formula for proponents to help guide

what we will ultimately apply. But the intent is certainly to recover

costs.

Section 47 approved.

section 48.

P. Milobar: On 48, given that there are some new timelines set out and there’s

the front-end work being done in terms of the project description — and

some of those works, my understanding is, especially in relation to

Indigenous nations, trying to get a bit more of the cultural heritage

and feel for an area at the front end — would those types of works and

timelines be part of participation costs? Or is it only after the

proponents got into the actual system?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s only when the process is in the system, because this

section

only pertains to an assessment.

P. Milobar: So was there not thought given to the front-end side? Again, when

I think back to my own community’s situation, it was several years in,

at great expense, where a lot of that work with the area First Nations

was flushed out. The proponent, in that case, was helping front some of

those costs.

For a lot of First Nations, that type of work, if they’re expected

to come up to their own determination on the front end, could be very

cost-prohibitive from them actually truly participating in a meaningful

way. It then creates the situation of frustration, potentially, for that

Indigenous nation, where they have to, after the assessment’s started,

then raise these same concerns that they could’ve raised on the front

end, which was supposed to be trying to save time and aggravation, but

they weren’t able to afford to do those types of works. Why was that not

considered as part of this?

Hon. G. Heyman: We recognize that there will be additional costs and burdens on

Indigenous nations to participate in this work. We are ultimately

looking at funding assistance throughout the entire process. We’re still

working on the mechanisms to do that, but we don’t expect that

assistance will not be given.

In terms of the funding for that, I addressed that earlier.

Currently some of it comes from government. The large majority of it

comes from government. We are trying to look at a fair system that

doesn’t place unfair burdens, certainly, on Indigenous participation or

on proponents but that can ultimately fund these processes going

forward.

[11:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Participation costs — I can understand that, in terms of capacity

within First Nations, Indigenous nations, to be able to fully

participate in a meaningful way. Again, I think of my Kamloops

experience with a mine application. That’s a natural resource mining

project on the outskirts of a large setting — although under PR, we’re

not sure if it’s urban or rural yet, but that’s another

story.

However, there wouldn’t be many communities, I think it’s fair to

say, that would be surrounding natural resource projects of a larger

scale, that would actually have the resources that a city the size of

Kamloops would actually have. They’d all be smaller centres — smaller

towns and villages and the like.

Why was there no mention of participation costs being covered off

for those same communities, like an Indigenous nation? They’re going to

be rural. They’re going to be remote. They’re going to have a hard time

paying to participate in a meaningful way. Yet they’re mentioned, as

being referenced in here, as being allowed to participate under this new

process if they so feel they’re impacted. But they seem to be expected

to pick up the full cost of those exact same participation costs that an

Indigenous nation would not be.

Hon. G. Heyman: Our intentions paper sets out that a program for public

participant funding is planned, with details subject to further

engagement. In addition, there is expressed provision in the act for the

costs of participation on community advisory committees, which would

include, as I’ve mentioned, both local citizens, potentially, and local

government officials to have costs covered.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 45; S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

Sections 43 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 54.

T. Redies: This relates to tax credits for residents of British Columbia. Can

unused portions of this tax credit for British Columbians be carried

forward, and why?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. No, they cannot be carried

forward.

T. Redies: Can the tax credit for other Canadians be carried

forward?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it can.

[11:05 a.m.]

T. Redies: Can the minister explain why there is a discrepancy? Given that

discrepancy in carrying forward credits, doesn’t this leave British

Columbians more exposed to the tax from appreciation in property value

than out-of-province taxpayers who have B.C. income?

Hon. C. James: I think the best way to describe the difference, really, is that

it’s two completely different models. One is based on the credit, which

is the $2,000 credit on the first $400,000 of value. For foreign owners

and satellite families, it’s based on income. The credit they get is

based on income. So two very different approaches.

For the foreign owners and satellite families — and I know the

member will have seen it in the sections — it’s capped so that foreign

owners and satellite families can’t ever be better off than British

Columbians. That’s taken care of in the model of the credit that comes

based on income.

T. Redies: How many British Columbians are expected to claim this tax

credit?

To add a question to try and make this more efficient, this

provision also effectively exempts second homes under $400,000. However,

aren’t these the types of homes, affordable homes, that the minister

would want to be made available through this tax?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: The straightforward answer is that every B.C. resident who is

subject to the tax would get the credit. It will be there for them.

Again, it goes on the first $400,000. Every resident would be eligible

for the credit.

A. Weaver: Just a quick question. I would like to, in the

preamble to the

question, say that on the previous sections I did not ask any questions

to speed this process up. I’m assuming that the minister, in her

response, will be open to me providing specific examples to get some

sense as to whether or not these general areas are included in the

intention of the network, similar to what I was doing in earlier

questioning.

The question I have on this section. Let us suppose — and I

checked on realtor.ca, and in fact these are real cases that can exist —

that there is a person who owns a $300,000 one-bedroom condo in Burnaby.

There is precisely one for sale under $300,000. They also own a vacant

one-bedroom home in Victoria for $200,000. Yes, indeed, you can get a

$200,000 one-bedroom in Victoria. So the total cost is $500,000 for

these two condos owned by an individual who may live in Quadra Island,

say, and they have two because they work in different areas.

May I assume that the tax credit, the $400,000, would apply to the

collective of the two properties, rather than only having to be applied

to one’s individual property?

Hon. C. James: That is correct.

T. Redies: I don’t think the minister answered my second question, so I’m

going to pose it again. The provision effectively exempts second homes

under $400,000. However, we presume, with the policy direction of this

government, that these are the types of affordable homes that the

minister would want to be made available through this tax. So is there

not a contradiction in practice and policy here?

Hon. C. James: I think the principle of fairness throughout this has been

applied, as the member knows, whether it comes to the exemptions or

vacation homes or looking at ensuring that 99 percent of British

Columbians are not impacted by the speculation tax. That’s part of why

we looked at the $400 thousand — again, an issue of fairness.

T. Redies: In terms of the function of this tax credit, does it write off all

or part of the balance owed by an affected B.C. resident, or does it

come as a rebate after they’ve paid their initial speculation tax

amount?

Hon. C. James: Again, I think it’s important to recognize that this isn’t income

tax. When someone does their self-declaration, that amount would be

automatically credited off the amount owing, and they would get a tax

bill based on that.

T. Redies: The minister initially said that there were 20,000 B.C. residents

who would be affected by this tax. Can she confirm that tax revenues

would therefore be down $40 million as a result of the

credit?

Hon. C. James: It’s already net. The revenue is already net of the

credit.

Section 54 approved.

section 55.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I move the amendment to

section 55 standing in my name on the

order paper.

SECTION 55, by adding the following

subsection:

(2.1) If an eligible taxpayer is, for a calendar year, an owner

of a residential property who is subject to a rate of tax under

section

16 [lowest tax rate – specified Canadian citizens and specified

permanent residents of Canada] ,

(a) subsection (2) (

b) of this

section does not apply for the

purposes of determining the eligible taxpayer’s maximum tax credit in

respect of the residential property, and

(

b) the eligible taxpayer’s maximum tax credit in respect of the

residential property is nil if subsection (2) (

a) does not apply to the

eligible taxpayer.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: This amendment is necessary as a consequential amendment to the

lowering of the rate for Canadians to 0.5 percent. That amendment was

done earlier and has, indeed, passed. It’s used to create a maximum tax

credit for Canadians who are not residents of B.C. But this formula only

makes sense if they are paying a higher rate. The amendment clarifies

that the formula does not apply to Canadians. This amendment is required

now that they are fully paying the same rate as British

Columbians.

Indeed, I will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 55 as amended approved.

Sections 56 to 66 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall sections 67 to 127 pass?

A. Weaver: If I might ask for just a second that I might look through those.

There are a lot of sections. Rather than say yea or nay, if you’d bear

with me for a second.

The Chair: We’ll just take a moment here. Members, I’ll just slowly work

through each

section until I get indicated by the member.

Sections 67 to 127 inclusive approved.

section 128.

A. Weaver: I believe that in this section, government should be introducing

an amendment.

The Chair: Minister on

section 128 with an amendment.

Hon. C. James: It’s an amendment for a new

section after

Section 128 approved.

Hon. C. James: Thank you, Chair, for indulging us.

I’d like to move an amendment, again on the order paper, to add a

new section, 128.1, standing in my name on the order paper. This

section

would read:

SECTION 128.1, by adding

section 128.1 to

Part 8:

Administrator to keep information for each regional

district

128.1 For the purposes of

section 9.7 (4.1)

[Housing Priority Initiatives special account] of the

Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act , the

administrator must keep the information the administrator considers

necessary to advise the minister of the total of the amounts received by

the government under this Act, in each fiscal year of the government, in

respect of each regional district that includes a specified

area.]

This relates to — I know we’ve had this discussion — the housing

dollars being spent in the regions that the tax is coming

from.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: Again, just to rise and speak in favour of this, this amendment is

actually consequential to an amendment that will be tabled later and

that has been standing in the minister’s name on the order paper. It

will require that revenues collected through the tax be spent locally in

the area that they were collected from, and it requires the

administrator to maintain information related to the actual amounts

collected in the area. This is connected to and enables the paying of

these amounts that are proportional to the amounts collected in the area

to the area that they were collected from.

T. Redies: I’d like to ask a clarifying question on the

section if I can. The

money that is going to be spent in the municipalities — is that

incremental to any other money that is going to be spent on affordable

housing in those municipalities it was already planned for?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the important point here is it doesn’t go into

consolidated revenue. It goes into the special housing account and will

be accounted for in those regions. The dollars will be accounted for in

those regions.

T. Redies: Just a clarifying question again. When I asked about it being

incremental, is it incremental to existing payments that the government

is making, for example, under the SAFER program — any amounts of money

that are actually being directed towards supporting those on low income

today? Also, will it be incremental to any already announced rental

projects that are designated as affordable housing at this point in

time?

Hon. C. James: Programs such as SAFER, etc., come out of consolidated revenue.

They don’t come out of the special housing fund. The housing fund is for

housing. So that money will go into the housing fund and be used for

housing. We wouldn’t be counting it towards those other programs that

the member mentioned.

Amendment approved.

Section 128.1 approved.

Sections 129 to 137 inclusive approved.

section 138.

Hon. C. James: I move the amendment to

section 138 standing in my name on the

order paper:

SECTION 138 (1) (c), by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

(

c) for the purposes of paragraph (

m) of the definition of

“specified area” in

section 1, prescribing an area as being

excluded from being a specified area referred to in

paragraphs (

a) to (

j) of that definition;]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I’ll just be very quick. This amendment is connected to the

amendment in

section 1. It clarifies that the minister may prescribe,

through regulation, an entire area, not only part of an area, that is

now in the tax to be exempt from the tax. As currently worded, it’s

unclear whether an area can be exempted or only part of an area. This

amendment removes any ambiguity on this point.

As I said before, clarity of this piece is important. It’s part of

the purpose of the annual consultation with mayors. It’s for them to be

able to make a case to have their area excluded if they feel it’s in

their community’s best interest. This amendment makes it clear that in

response to a mayor’s concern or another circumstance, the minister is

able to remove an entire area from the tax. So it’s an important

clarification.

S. Bond: I can assure you what would have provided more clarity was if we’d

actually had the opportunity for communities to opt out. This does not

provide clarity. What it provides is a wishful thinking opportunity.

They’re going to have a meeting. They’re going to go and talk to the

Minister of Finance. I’m sure that somehow the Leader of the Third Party

will be there claiming credit for the meeting. The fact of the matter is

this doesn’t provide clarity. This provides an opportunity that maybe,

somewhere down the road, they might actually get the chance to opt

out.

We’re going to vote against this amendment because, as we’ve said

from the beginning, four days ago…. Municipalities want an opt-out

clause. They don’t want to know whether they’re in a region or out of a

region and have a meeting. They want the ability to opt out. So we’re

going to vote strenuously against this amendment.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll be speaking in support of the amendment. I think it’s

important to note that, as we’ve gone along, we put the principles out

in February and then said we’d take the opportunity to look at the

refinement and listen to people.

I recognize that the members on the other side don’t support a

speculation tax and are against it. But we have in fact, I think, shown,

through this process, the listening opportunities that were there, the

changes that have been made, the introduction of the exemptions and the

changes that have been made with the Third Party as well.

I think we have, in fact, shown the discussions that have occurred

with the development community and that those discussions have brought

forward reasonable approaches to bringing forward this tax. That will

continue, and I look forward to the opportunity to meet with the mayors

in a formal sense but also any time during the year when they feel that

there are issues they wish to bring forward.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 138 as amended approved on division.

Section 139 approved.

Hon. C. James: I table an amendment. I make the amendment to

section 139.1 — so

we’re adding an additional

section — standing in my name on the order

paper. As we talked about with the amendment earlier, this speaks to a

meeting with the mayors.

SECTION 139.1, by adding

section 139.1 to

Part

11:

Annual consultation with mayors

139.1

(1) On or before December 31, 2019, and

once every year after that, the minister must conduct a consultation

with the mayors referred to in subsection (2) about the

following:

(

a) the tax;

(

b) the definition of “specified area” in

section

(

c) the factors referred to in

section 139 (2) (a).

(2) The minister must invite, to participate in a consultation

referred to in subsection (1), all of the mayors of municipalities that

are, in whole or in part, specified areas.

(3) The minister must report to the Executive Council in respect

of each consultation conducted under subsection (1).

(4) A review under

section 139, including recommended amendments

under that section, must take into account the results of a consultation

conducted under subsection (1) of this section.]

As I said earlier, I look forward to this formal meeting where the

mayors have the opportunity, as they’ve done, to come meet with me other

than that. But this will be a very formal process with the reporting

out.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in support.

Very briefly, this amendment requires the mayors from affected

municipalities to be consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on

how the tax is affecting their communities. This annual review of the

tax with mayors will give communities a clear channel to making a case

based on evidence for how the tax should apply to their communities and

whether they should be excluded. The minister will also be required to

report the results of the annual review to cabinet to make a decision on

whether the tax should continue to be applied in each area.

While I would have preferred for local governments to have the

ability to opt out automatically, this is a compromise position I felt I

could support, and it gives the mayors a clear pathway for making a case

for how this tax should apply to their areas going forward.

S. Bond: No one in this room or beyond here is going to be surprised when

we are not going to support this amendment.

The Leader of the Third Party talks about it being a compromise.

It certainly is. It’s a compromise for communities in British Columbia

that thought there was going to be a proposal supported around an

opt-out or, even more strenuously, that this bill wouldn’t see the light

of day, because not only were the official opposition opposed to it; so

was the Leader of the Third Party, in a very vociferous

manner.

From our perspective, this would be considered a tweak. It is not

a substantive change in what should occur. Having a meeting is hardly

comparable to having the opportunity to opt out once a resolution has

been passed. As we’ve pointed out, this is a blatantly unfair,

ill-thought-out tax that targets certain communities, seniors and others

in certain parts of British Columbia.

We’ve already seen the negative impacts of the speculation tax

with projects being put on hold. And in fact, the Leader of the Third

Party has spent most of his time reading into the record dozens of

concerns and complaints from British Columbians who have no idea what is

going to happen to them under this tax. From our perspective, that’s

simply not fair.

The way that that could have been clarified…. Every one of those

cases could have been sorted and could have been dealt with, and we

wouldn’t have had to have them one at a time. I can hardly wait for the

Finance Ministry to figure out how they’re going to deal with every

single request that has come to our desks over the last number of

months.

[11:30 a.m.]

This is a compromise. From our perspective, it’s a compromise that

the Leader of the Third Party made. It is not a compromise that is

acceptable to the mayors of the communities that are captured. It is not

acceptable to the official opposition, and we are going to vote in

opposition to it.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 139.1 approved.

The Chair: The member for Prince George–Valemount on

section

S. Bond: No, 139.1. I’m going to move an amendment to the amended

section.

I know that one of the things the Leader of the Third Party has

talked about is that this is a compromise position. This is a chance for

mayors to come in and have a conversation.

We’d like to make that mayors’ meeting…. While we oppose it,

because we would rather have an opt-out clause, I would like to move two

amendments to

section 139.1, which has already been amended. I have

copies of this to be shared.

SECTION 139.1, by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

139.1

(1) On or before

December May 31, 2019, and once every year after that,

the minister must conduct a consultation with the mayors referred to in

subsection (2) about the following:

(

a) the tax;

(

b) the definition of “specified area” in

section

(

c) the factors referred to in

section 139 (2) (a).

(2) The minister must invite, to participate in a consultation

referred to in subsection (1), all of the mayors of municipalities that

are, in whole or in part, specified areas.

(3) The minister must report to the Executive

Council Legislative Assembly in respect of each

consultation conducted under subsection (1) . , and

make public that report.

(4) A review under

section 139, including recommended amendments

under that section, must take into account the results of a consultation

conducted under subsection (1) of this section.]

We would like to change the “on or before December.” I’d like to

recommend that it be “May 31, 2019.” We’re going provide some

specificity so that we can actually see when these meetings are going to

take place. This is being done in an attempt to make this more clear and

give the impacted parties an opportunity to actually have some

confidence here. I would assume that the Leader of the Third Party who

sought this compromise might want to see it just a little stronger, but

I could be wrong.

The second amendment we’d like to recommend is in subsection (3).

Our amendment would read that the minister must report, rather than to

the executive council, because that information is then kept where

cabinet sits…. We think British Columbians should actually see those

reports, so we’d like to recommend: “The minister must report to the

Legislative Assembly in respect of each consultation conducted under

subsection (1) and make that report public.”

This does not change the intent of the meeting. What it actually

does is give it some credibility. It means there will be transparency.

It means that if this is so important to the Leader of the Third Party

as the work that he wants to claim credit for, there is a specific

target date by which these communities will have some

certainty.

Right now the impacts are mounting every single day. This gives us

a chance to ensure that these communities will have, by March 31, 2019,

their first meeting. Then, rather than actually allow just the executive

council to be aware of what happens in those meetings, we think that

making sure that there’s transparency and public reporting is absolutely

essential.

That is the amendment that I move.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Just to be clear, we should have moved the

amendment while we had 139.1 open as opposed to after the vote, but

we’ll jump back so that we can reopen 139.1 with leave, if that’s

okay, Members.

Leave granted.

section 139.1.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: Thank you. Could I just get a clarification? I think the member

said March, but the amendment says May. I’m guessing it’s

May.

S. Bond: The written amendment, I apologize, does say May 31,

A. Weaver: I really much appreciate this amendment. The problem I’m having

here is that I don’t know what the ramifications are. I say this with

respect. This is something that, at first glance, is something that,

perhaps, I could have supported. The problem I have — just thinking

right now — is that May 31 is actually before the spec tax has been

received. So I’m not sure how this is going to work in that regard. I’m

not sure we’re going to have the data to do that.

Again, the amendments have been on the order paper for two weeks.

If the member wanted the support…. I could have seen something like this

as something that I would have supported, but I just can’t now because

it’s not clear to me what the financial ramifications are. It’s not

clear to me how this would work out with the way the spec tax, which

hasn’t yet been collected, would be determined. How is this going to be

informed?

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s with regret that I say this. I would have liked to support

something along the lines of this, but I can’t in light of the way it

was brought in. So I speak against it.

S. Bond: I just would like to remind the Leader of the Third Party that

there is a legislative process underway that allows for motions to be

tabled. In fact, if they make sense, and if they’re rational and

reasonable, which this is, there is nothing stopping the Leader of the

Third Party from standing up and supporting something, for once, that

would actually make sense, that would at least go partway to honouring

the commitment that he made to British Columbians, that this tax was not

fair and that it wasn’t appropriate.

We’re not going down the path again that we did the other night,

because the Leader of the Third Party decided to hold a surprise press

conference in the Rose Garden without one word of discussion with the

opposition. We’re certainly not going to stand here today and listen to

the leader of the Green Party, who made clear promises to British

Columbians, and did not have a conversation with us at all about

that.

Now, when there is a proper legislative process which allows the

opposition to table a straightforward amendment…. The Leader of the

Third Party can try to make it look as complicated as possible. Here’s

what it says: it moves the date.

For the criticism about the date, let’s remember this is a

retroactive tax. British Columbians who face this are going to get a tax

bill for a year in which they haven’t even had a chance to claim an

exemption. I hardly think adding the date of May is a complicated

situation.

The other thing, which I’m assuming the Leader of the Third Party

would be happy about…. It’s not about having this discussion behind

closed doors. There are people for whom this means their retirement

future, their contributions to this province.

I think it is hardly a stretch to ask that there be public

reporting out of the meetings that the Leader of the Third Party thinks

are such a significant addition to this bill.

A. Weaver: I thank the member for Prince George–​Valemount for the

lecture on how this place runs. My role as the Leader of the Third Party

is to actually represent the interests of my constituents and my party.

My role in this has been to spend the last eight months to ensure that

we were to work with the government of the day — as I worked with the

member when she was minister, when we actually, together, worked on a

number of files. That is the role of an opposition.

As I say, I do not know the ramifications of May 31. I like to go

into the details. The minister’s staff will know from the briefings that

I am not a person who takes these things lightly. I go into the very

gory details of this and ask questions to make myself

comfortable.

You know, I have some sympathy for this motion. I do not know the

ramifications of May 31. I don’t think that the money has come in from

the spec tax. I don’t know. I would like to discuss, I’d like to hear

the minister’s response to this. I do not see myself able to support it,

despite the words from the member.

Hon. C. James: Speaking to the amendment, the challenge with the date of the

amendment is the challenge of having the information to be able to have

the kind of discussion that the mayors have requested. They’ve requested

opportunities to be able to gather data, to be able to pull their

information together to know how many people in their communities are

paying the speculation tax, to know the impact of that. People will not

pay the tax until July. We will not have that data to be able to take a

look at. We will not have had the opportunity to go through the audits

to have that information as well.

I certainly believe that these meetings will be productive, and

I’m looking forward to them, but you need to make sure that the

information is there and that you have access to the information. To not

have that information doesn’t seem to be a good use of the opportunity

to get together.

Again, as I’ve said all along in the days of this debate, I am

more than happy to meet with the mayors of the communities any time. But

to have a formal meeting, I believe that it makes sense and it’s

respectful to bring all of the information and all of the facts to the

table around how many people have had audits, around what the tax looks

like, around how many people are paying. We won’t have that information

until after July.

S. Bond: I’d like to ask for procedural clarity, and we may need to bring

this back later. There seems to be arguments around the date.

[11:40 a.m.]

If the Clerk could provide us with some advice. How would we go

about splitting the amendment into two parts?

The Chair: Thank you for the question, Member.

After consultation, if there’s unanimous consent, the

amendment could be withdrawn, and then the member could reintroduce

the amendment in two parts — in two amendments, splitting the

amendment in two.

Does the member wish to seek to withdraw the

amendment?

S. Bond: I’ll withdraw the amendments.

Leave granted.

The Chair: So the amendment to the amendment has been withdrawn. Now if

the member would like to move the amendments in two

parts.

S. Bond: I would, first of all, like to move, then, that

section 139.1(1)

be amended to include a meeting on or before May 31, 2019.

The Chair: Members have heard the proposed amendment to the amendment.

There’s been a request, as it’s not in written form in front of us,

for the member to read it again, and then I’ll take further

questions, if that’s okay.

S. Bond: All right. I move just the first half of what was written on the

paper. The first amendment is in 139.1(1).

SECTION 139.1, by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

139.1

(1) On or before

December May 31, 2019, and once every year

after that, the minister must conduct a consultation with the mayors

referred to in subsection (2) about the following:

(

a) the tax;

(

b) the definition of “specified area” in

section

(

c) the factors referred to in

section 139 (2)

(a).]

Subsection (1) would remain intact following the date

change.

On the amendment.

T. Redies: I just want to speak in support of this amendment. I’m troubled by

what the minister indicated — that they wouldn’t have the full

information by May 31. May 31 is after the tax notices have been mailed,

obviously, but before the taxes are due. But the reality is that the

declarations have to have been made by March 31, so the government

should have the information it needs to have an informative meeting with

the mayors and the municipalities as of May 31. As far as I’m concerned,

the May 31 date and that being a problem is a red herring, and I support

the amendment.

The Chair: Shall the proposed amendment to the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

S. Bond: Thank you to the Chair and to the Clerk for helping us work our

way through this. That’s actually how legislative processes take place.

We actually get to work on the floor of the chamber to sort out

amendments that make sense.

Let’s try the second amendment. This will be to

section 139.1(3).

The current language in the bill says that the minister must report to

the executive council. For those people who may not know what that

translates to, it is cabinet. We actually believe that considering the

interest in this tax, in this piece of legislation, British Columbians

actually need to be able to be aware of what happened. Mayors need to be

able to go back to their communities and say: “Here’s what we talked

about. Here’s what the minister said. Here’s the report.”

I move that the new language in subsection (3) be:

SECTION 139.1, by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

139.1

(2) The minister must invite, to

participate in a consultation referred to in subsection (1), all of the

mayors of municipalities that are, in whole or in part, specified

areas.

(3) The minister must report to the Executive

Council Legislative Assembly in respect of each

consultation conducted under subsection (1) . , and

make public that report.

(4) A review under

section 139, including recommended amendments

under that section, must take into account the results of a consultation

conducted under subsection (1) of this section.]

On the amendment.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: While I certainly feel quite comfortable that the report would go

public, that that would be public, I haven’t had leg. counsel make sure

that this is drafted in a way that fits with the legislation. That’s

critical. Obviously, we can’t move forward with an amendment unless we

know that it fits within the leg. counsel direction for the bill and

that it fits within the section.

I can certainly do a consultation. But again, from my perspective,

I have no problem with the report going public, but I can’t support the

amendment without that feedback being given.

The Chair: Just so members are cognizant, we are at quarter to, and under

the orders, I’m supposed to call this committee into

recess.

A. Weaver: May I ask that we stand down if we’re going to proceed on this

section, to give the minister some time to actually consult with

legislative drafters? I think the amendment is reasonable, but I would

like to get some advice from the legislative drafters, as it’s something

that we need to really hear from.

The Chair: Are the members willing to give leave for it to be stood down

at this stage for further consultation?

S. Bond: Considering the time, that’s probably a worthwhile opportunity to

take advantage of. But we want to be very clear: we want to see this in

the legislation.

We will also go back and look at the drafted language. It’s not

enough…. I very much appreciate the minister’s comments that very likely

it will go public.

We want to go back and be able to have my colleagues tell their

mayors and their constituencies that there will be a public reporting

out and that it is required. So our preference is to see it included in

the legislation.

Hon. C. James: Noting the hour, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada