Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 300

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Godfrey Gao

Hon. K. Chen

Introductions by Members

Statements

Test of emergency broadcast system

Hon. M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kelly Ping Dong

Hon. L. Popham

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Addiction and mental health awareness and stigma reduction

J. Routledge

Firefighter training exercise for elected officials

T. Stone

Craig Kulyk

B. Ma

Roz Thorn

S. Bond

Accomplishments of teachers and students in Nanaimo

S. Malcolmson

Sea to Sky Soils and composting system

J. Sturdy

Oral Questions

Child care spaces

A. Wilkinson

Hon. K. Chen

L. Throness

Government action on climate change and economic plan

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. J. Horgan

Rural dividend fund and support for communities

S. Bond

Hon. D. Donaldson

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Budget 2019, second quarterly report

Statement of 2018-19 borrowings

Reports from Committees

Merit Commissioner Appointment Committee, report,

November 2019

D. Routley

D. Davies

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Merit Commissioner

D. Routley

Petitions

Hon. J. Horgan

E. Ross

S. Cadieux

D. Ashton

L. Throness

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

J. Thornthwaite

D. Davies

S. Cadieux

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 45 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 42 — Fuel Price Transparency Act

Hon. B. Ralston

J. Sturdy

P. Milobar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 42 — Fuel Price Transparency Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Fuel Price Transparency Act

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

GODFREY GAO

Hon. K. Chen: I have a sad story, sad news, to share today. A very well-known

Taiwanese-Canadian actor and model, Godfrey Gao, passed away suddenly

yesterday while he was filming a reality show on set in China, at the

age of 35. Godfrey was raised in North Vancouver and went to Capilano

College before he moved back to Taiwan to pursue his career. He also

appeared in Hollywood films in recent years.

My husband has been friends with Godfrey’s brother Charles since

they were young. He is also an actor in Taiwan.

Joined by the MLA from North Vancouver, we would like to send our

condolences to the Gao family. We’re very, very sorry for their loss,

and it’s really a loss for our community.

Introductions by Members

R. Coleman: Visiting us in the gallery today are a number of students from Langley

Christian elementary school. With their teacher, Mr. Tim VanHemert, they

will be cycling through the chamber throughout the afternoon.

I’ve been invited to speak to the class in early December about my

duties as an MLA. I will be asking them their observations of the behaviour

of the people in the Legislature at the same time, to get their feedback. So

today you need to be on your best behaviour.

S. Thomson: Joining us in the gallery today will be representatives of the

destination marketing organizations. These are the regional tourism

associations — the Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association, the Northern B.C.

Tourism Association, the Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association, the Tourism

Association of Vancouver Island and the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism

Association.

They’re here operating as the Regional Tourism Secretariat, the chairs

and the executive directors of the associations. We had a chance to meet

with them this morning and hear about the great work they’re doing in the

tourism sector, building awareness and the brand for British Columbia all

across the province in a sector that raises over $18 billion in activity,

138,000 employees and 19,000 small businesses.

On behalf of the House, welcome, the representatives from these

associations here today.

A. Kang: I have a few friends from Burnaby–Deer Lake who are here with me

today. My very good friend and my sister Yuko Abeyama — she has a senior

care called Nikoniko. They primarily focus on senior brain health through

exercise, math and reading. With her are Takeshi Tamura, Kazuyo Imaizumi and

Akiko Sakurada. Please make my friends feel very welcome to the

House.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have two special guests here who are in the House today. My

son Aaron Robinson and his partner, Kyle Demes, are here. I’m very proud of

many of my accomplishments, but I’m proud of nothing more than having raised

a fine young man — and a lovely daughter who lives in Israel. I’m really

thrilled to have my son and his partner here joining us today in the House.

Can everyone please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Over the past several years, I’ve watched as many members of the House

introduced close friends, members of their family, and I have yet to do that

until today. Joining us in the gallery today is my former partner and very

close friend Joanne Fox.

Jo remains very active in the community, is known to many of my

colleagues here. Her activities range from helping to settle Syrian

refugees, including furnishing their new homes, to volunteering to help keep

the People’s Co-op Bookstore going to working on many political campaigns in

the Lower Mainland. I think it’s safe to say that I would have had no

success in my union movement or political election campaigns without her

advice and hard work.

Will the House join me in making Jo very, very welcome.

Statements

TEST OF EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think most members in this House will remember a time when there

were three channels when it came to television and would be familiar

with what would occasionally interrupt those three channels. “This is a

test of the emergency broadcast system. In the event of a real

emergency, you would be told what to do.”

Well, the world has changed, telecommunications have changed, and

changes at the federal level in terms of how those kinds of emergencies

are now dealt with have come into effect. Twice a year we now test

through the cell phone system how the emergency broadcast system is

working. So today at 1:55, there will be a text message sent out to cell

phones right across this province — in fact, right across the country.

That will be at 1:55. If we are in question period, I know cell phones

will be off. But this will be an opportunity to test that system, so I

just want to advise all members that that is in fact what will be taking

place.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I don’t do too many introductions, but I’m pleased today to be able to

do a few.

Of course, I, too, want to join with members in welcoming the Regional

Tourism Secretariat. Thank you to the minister for inviting so many of us to

hear from them about the important work they do across this province. I’ve

known them and worked with them for many, many, many years, and I just want

to say how important the regional destination marketing organization is to

the functioning and the growth of tourism in British Columbia.

Welcome to all my friends in the tourism world.

I also have some folks from my constituency and from across Vancouver

here, along with the member from Burnaby: Toshie Aoki; Yoko Hirate; from my

community, Shigeko Hoshino and Yutaro Oka — all travelling here with

Nikoniko Home Care. I understand they successfully took the bus and SkyTrain

and took the ferry system for free today.

I’m so glad you’re here. Welcome, welcome. That wasn’t always

possible.

I also want to, finally, welcome two friends, family of mine. They’re

currently living in Alberta, but they see how much better it is in British

Columbia, so they’re looking to move here. Please make Margaret and Rob

welcome to, hopefully soon, their Legislature.

R. Chouhan: I continue with the introduction of our wonderful people from our

Japanese community. As the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake said, they are here

joining us, learning about our legislative system here in Victoria. They are

my friends: Mari Fujita, Sachiko Ito and Kiyoko Nakai. Please join me in

giving them a very warm welcome.

Tributes

KELLY PING DONG

Hon. L. Popham: I have some sad news to deliver in the chamber today. We have lost

a member of our Ministry of Agriculture family. Kelly Ping Dong passed

away on October 4 after a short but brave battle with cancer.

[1:45 p.m.]

He is survived by Lenny, his wife of 24 years, and his two

children, Kyle and Larina. Kelly lived with his family in North Saanich.

They are here with us today in the chamber.

Kelly had an almost 30-year career serving the public as a

government employee. After graduating from UBC with a commerce degree

and a certified management accounting designation, Kelly joined the

federal government as an auditor in Ottawa. Later, he moved back to

British Columbia and joined the provincial government, working in

various ministries, including the Ministries of Health and Education

and, finally, the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition to his job as a

government financial analyst, Kelly taught night courses at Camosun

College.

Kelly was a hard-working man who was generous with his time and

his positive energy. Family, friends and colleagues remember his smile

and his humour as well as his willingness to go out of his way to help

people. Kelly was always quick to share a laugh and to lend a hand to

anyone in need. His passing is a great loss. I know that his co-workers

and friends at the Ministry of Agriculture miss him very

much.

We thank him for his service to the citizens of Canada and British

Columbia, and we express our deepest condolences to Lenny, Kyle, Larina

and the rest of Kelly’s family and friends.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mungall: I have two guests today, John Pumphrey and Bill Arling. They’re with

North Coal. North Coal is working to develop the Michel Coal Project in the

East Kootenays. They have been a wonderful company to work with for those of

us in the Kootenays. I ask the House to please make them very

welcome.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce a few people I bumped into a long

time ago, as far back as 1978. It was a real surprise when I walked into a

meeting today to see both of them in there.

One of them, of course, is Pat Brady. He is the past president of the

BCTF and chair of our AGMs and our RAs, rep assemblies, extraordinaire. Pat

and I didn’t always agree on a lot of the way things should proceed within

the teaching profession, but I do know that we always had a great deal of

respect and listened to each other.

Sheila Pither is an amazing, amazing professional. I first took a

workshop from her in 1970, a long, long time ago. It delighted me today

that, now retired and working with COSCO, she is still designing workshops

and giving them, and thousands of people are benefiting.

Accompanying Sheila, of course, was her son Steven Pither. They were

also accompanied by the president of COSCO, Gudrun Langol. Please join me in

welcoming them and welcoming part of my history into this House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Langley East, I think your class is here now if you wish to

re-introduce them. I liked your reminder that we should be on our best

behaviour for the class. They’re up behind you.

R. Coleman: I could probably do that, seeing as Langley Christian elementary

school students are in the gallery now. I introduced you a few minutes ago,

and I did mention that I’ve been invited to visit the classes in December. I

will be talking about my role as an MLA, and I will be asking you about your

observations of the behaviour and the interaction of this assembly. I’ve

told my colleagues to be on their best behaviour today, and you can tell me

how they did when I talk to you in December.

B. Ma: I’d like to join my colleagues in welcoming the seniors from Nikoniko

Home Care, who have come over with their seniors health care instructors to

learn about the processes here at the B.C. Legislature and learn about the

work that MLAs are doing. In particular, I’d like to introduce Momoko Wada,

Sumiko Hui, Yoko Hayashi, Minako Brooks and Kimi Poole, who is from North

Vancouver. Would the House please join me in making them very

welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the incredible work of

the Coast Mountain Bus Co. and Unifor bargaining teams last night. They

bargained all through the day and into the night in order to strike a deal,

and hundreds of thousands of people in Metro Vancouver are able to use the

incredible public transit system that we all support today because of their

hard work. I’d like to thank the Minister of Labour, as well, for his good

judgment in helping this collective bargaining agreement take

place.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH

AWARENESS AND STIGMA

REDUCTION

J. Routledge: It’s National Addictions Awareness Week, and the theme this year

is “Stigma Ends with Me.” It’s estimated that one in ten Canadians

experiences the challenge of substance abuse, and more than half of them

are too ashamed to ask for help. Stigma is insidious. It creates a trap

of isolation.

Our government is leading the way to reduce stigma and to

encourage more open, honest conversations about addiction. When Premier

Horgan created the first and only Ministry of Mental Health and

Addictions in Canada, he was sending a strong message. Mental health and

addictions are challenges, not weaknesses. They are health conditions,

not moral failures.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is bringing addiction

and mental health out of the shadows and into the light: by spearheading

cross-government and cross-sector actions to address the fentanyl

poisoning crisis, by filling the gaps in our mental health and

addictions care, by embedding early intervention and prevention supports

in our schools, by funding more Foundry youth centres and by expanding

access to mental health counselling, because access to care should not

depend on the size of your bank account.

Together we can get to the place where people aren’t afraid to ask

for help, and it’s easier to find that help where and when they need it.

I implore every British Columbian to be part of the solution, to

remember that behind every statistic, every news story, there is a human

being; that we are not, nor should we be, defined by our health

conditions; that by using people-first language and challenging

stereotypes about addiction, we are throwing a lifeline to those who

might be struggling in silence, whether we know it or not.

Because stigma ends with me and with you and with all of

us.

FIREFIGHTER TRAINING EXERCISE

FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS

T. Stone: Last September, while at the UBCM Convention in Vancouver, I got a

chance to feel the heat by taking

part in Fire Ops 101. This is a day to

give elected officials a chance to better understand the challenges and

realities that face the men and women who, as firefighters, put

themselves in danger every day to keep the rest of us safe. In

controlled training exercises, we donned full gear, including a

breathing apparatus, and we entered a burning building, extinguished a

car fire, used the Jaws of Life and learned life-saving emergency,

medical and fire survival techniques.

Now, this experience was especially touching for me, considering

that my dad was a Vancouver firefighter while I was growing up in Port

Coquitlam as a kid. My dad was badge No. 5019. He worked out of several

Vancouver fire halls on pumper and ladder trucks. He even had a stint on

the fire boats. As part of Fire Ops training, it was humbling to develop

a deeper appreciation for the difficulty and danger of my dad’s work and

how much, as a kid, I took for granted his coming back home to his

family after each shift ended.

I’d like to give special thanks to the Vancouver fire and rescue

for the use of their fire training facility and to Gord Ditchburn and

the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association for doing such a

spectacular job coordinating the training. And thanks to Kamloops fire

and rescue captain Kris Krutop and Kamloops firefighter Josh Booy, both

of whom kept me out of trouble, keeping a close eye on me so as to

ensure that I didn’t endanger the lives of anyone around me. That

included Kamloops city councillor Bill Sarai, who did the training with

me.

Incidentally, the Kamloops fire and rescue has a long and proud

history, serving the community and its citizens since its inception on

August 7, 1884, making it the second-oldest established fire department

in British Columbia.

Now, a personal note — I’ll end on this. I want to assure everyone

back home that Kamloops Coun. Bill Sarai and I will be sticking to our

current elected roles in service of our fellow Kamloopsians, as our

respective performances during the Fire Ops training cemented the fact

that neither of us will be hired on by the Kamloops fire and rescue any

time soon.

[1:55 p.m.]

CRAIG KULYK

B. Ma: One of my favourite sports to play is ultimate frisbee. If you

play ultimate frisbee in Metro Vancouver, you probably know about the

Vancouver Ultimate League, or VUL for short, and you probably know, or

at least have heard of, a guy named Craig Kulyk. Craig was passionate

about ultimate frisbee and particularly loved what we know in the

community as spirit of the game, which compels us to play honestly, with

dignity and — in the spirit of self-officiating at even the highest

levels — the profound need for open communication, compromise and an

appreciation for diverse views.

When an injury prevented him from getting back onto the fields, he

went on to contribute to the sport in a different way. He started

working for the VUL in October 2011 and, during that time, helped to

grow the organization into the largest frisbee league in the world and a

model for other leagues. Craig was particularly active in driving

special initiatives that improved the experience of new members and

those members from under-represented groups — women, transgender

players, the LGBTQ2+ community — and he even did some early work with

First Nations.

Craig connected, built community and supported people everywhere

he went. He barely knew me. He barely knew who I was when he went out of

his way to donate to me in the early days of my election campaign. He

also told me that he was inspired by my passion to make the world a

better place, and I was motivated by his support. Craig was just that

kind of guy. He showed up for people. So hundreds of people showed up

for him early this month, packed into the Stanley Park Pavilion to

celebrate his life.

Born in Winnipeg on January 7, 1982, Craig Peter Kulyk was 37

years old when he died by suicide on October 28. Craig is survived by

his sister, Corrine; nephew, Emmett; and his loving partner, Joel

Harnest, who leaves the following words with you today. “Craig will be

remembered for connecting and building community everywhere he went. He

was an entrepreneurial spirit and will be remembered for his generous

compassion and insatiable curiosity. As a storyteller, a listener and a

sensitive soul, a lover and never a fighter.”

Craig will be profoundly missed, but he taught all of us so much

about how to live a life with love, connection, community and humanity.

In this way, his energy will continue to live on in the lives he touched

and for generations to come.

ROZ THORN

S. Bond: She loved to dance, garden and travel, and she was a dedicated

volunteer. She had incredible friends, including a group of girlfriends

who went to school together. For decades, they would meet and travel and

spend time together. She had colleagues who admired and respected her

and a family who loved her and was proud of her.

Roz Thorn worked for the Prince George and northern B.C.

construction association. For 48 years, she worked her way to the top of

the organization, eventually becoming its CEO. She retired in 2015,

having made her mark in a typically male-dominated sector. She fought to

increase training opportunities in northern British Columbia and was a

vocal advocate for her industry, her members and her region. She loved

where we live.

Roz and her husband had a full life together until Bob passed away

from cancer in 2013. I was very fortunate to be able to call Roz my

friend, my supporter and a hard-working member of Team Bond. You can

imagine our shock when Roz received a devastating diagnosis of cancer.

Just weeks later, after a fierce battle, she passed away.

Ironically, in May of this year, Roz was a key member of our Relay

for Life team that raised money for cancer research. Next year our team

will walk in honour of Roz and the special person she was in all of our

lives.

Thank you, Roz, for your contributions to our community and

region. Thank you for being a leader and a difference-maker and for

always stepping up, no matter how challenging the task. I appreciate the

advice, the care and, yes, even the critique you regularly provided

after watching question period. We miss you every day but feel blessed

and grateful that you were a part of our lives.

[2:00 p.m.]

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF TEACHERS

AND STUDENTS IN

NANAIMO

S. Malcolmson: “Chad Jobe and Brett Hancock are two of the best teachers I’ve

met. They both have a special skill of making whoever they’re speaking

to feel like the only person on earth.” So said a student in

Nanaimo.

The Education Minister and Premier honoured their work, with

school district 68, at the Premier’s Award for Excellence in Education

last month. The enthusiasm of these teachers for each other was evident.

When Chad’s award was announced, Brett jumped on his chair in the

Lieutenant-Governor’s house.

They asked me to talk about their students’ success. In their

words, “Jake was the recipient of the Uy shqwalawun Award for

consistently demonstrating the teaching of having a good heart and a

good mind. Jake continues to have success as a key member of the Nanaimo

Junior Timbermen lacrosse team and has been good medicine to the

Learning Alternatives family.”

“Jordan was couch-surfing when she started attending Learning

Alternatives in grade 11. September of grade 12 had her living on the

streets of Nanaimo. Thankfully, she’d started to create solid

relationships with two of her educators and not only reached her goal of

graduating from high school but got a job in the hotel industry. She

stays in close contact with her teachers, now lives in Whistler and just

received a promotion.”

Thank you so much for the flexible, supportive, culturally rich

environment that these teachers provide so these inspiring students can

thrive.

SEA TO SKY SOILS

AND COMPOSTING

SYSTEM

J. Sturdy: From cradle to cradle. These words aren’t just a green economy

catchphrase. They are the mandate for Sea to Sky Soils, an organization

in Pemberton on a mission to support local food production through

“field to fork and back to field” composting.

Their composting system is leading edge, utilizing the GORE Cover

system technology. With a current capacity to process more than 25,000

tonnes of material per year, Sea to Sky Soils composts the residential

organic waste from the three North Shore municipalities, as well as

Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton, and landscape or yard debris and

commercial food waste organics from throughout the Sea to Sky. The

facility produces five varieties of high-quality soil and compost, which

are then sold back to landscapers, farmers and residents throughout the

region.

The GORE Cover system allows outdoor composting operations, which

reduces the maintenance and capital costs associated with the more

complex mechanical systems. The GORE Cover system in use in Pemberton

retains heat and moisture, reduces odours, has a bioaerosol emissions

reduction of over 99 percent, a very small energy demand of less than

one kilowatt hour per tonne and a very limited physical footprint of

three square feet per tonne.

Sea to Sky Soils is situated at the Rutherford Creek industrial

park and is located on Líl̓wat Nation

land. Ninety percent of their employees come from local area First

Nations. The company is very engaged in community-building and is a

contributor to health and agriculture projects like the Mount Currie

community garden, the Líl̓wat

agriculture program, the Southern Stl’atl’Imx wellness program and the

mental health garden in Pemberton.

Having been on site, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Sea to Sky

Soils is doing important work in bringing us closer to a truly

closed-loop waste stream.

Oral Questions

CHILD CARE SPACES

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday we learned from the Minister of State for Child Care

that the number of actually operating child care spaces to be created in

British Columbia has been missed by a country mile. The original promise

was 24,000 new child care spaces. In a speech she gave on November 15,

the minister said: “Just over 2,000 are now open to parents.” So rather

than 24,000 spaces, we have 2,000 spaces. That’s a 91 percent failure

rate.

The question goes to the Premier. Maybe he should be looking into

the ministry of child care to figure out why they’re not doing their

job.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would probably suggest that the Leader of the Official

Opposition double-check with his critic. Just two weeks ago his critic

was criticizing that we only created about 5,000 spaces, and yesterday

he said he’s criticizing that we’re creating 2,000 spaces. His number

changes all the time.

But let me put this on the record and set things straight. The

reality is that our government — we have committed to support the

creation of 22,000 spaces during our term in government. And since we

started our new spaces funding program in summer 2018 — last year — in a

little over a year we have supported the creation and have funded 10,000

spaces.

Just let me quickly remind the member opposite and the Leader of

the Opposition that his critic, when we just started our child care

plan, said we don’t need to invest in child care because we already have

universal child care at home 24-7. Their party does not believe in

investing in child care, while we are building a new system for B.C.

families.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, this child care program could be called “fun with numbers,”

because the minister keeps changing the numbers. We go from 24,000 to

22,000. She says, on November 15, that there have been 2,055 spaces

created. That’s what the briefing note says from her ministry, which

we’ll hear about shortly. That’s 140 spaces a month. At this rate, it’s

going to take 14 years to reach her 24,000, or maybe it’s 22,000,

because she’s going to pretend that funding spaces is the same as

creating spaces.

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: The point is, Mr. Premier, that your minister of Child Care is

lost in space and is very confused about the numbers and is throwing out

things that don’t make any sense. The story doesn’t add up. When are we

going to get the truth from the minister of Child Care?

Hon. K. Chen: Let me just remind the Leader of the Opposition that while it is

very encouraging to hear the member opposite talking about investing in

early learning and child care, this is what the MLA for Kamloops–South

Thompson said during the leadership race about the Leader of the

Opposition’s platform. This is what he said. And I think the leader and

the member opposite might want to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you’re out of order.

Minister, if you might take your seat for a moment,

please.

Perhaps we could try this again.

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just really want to remind the member

opposite…. This is what the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson said during

their leadership race about the Leader of the Opposition’s platform. He

said: “The ideas on housing affordability, the ideas on child care —

they are just not there.” This is what our government has been doing,

when their government, when they were in power, ignored the child care

crisis. That we have to….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Chen: Apparently, they don’t want to hear the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: Let’s take another try at this. On November 15, the Minister of

State for Child Care said to the Indo-Canadian Voice : “Just

over 2,000 new spaces are now open to parents.” But yesterday in the

House, when I used the same number, she said that “the number that

they’re throwing is incorrect.”

The minister knew that what she was saying was untrue. Will the

minister now confirm that 2,055 spaces is the right number, and will she

tell us why she contradicted her own numbers in the House? Was it an

attempt to cover up this government’s failure to create child care

spaces?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Let’s talk about the numbers. We have committed to support the

creation of 22,000 child care spaces. And let’s just remind the member

opposite that this is the fastest acceleration of the creation of spaces

in B.C. in the whole of history.

Let’s put it in perspective. During the past year, a little over a

year, we have funded and supported the creation of 10,000 spaces, and

spaces are being created throughout B.C. communities every single week.

There are spaces being opened. There are spaces being built. We’re

working with the municipalities. We’re working with Indigenous

communities. We’re working with child care providers throughout B.C.

communities.

Let’s put it in context. During their last four years in

government, they funded, in four years, about 4,000 spaces. We have

achieved and funded and supported the creation of child care spaces of

10,000 in a little over a year.

L. Throness: The minister needs to get her numbers straight. I’m going to read

from her own budget, page 22 of her main child care document. “Families

can look forward to funding for more than 24,000 new child care spaces

over the next three years.” The minister needs to get her numbers

straight.

When you look at the numbers more closely, they get even worse,

because the government promised new spaces, as I just read, not old

ones. Of the 2,055 spaces, 877 were created through the new spaces fund,

but the rest are from a start-up fund to help existing spaces become

licensed. They’re not new spaces.

So let’s get this straight. After two years, all with the help of

a large bureaucracy spending hundreds of millions of dollars, this

minister managed to create fewer than 1,000 working spaces when she

promised 24,000. Sounds like a fast ferry program to me.

How is it possible? How is it possible, even for the NDP, to do

this bad?

Interjections.

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

L. Throness: How is it possible, even for the NDP, to do this bad? Could the

minister explain the total collapse of her program?

Hon. K. Chen: I believe I’ve been setting the record straight about the number,

the creation, of spaces that we’ve been doing, and we’ve been

accelerating the creation of child care spaces.

But let’s just remind all the members in the House that families

in B.C. have really struggled with the child care crisis. Early

childhood educators have been struggling with a lack of support. So ever

since we became government, we have been putting together a

comprehensive strategy with over three dozen initiatives to bring down

child care costs for the first time in B.C.’s history.

We have been accelerating the creation of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: …spaces, and we have been supporting our early child care

educators. And currently there are over 25,000 families paying less than

$10 a day or no cost at all for child care.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE AND ECONOMIC

PLAN

A. Olsen: We’re coming to the end of a decade, and when we return back to

this House, it will be 2020. It’s with this context that as we turn the

corner, I believe we need to be more deliberate in how we tackle the

wicked problem of our generation, climate change. CleanBC is a good

start, one that we celebrate together. However, to reach our targets,

government is going to have to challenge business as usual and

recalibrate our trajectory.

There is lots of talk about the new economy, but when we look

around, we are still harvesting natural resources at unsustainable

levels, still justifying logging old growth and still subsidizing

multinational fossil fuel companies with taxpayers’ money. It’s not only

about having the vision of a more prosperous, sustainable and resilient

economy; it’s about having a plan and the political will to bring all

the stakeholders to the table — the people, the invested industries and

advocacy organizations — to have an honest conversation about where

we’re at and where we need to go.

[2:15 p.m.]

To the hon. Premier: we’ve seen a very similar approach to

engaging industry as we’ve seen with the last government. We react to

threats and limit our ambition. Why are we still lowering the bar for

industries that are trying to protect the profits they extract through

maintaining the status quo?

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

As the member knows, we have one of the most, if not the most,

ambitious climate change emission reduction strategies in North America

that we have coupled with an ambitious economic plan to reduce emissions

in our traditional resource industries and to promote technological

innovations to reduce emissions further and market products.

I respectfully disagree with the member that we react to

complaints from any one sector. We, in fact, consult broadly. In the

Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act amendments that we passed a

couple of weeks ago, we have set up and will be establishing a council

that is broadly based of all British Columbia society, including labour,

academia, local governments, Indigenous people, business, environmental

organizations and people who live out of the mainly populated areas of

southern Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland.

We are intent on continuing our leadership in North America, but

we know that you cannot have a climate plan that captures the

imagination of British Columbians if we’re shedding jobs or hurting the

economy. We need to couple climate action with diversified economic

growth and protecting jobs in communities around B.C. That’s exactly

what we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s exactly where I’m

going with this supplemental question, because having a steady hand

managing the status quo is not good enough anymore.

We can see clearer than ever that ours is a province and an

economy that is in transition. While we boast about a strong economy, we

can see the underlying signs of trouble. The province is experiencing a

deep affordability crisis in urban British Columbia and a dramatic need

for restoration in our resource communities.

People are looking to the provincial government for a

sophisticated response to complex challenges that we face. An

affordability crisis in housing; labour unrest; rural and remote

resource economies in collapse; health care and public education budgets

bursting; and climate change are largely problems that have been

inherited or, in some cases, covered up by the previous government. But

that doesn’t change the fact that more of the same will only get us more

of the same.

My question is to the hon. Premier. Does the Premier agree that we

must take steps now to become less reliant on exploiting non-renewable

resources and receiving resource rents and instead focus our energies on

innovation and building new economic sectors for the province and the

people?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the member from the Third Party,

although I don’t have as gloomy an outlook as he does and I don’t think

British Columbians do. There are over 100,000 people working in the

innovative sector today and more to come.

You mentioned labour strife. I don’t know if you read the paper

this morning, but free, collective bargaining has allowed the transit

situation to be resolved. If we had listened to the people on the other

side, well, that might not have happened. The best deal, as we all know,

is a deal that’s reached collectively, cooperatively between the two

parties. When I see union leaders coming out and saying, “We got a good

deal for our members,” and I see the employer coming out and saying: “I

got a good deal for the bottom line,” that’s a benefit to

everyone.

Now, I appreciate that the member for Saanich North and the

Islands wants to have a more gloomy view as we leave this place, but I’d

like to think that we’ve done extraordinary things here. Working in

cooperation with the Green Party…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …and all members of this House, we passed the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples in this Legislature.

I appreciate that the member from Saanich North and the Gulf

Islands would prefer that we eradicate the challenges of climate change

in less than 12 months, but five million souls in British Columbia doing

the best they can and leading North America is what we’ve been doing. I

know you agree with that statement, hon. Member.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have an innovative economy. We have a dynamic community, and we

have hope and optimism for a very, very bright future for British

Columbians.

RURAL DIVIDEND FUND

AND SUPPORT FOR

COMMUNITIES

S. Bond: When the Forests Minister made the decision to raid the rural

dividend fund, he didn’t have the courage to look communities in the eye

and be honest with them. It came as a complete surprise and shock. In

fact, Lumby mayor Kevin Acton said: “This has been a devastating blow to

our community.” The minister claims that the program is only temporarily

suspended, but frankly, no one believes him.

Will the Minister of Forests stand up today and explain to

devastated communities exactly why he cancelled this critically

important program?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, our thoughts and sympathies and most of our attention

is towards the workers impacted by the downturn in the forest sector and

the forest economy throughout the entire province, the Interior and the

coast.

When we looked at the seriousness of the situation, we considered

the feedback from our community transition teams, who enter communities

where curtailments and mill closures have happened. We then decided a

$69 million Interior forest worker support program was needed. We

reprioritized funding from…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …within various ministries, including the rural dividend fund,

which we temporarily suspended.

We understand the work that communities have taken to put these

applications in. We’re holding onto those applications for future

funding cycles. This is supported by members of communities across the

province because people in the Interior, people in rural communities,

lend a helping hand to each other when times are tough.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: The minister knows full well that it is not widely supported. He

knows that is actually less than accurate, his last comment. Not only

that. That’s not the only feedback that this minister received. Maybe I

can give him a bit of help with a little more accurate description of

why he abruptly cancelled the rural dividend fund.

I have a copy of an email written by the minister’s senior

ministerial assistant, Tim Renneberg. This is what was said. Let’s talk

about feedback, Minister. This is what was said. “The $25 million annual

rural economic dividend, which was always just a slush fund….” Rural

communities across British Columbia were devastated with the

government’s decision to end the fund. Now we know why. We know the real

reason why. It was considered a slush fund. That is absolutely

shameful.

Will the minister stand up today, after hearing the words of his

senior ministerial assistant — feedback, as he would describe it — look

rural communities in the eye and apologize for that outrageous

characterization of this incredibly important fund?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. The previous government might have considered this rural

dividend a slush fund, but we do not. We repurposed the rural dividend

funding for this fiscal year. We’ve held on to the applications. We

repurposed it into support for Interior forest workers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll quote from Mayor Joan Atkinson, the mayor of Mackenzie, who

said: “I recognize that the government recognizes the communities that

are really challenged with these forestry curtailments, and I’m so

grateful that my community will receive some of this funding.” That’s

the kind of feedback we’re getting.

[2:25 p.m.]

Let’s look at why we had to repurpose this funding for this fiscal

year. Why did we have to create a $69 million Interior forest worker

support program? It’s because those members on the other side in the

previous government ignored what was coming down the pipe. They had a

consultant’s report in 2015 that the mountain pine beetle wood was going

to result in up to 13 mill curtailments, and they did nothing to help

communities prepare.

T. Stone: These words, “just a slush fund,” were not uttered by anyone on

this side of the House. They were uttered by a senior ministerial

assistant in the minister’s office.

We’re talking about the rural dividend fund here. There are 300

applications that have been revoked. There are 25,000 people that are

counting on the investments that flow into their communities with these

funds. Not only does the minister not have the decency to stand in this

House and apologize for those remarks; he tries to turn them around and

politicize them back at us. That’s reprehensible.

Now, this is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

T. Stone: Premier Yuk-Yuks can sit here and smile and laugh and make fun of

this. This is an insult to the thousands of people who are out of work,

who are desperately trying to figure out how to put food on their tables

for their families. It’s an insult to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …everyone who’s trying to diversify their local economies and

create good-paying jobs, and it’s an insult to every single community

that’s been hit hard with this forestry crisis.

Again to the minister, will the minister stand up and apologize

for these disrespectful “just a slush fund” comments, and will he

reinstate the $25 million in rural dividend funds which he has ripped

out of the hands of rural communities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate how much rural dividend funding means to small

communities. I come from a small community myself, and we know what that

additional funding means. Also, we know the mess that forestry was left

in by the previous government and why those funds need to be reallocated

on a temporary basis in order to support forestry workers that were

ignored by the previous government.

Talk about reinvesting in communities. The previous government cut

services in rural communities. They closed schools in rural communities.

We’re opening schools. We’re building schools in rural communities.

We’re increasing health services. We’re building a hospital in Williams

Lake. We’re building a hospital…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: …in Fort St. James. We’re building schools in Quesnel and

Smithers.

This is a government that knows that reinvesting in rural

communities is an important part of the economy of B.C., and we’ll

continue to do it.

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

T. Stone: Well, I can tell you this much. There is no one in the 250 area

code that believes a single word out of the Minister of Forests’ mouth —

not a single word.

Our former government invested over $1 billion in supporting the

economy and the environmental impacts of the pine beetle devastation,

supporting communities all through the Interior and the north. This

government has taken services away from communities, has ripped the

rural dividend fund out of the hands of rural British

Columbians.

Once again….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: Once again, “just a slush fund.” That’s the opinion of this

government when it comes to rural economic development in the 250 area

code of this province.

The mayor of Canal Flats, Karl Sterzer, has a different opinion

than the minister. He said this: “This funding is key and critical, and

I can’t imagine the communities that are going through what we went

through in 2015 and 2016 not having the ability to draw from that kind

of resource.”

Since the minister won’t do it, it’s time for the Premier to stand

up. It’s time for the Premier to make a trip to the Interior and the

north and look people in the eyes and tell them that he’s got their

back. It’s time for the Premier to demonstrate that he’s actually the

Premier…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …for all of British Columbia.

Will the Premier stand up in this House? Will he show British

Columbians that he’s got their back? Will he disavow the comments that

were made, the “just a slush fund” comments?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: And will he reinstate these rural dividend funds now?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s the selective memory on the other side that’s most galling,

when we hear them standing up and pontificating about rural B.C., where

they ripped the core out of communities by closing school after school

after school over a 15-year period.

They had a pile of press releases that high saying they would

maybe, one day in the future…. “If we had the money. Just wait for us.

Keep voting Liberal. We’ll build some hospitals.” What are we doing in

rural British Columbia? We’re building a hospital in your

community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re building a hospital in your community. We’re building a

hospital in your community. We’re building a hospital in your

community.

Now, I appreciate that they’ve got nothing left to say.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: They’ve got nothing left to say. The strike in the Lower Mainland

has been averted. There’s a mediator in place in Prince

George.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re building rural British Columbia. Most importantly, while

they were fiddling and rural British Columbia was burning, that

individual on that side of the House took $1 billion out of ICBC that

we’ve been trying to stopgap since we got here. If they had done a

better job on their watch, there would be a rural development fund. But

instead, we’re repurposing those dollars for people in every part of

B.C. that’s been devastated by the absence of coherent forest policy

over the past ten years.

P. Milobar: I almost thought we were in the middle of an Oprah

episode there for a moment, with the Premier’s answer. If we want to

talk about the track record of this, let’s talk about the track record.

Let’s talk about the Premier, whose comments in the election were that

no mills will close under his watch. Does the Premier remember that

pearl of a chestnut of a quote that he gave out?

How about the support for the communities that’s gone missing? Why

is there no other jurisdiction feeling the same forestry crunch that the

Interior and the coastal areas are feeling under this NDP government?

It’s not happening in Alberta. It’s not happening in Washington state.

But it’s sure happening here.

Maybe the attitude of “just a slush fund” is why, because this

government’s cancellation of the rural dividend fund has been deceitful,

and it’s been done completely out of spite — a rural dividend fund

that’s worth $25 million. It has $35 million worth of applications in,

and the Minister of Forests seems to think you can just magically roll

those applications over to the next year and there wouldn’t be other

applications in the queue in that following year as well.

This is Mayor David Wilks of Sparwood. “It’s certainly disturbing

that the provincial government can cancel a program in which

applications were in the queue, and now it’s just gone” — $35 million

worth of applications, for a $25 million fund, in the queue.

Patrick Lucas, founder of the Aboriginal youth mountain bike

program, said: “My emails lit up over the last couple of days hearing

from folks that are pretty shocked and upset and surprised by the

announcement and how it’s going to impact their community in the coming

year.”

But to this government, it’s just a slush fund, and today it seems

quite humorous to the members on the other side. Again, will the Premier

apologize to the founders of the Aboriginal youth mountain bike program,

Mayor Wilks, all the other community groups and everyone else out there

that’s been impacted by their spiteful removal of the $25 million rural

dividend fund under the guise of trying to help communities — out of a

fund, I would note, that not one dollar has flowed from after four

months of it being announced?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The reason Oprah is so popular is she doesn’t hand out press

releases to people. She does something substantial for their lives, and

we’ve been working to make life better for British Columbians. That’s

why.

Forgive me. I didn’t realize that people didn’t know who I was

pointing to, but we’re building a hospital in Terrace, promised and not

delivered by the other guys; building a hospital in Williams Lake,

promised, not delivered, by the other guys; building a hospital in

Dawson Creek; building a hospital in Fort St. James, promised but not

even remotely delivered on; Quesnel, an ICU; Cowichan, a brand-new

hospital. Building schools all across British Columbia. That’s rural

development.

[2:35 p.m.]

You were pulling services out of communities. We’re putting them

back in. I ask any one of the members on the other side to go into

forest-dependent communities and say: “We’re not going to give you

bridging funds for your pension. We’re not going to help you with

retraining.” They sat on their duffs for 15 years as the industry went

into the can. We’re trying to do something about it.

A coherent forestry plan was desperately needed. The other side

didn’t know how to do it. We do.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I rise to table the government’s second quarterly report, ’19-20, as

required by

section 10 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Second, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I’m pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, on all amounts borrowed

by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports

provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal year

’18-19.

Reports from Committees

MERIT COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

D. Routley: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Merit Commissioner.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. Routley: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

D. Routley: I move that the report be adopted. In doing so, I would like to

make a few brief comments.

Beginning last July, the committee carried out a comprehensive

recruitment process and received a number of qualified applications.

This report describes that process and constitutes the committee’s

unanimous recommendation for the appointment of Maureen Baird, QC, as

British Columbia’s third Merit Commissioner.

The committee was impressed by Ms. Baird’s 25 years of experience

in administrative law, which includes extensive work in the area of

labour relations. In addition to her knowledge of the Office of the

Merit Commissioner, the committee particularly appreciates her

conceptual understanding of systems and processes and her perspective on

diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The committee is confident she

has the knowledge required to take on the role of Merit Commissioner.

Ms. Baird is in the gallery today, so please join me in welcoming her

and congratulating her.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to express our

appreciation to Fiona Spencer for her public service to this province as

Merit Commissioner over the last nine years and wish her well in her

future endeavours. I would also like to thank all of the staff of the

Office of the Merit Commissioner, who have worked to support the

continuity of the office over the past several months. Their work during

this time of transition is much appreciated. I also extend my sincere

gratitude to the Deputy Chair, the member for Peace River North, and all

committee members for their diligent work on this appointment

process.

D. Davies: I’d also like to echo the comments from the Chair from

Nanaimo–North Cowichan and to congratulate Maureen Baird’s appointment

as B.C.’s new Merit Commissioner. I’d also like to thank Fiona for her

nine years of service to the province of British Columbia, as well, and

to thank all of the interested parties that applied and showed interest

in this position.

The committee…. Looking at the report, it seemed like it was just

a few months since we first met, but it’s been quite a few months that

we’ve been meeting. I’d like to thank all of the committee members that

worked in an incredibly collaborative process, as we do from time to

time in this building.

I certainly want to thank the member for Surrey South for stepping

in halfway through the committee to fill a much-needed vacancy. Thank

you.

Of course, I must thank Kate and Jennifer and all of her staff for

the incredible work that they do to really make this a fairly smooth and

easy job for all of us.

Again, on behalf of all of us here, I’d like to congratulate Ms.

Baird, and I look forward to working with her in the future.

[2:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF MERIT COMMISSIONER

D. Routley: I ask leave of the House to move a motion requesting the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoint Maureen Baird, QC, as Merit

Commissioner for the pro­vince of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

D. Routley: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recommend to the

Lieutenant Governor in Council that Maureen Baird, Q.C. be appointed as

an Officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties

assigned to the Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia

pursuant to

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (RSBC 1996,

Chapter 385) for a term of three years commencing on January 13,

2020.]

Motion approved.

Petitions

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise in the House today to present a petition from the Highlands

District Community Association signed by 1,198 British Columbians expressing

opposition to strip-mining in the South Highlands area.

E. Ross: I rise on behalf of my constituents to present a petition that calls

on the Legislative Assembly to act on the changes submitted to the B.C.

government to modernize denture-related services for the betterment of the

B.C. public.

S. Cadieux: I have a petition signed by 111 people regarding the regulation of

denturists.

D. Ashton: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the patients

experiencing preventable medical harm. The petitioners are asking for

mandatory reporting of medical errors and providing an administrative

compensation system for those patients that experience avoidable medical

injury.

L. Throness: I have a similar petition to the member for Penticton, given to me by

my constituent Shelley Bunnah, who gathered 27 names of petitioners. They’re

requesting the mandatory reporting of medical errors and providing an

administrative compensation system for patients who experience an avoidable

medical injury.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: To think we only have one more day of this fun. In this chamber, I call

committee stage, Bill 45, Taxation Amendment Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

T. Stone: We’re going to start off our deliberations in committee stage

today, in

section 2 here, with another proposed amendment that we

have.

To refresh everyone’s memory quickly, we moved an amendment on

this when we were in this

section last. The amendment was ruled out of

order. The issue that we’re trying to address here is to ensure that

there is as much certainty as possible with respect to the funds that

are generated from vaping products’ PST — that those funds find their

way towards supporting awareness, prevention and support. So we

understand the rationale for the previous amendment being out of

order.

This one that I’m proposing provides for an amendment that

essentially would require the revenues to be put into a fund that

already exists. Unlike the last amendment, where we were suggesting the

creation of a new fund, this amendment deals with the funds being

allocated into an existing fund. The existing fund is called the health

special account.

While it doesn’t provide for as much certainty and transparency on

how much funds are raised and the clear dedication of those funds to

vaping education, this amendment is the next best thing, we think,

because it would still require those funds to be put into an existing

health special account, and the accountability on this account is dealt

with as part of the estimates process in the annual budgets.

I will pass that amendment forward now.

Hon. C. James: To the member, thank you for the amendment just received. I will

speak against the amendment. I will suggest that the amendment is, in

fact, out of order. As with the previous amendment, it is directing

government, directing tax revenue, to the health special account, which

has very clear parameters around what money is and isn’t used in that

account.

[2:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, thank you for proposing this amendment. It seems like

this proposed amendment should be debated under

section 5, rather

than under

section 2. Why don’t we wait until we get to

section 5,

and then we will deal with it. Would that be okay?

Interjection.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

T. Stone: I would like to move an amendment to this section.

SECTION 5 be amended by adding the following

section:

Payments to Health Special Account

5.1

(1) Notwithstanding

section 2 of

the Health Special Account Act , revenues paid into the

consolidated revenue fund under sections 34 (11), 35 (8), 36 (11),

and 55 (3.6) of the Provincial Sales Tax Act shall be paid into

the Health Special Account.]

On the amendment.

T. Stone: We would urge the government to seriously consider this as a

thoughtful, practical amendment that addresses the concern that I think

we all have, and that’s ensuring that the revenues that are generated

from the vaping PST go into this fund, where there will be a

transparency on those revenues as part of the annual estimates

process.

Again, and in closing my comments on this amendment, we just want

to make sure that every penny available from the vaping products PST

finds its way into funding those very necessary awareness, prevention

and addiction support programs in every middle and high school across

British Columbia.

We think that this is a reasonable compromise, versus our last

proposal, that would ensure that these funds go into this special health

account, from which at least there is some transparency around the total

revenues collected and how they’re disbursed on an annual basis as part

of the annual budget and estimates process.

Hon. C. James: I will be speaking against the amendment. As I said earlier, but

I’ll say again, under this

section I believe the amendment is out of

order. It directs tax revenue.

I want to speak to the member’s point around accountability,

because we canvassed this in the last discussion we had. In our full

afternoon previously, we talked about accountability, and we also talked

about the fact that the ten-point plan is just being

developed.

The Health Minister has announced it. We have talked and agreed

that the most important part of that plan is developing it with youth —

that youth have to be engaged, that they have to be directing the plan,

that if we are going to be effective in education on ending vaping for

youth that we need to do that by engaging the youth.

[2:55 p.m.]

None of that program has been developed yet, because it needs to

engage youth, because we want to make sure their voices are there. And

as always, the costs of a program, the amount of money being spent on a

program, are part of a minister’s responsibility.

I would expect the opposition…. I would expect members to be

asking those kinds of questions. That’s exactly the kind of

accountability that occurs in this Legislature, so I couldn’t agree

more. As I said two days ago in our debate on this same issue, I

couldn’t agree more about the importance of addressing the issue of

accountability — being accountable for the program, ensuring that this

is implemented well.

I think that was the strength of our second reading — the fact

that we all agreed in this House on exactly that, and I believe that

accountability will be there.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the minister’s comments, I’m not sure why there

is such an incredible reluctance here. This is a new tax. There is

widespread, unanimous agreement in this Legislature that we need to do

something about vaping. And the way — one on the ten-point plan or

however many points were in the plan — is a fiscal taxation

piece.

This is about transparency. This is the fiscal amendment. It’s not

about the effectiveness of the program. We care about all of that, and

we’re going to hold the government accountable, especially my colleague

from Kamloops–South Thompson. This is about fiscal transparency. I have

no idea why this minister is reluctant to put the revenue from a tax

that’s created specifically related to vaping and vaping products and

components…. Why is it so incomprehensible that those funds could not be

put in a designated line item which requires transparency?

Our concern is this. There will be programs created. There is no

doubt about that. We will be holding the government to account for the

effectiveness of those programs — the thoroughness, how they’re

implemented. What we want is for British Columbians to know exactly

where that money is going. When it gets rolled into the general revenue,

the consolidated revenue fund, we will not know specifically where that

money is being utilized. These are extraordinary circumstances. There is

unanimous agreement in this Legislature about moving forward on a tax. I

can assure you that rarely do we find that to be the case.

We’re very concerned about the tax burden on British Columbians,

but in this case, we’re prepared to support that tax. All we’re asking

the minister to do is to create a designated place for that revenue to

go so that British Columbians, members of this Legislature, health

professionals, families can see exactly what the government is doing

with the revenue that is designed to deal with the issue of vaping and,

in particular, youth health and youth dependency.

From my perspective, it’s practical. There is an existing fund. We

didn’t win, obviously, on the one where we thought it should have had

its own dedicated fund. But there is another option here, and it is time

for us to look at exactly what this money is going to do.

So, obviously, I think the motion is reasonable. It doesn’t demand

anything of government in terms of how it’s spent. This is a

transparency motion, for heaven’s sake. It is about laying out where the

spending occurred and making sure that every single penny collected will

be dedicated to dealing with this issue, which is so critical and such

an issue in many jurisdictions around the world.

The Chair: Members, the Chair heard the debate on this proposed

amendment. We allowed the debate, but it’s the Chair’s ruling that

it cannot be allowed to go to vote for the following reasons. The

amendment directs tax revenue to a purpose not recommended by

message of the Lieutenant-Governor, as required under Standing Order

67 and equivalent provisions in B.C.’s Constitution Act.

The amendment, in my opinion, is out of order in the hands of

a private member.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[3:00 p.m.]

S. Bond: Then we’re going to try another way, because this matters. And

while we might want to debate the logistics of where this should happen,

we believe that there needs to be transparency. We believe that there

should be a requirement for the Minister of Finance to report out. We’re

not talking about the programs today. We want them to happen. We’re not

talking about how effective they will be or who’s going to design them

or what the youth panel looks like. We’re talking about taxpayer

money.

I am going to move an amendment. I will table it. I have copies of

it for the minister and for the Clerk’s table. Let me just read it

first. The heading reads: “Revenue and Spending Report Required.” It

would be an amendment. It would be

section 5.1. I will read what the

amendment says. And to be clear, we’re not directing the government to

do anything other than report.

SECTION 5 be amended by adding the following

section:

Revenue and Spending Report Required

5.1 The minister must, in respect of

amounts that are paid into the consolidated revenue fund under sections

34 (11), 35 (8), 36 (11), and 55 (3.6) of the Provincial Sales Tax

Act , lay a report before the Legislative Assembly

detailing

(

a) The total revenues collected, and

(

b) Spending on the administration, operation and delivery

of education and prevention services intended to reduce the purchase and

use of e-substances and e-vaping devices, represented

(

i) as a percentage of the revenues reported under

subsection (a), and

(ii) in dollars.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: While I appreciate that we’re having a conversation about

accountability — and I come back to the accountability piece again — I

will be speaking against the amendment.

[3:05 p.m.]

I believe that for the PST Act to include programs and services

that are still being developed…. We don’t know the timing of those

programs to be developed. They’re being developed through education,

through health care.

When we have accountability measures, there hasn’t been an

estimate where I haven’t been asked by members around tax revenue and

particular things. There has not been an estimate where I have not been

asked about program spending by members. Certainly I think that

accountability is there, as it was for the previous member when the

previous member was a minister, as it was for the previous government

when they were in government.

Accountability is there. Accountability is critical. I do not

believe this amendment fits, nor do I believe that it’s necessary when

you have the existing mechanisms in place for accountability.

S. Bond: Well, I appreciate the minister’s explanation. But let’s be clear.

This is not about putting programs under the Provincial Sales Tax Act,

and the minister well knows it.

This is about an expectation that money raised from a vaping tax —

that that information about how much is collected and how it is being

spent is made public. What’s ironic in this discussion…. This is about

the health of our children. We have unanimous agreement in this House

about increasing a tax, creating a tax, increasing it.

I can harken back my thinking to a tax we disagree on. We disagree

aggressively and significantly on a tax called the speculation tax. Yet

when we came to the minister and asked the minister to lay a report

before the Legislature on the speculation tax, which does virtually the

same thing…. In fact, the amendment would be in line with the amendment

that the government accepted regarding the speculation tax.

Section 141(3) requires the minister to “lay a report before the

Legislative Assembly.” We worked through this with the spec tax. We

disagree with the speculation tax. We fought the speculation tax. We’re

still fighting it. We’re still hearing from residents in those

areas.

Today we’re in a different circumstance. We’re here to say: “We

will support this element of a plan.” But make no mistake about it, it

is the fiscal element. It’s not about who’s going to write the programs

or who’s going to be on the youth committee. It’s about saying to

British Columbians: “How much money did you get, and how did you spend

it?” And the minister would lay that report annually in front of the

Legislature. That is exactly what this minister agreed to with the

speculation tax. How is this different?

In fact, this should be even more compelling for the minister,

unless she’s going to be reluctant to explain where that tax money went

by rolling it into the consolidated revenue fund.

All we’re asking for, which is not unreasonable, is a transparency

mechanism around the dollars — not the programs, not the people, not the

working group. What we would like to see this government agree to is a

transparency measure where the minister provides a report. “Here’s what

we took in, and here’s how we spent it.”

As I said, we managed to work our way through this with the

speculation tax — a tax we’re opposed to. The minister agreed to that

amendment, yet with this one, somehow there’s no willingness to actually

to lay a report. This is about a report. It’s about saying: “Here’s how

much we took in. Here’s what we did to help kids. Here’s what we spent

it on.” What are the administrative costs? How is this money going to be

spent?

I can understand the minister is facing some challenges. There is

a tight budget situation. We continue to see the situation around the

budget deteriorate. But there is no reason this minister cannot say yes

to a transparency measure that outlines where this money is going,

instead of simply rolling it into the consolidated revenue fund and

relying on reporting out program by program.

This is a fiscal amendment. It is a taxation amendment. The

minister agreed to this type of approach when it came to the speculation

tax, and we would urge the minister to rethink her decision to speak

against this motion, particularly when this one involves the health of

the young people of British Columbia.

Hon. C. James: I’ll just make a couple comments before I again speak against the

amendment.

[3:10 p.m.]

There are opportunities, through estimates, as the member knows

very well, to ask those kinds of questions. There are many opportunities

to be able to talk exactly about those questions.

This is a program that is being developed, that we are going to

develop with youth. It has not been developed. There are programs and

services that support stopping smoking or stopping vaping that will be

outside the ten-point plan that will be part of Health’s budget or part

of Education’s budget.

This is a wide range of approaches, as wide as we need it to be to

discourage youth from vaping. There will be every opportunity for the

members to ask those kinds of questions.

With that, I speak against the amendment.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to rise and support my colleagues on this side on the

amendment to Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, to ensure that

“the total revenues collected” and “spending on the administration,

operation and delivery of education and prevention services intended to

reduce the purchase and use of e-substances and e-vaping devices,

represented….” And they must be “a percentage of the revenues reported

under subsection (a),” in dollars.

I agree with my colleagues that this is a transparency measure. It

will ensure that the dollars will go to education, prevention. And why

it is so important that this dedication is identified — the reason why

it is, is because we have an addiction crisis in this

province.

The B.C. Liberal caucus today just got a presentation from the

B.C. Centre on Substance Use. In amongst the presentation, they talked

about the challenges facing our recovery system and our addiction

system. At a systems level, there are a lack of standards, oversight and

regulation. There’s a lack of coordination between providers. There is

timely, equitable access to approved care that is not

appropriate.

With regards to service delivery, they requested the

implementation of evidence-based practices and transparency and quality

assurance evaluations and outcomes monitoring. These are all the things

that we are asking for.

Addiction is rampant in this province, in this country, on the

continent, and we are very, very worried about youth and their addiction

to vaping. Where that’s coming from is from the nicotine. We had a

presentation in North Vancouver that was put on by school district 44 as

well as Foundry on the North Shore. They had a presentation by Dr. Milan

Khara. He’s the physician lead on the smoking cessation clinic at

Vancouver General Hospital.

The reason why North Vancouver brought him over to speak to

parents — and it was a packed room, and this was back in March — was

because Seycove School — you probably heard it in the news; it was

national news — was infamous because they had closed some of their

bathrooms to prevent kids from vaping.

What he said is that education is needed for kids in elementary

school. The B.C. Centre on Substance Use also reiterated that today and

said that we need to develop prevention and early intervention resources

for youth in K to 12 — kindergarten to 12 education — plus supports for

students and families.

For children and youth, their brains are still developing. So the

use of these addictive substances like nicotine is even more grave than

in adults. Kids are self-medicating for anxiety and

depression.

The Chair: Member, we are debating the amendment, the proposed

amendment.

[3:15 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: What I’m trying to do is emphasize the importance of us

concentrating on the addiction of the nicotine in vaping products and

that the dedicated funds that my colleagues have alluded to in this

amendment are going to prevention and education funds. We want to make

sure that this is transparent. In other words, so we know where the

money is going because right now we don’t know where the money is going.

Is it going to general revenue? What exactly is it going to?

Dr. Milan went on to talk about his clinic. This is the other

thing I wanted to mention. They do have nicotine replacement therapy,

for instance, for adults at Vancouver General Hospital, but currently

they do not have the resources to help children. Right now — this was

way back in March — they are very, very worried that they are going to

run out of the resources to be able to do anything for children. Not

only that, but there are no standards for dealing with nicotine

addiction in children.

The Chair: Member, the Chair doesn’t want to interrupt you in your

debate. You have the right to do it, but those points were

established under second reading already, so we know the impacts of

that. If you could kindly speak to the amendment, that would be

appreciated.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Then I’ll summarize and just say that

I really do want to emphasize how important this amendment is with

regards to transparency and us, all of us, and British Columbians

knowing where the dollars are going to. Because the education and the

prevention and the help with the youth addictions is of utmost important

here in British Columbia.

D. Davies: I just kind of want to follow up a little bit also with my

colleague for North Vancouver–Seymour, speaking to Bill 45 and the

amendment that my colleagues have presented, to paint a picture on why

we value this amendment on making sure that there’s accountability to

all of the parents across this province, accountability to our

educators, our health care people, that have recognized that this is,

indeed, the health crisis that it is.

I’m just going to read one little quote here. It’s from the B.C.

chief medical officer, talking about how vaping is quickly emerging as a

significant health issue in British Columbia. “Vaping is turning back

the clock on decades of effective anti-smoking efforts and creating a

new generation of young people that are now going to be addicted to

nicotine.” That’s from the B.C. chief medical health officer.

When we start looking at…. I’m speaking to this from a couple

different angles. First of all, I’m a parent, a father of a teenaged

daughter who attends middle school. She is around this vaping already

far too much than I’d like to admit. I’m also speaking to this as the

Education critic for the official opposition. I’ve got so many people

that have reached out and contacted me — teachers, parents, members from

the BCSTA — which, of course, have all come out in full support of,

first of all, where the government is going on vaping.

Again, going back to this amendment, we need to make sure that

these funds are accountable and that we can go to parents, we can go to

our teachers and say that there will be resources available. There will

be resources that government can say we have provided to educators,

resources they can use in the classroom.

My colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson said, I believe, the day

before yesterday when we were in here talking about this, that this is

more than just buttons, brochures and posters. This needs to have a

real, impactful effect on our young people and teachers can be trained

and given the tools that they need to deliver this in the classroom.

Medi­cal health officers, locally, within each of our regions,

need to have the tools and resources that they need as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

If this is just going to come out of a general revenue fund, I

don’t think that is doing a service at all to the province of British

Columbia or doing a service at all to the citizens of B.C. that really

want to see the government taking leadership on this to show that here

is where we have put the dollars to curb this epidemic that is coming

right now.

That is the full intent of this amendment that has been moved by

my colleague: to have government show the residents of this province

that they are doing their level best to curb this epidemic, which is

still in its infancy. We still have time to stop this before my son,

Noel, who is eight, hits middle school. I really believe that we can

stop this. But it is going to take leadership by the

government.

I think part of that leadership is demonstrating — showing,

proving — to the citizens of B.C. that we have invested, I understand,

upwards of…. I believe it was $2½ million in PST to be collected and

that we can show that those funds have gone to dissuading our young

people from starting this horrible epidemic of vaping.

I’m not going to talk too much more. I just wanted to make sure

that from, first of all, a father’s perspective and, secondly, from an

education perspective…. Again, sitting as a former teacher, there have

been lots of programs that governments over the years have rolled out

that have just been posters, buttons and such. They don’t work. We need

to really show that government is grabbing the bull by the horns and

providing adequate money to go to our programs that will train our

teachers up.

If we look at smoking, it’s taken 60 years of anti-smoking

campaigns to get people to quit. This is a great opportunity by adopting

this amendment to put it out there that government is doing everything

it can to make sure that the funds are being designated to stop

this.

We’re not here…. Well, I won’t be here 60 years from now. But

whoever is in this place 60 years from now is not talking about, “Oh, we

finally got this vaping epidemic over,” 60 years later. I think we have

the opportunity to do this within the next few years before my son gets

into middle school. I think that is absolutely going to be incumbent

upon the government adopting this amendment, putting their money where

their mouth is and showing the residents and the citizens of B.C. that

the money is going to get our kids off of vaping. That is what I want to

see.

That’s the intent of this motion. That’s why I want to see this

motion, and I’m sure everybody out there — teachers, parents, health

professionals — also agrees as well.

T. Stone: I, too, would like to take a few moments to speak in favour of

this amendment, which, again, as with our previous amendments, we think

is reasonable and practical.

To refresh everyone’s memory or just bring everybody back to what

we’re actually talking about here through this amendment moved by my

colleague from Prince George–​Valemount, what we are simply

suggesting as a practical amendment to this legislation would be to add

a reporting requirement in relation to the revenues that are generated

from this tax.

What we’re suggesting here is nothing different than the reporting

requirement which was added to the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act that

was adopted by this Legislative Assembly quite recently. That reporting

requirement was incorporated into that legislation via an amendment from

the official opposition that used language almost identical to what we

have suggested in the amendment that we have before the House here today

in the context of the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act that we are in

committee stage on.

It is a simple requirement that

“The minister must, in respect of amounts that are paid into the

consolidated revenue fund under sections 34 (11), 35 (8), 36 (11), and

55 (3.6) of the Provincial Sales Tax Act, lay a report before the

Legislative Assembly detailing (

a) The total revenues collected, and (

b) Spending on the administration, operation and delivery of education and

prevention services intended to reduce the purchase and the use of

e-substances and e-vaping devices, represented (

i) as a percentage of

the revenues reported under subsection (a), and (ii) in

dollars.”

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s a reporting requirement. We’re not telling the government….

We’re not trying to suggest through an amendment here that the

government should spend the dollars that are raised through this vaping

products tax, that the government has to spend those dollars on specific

programs or in specific ways. I mean, that would be the ultimate

transparency. We would have liked to have seen a provision like

that.

We tried that through an amendment earlier. The government said no

to that. We then thought, well, the next sensible ask of government

would be to require the funds collected from a vaping product’s PST to

go into an existing account, the special health account — again, not

telling government how to spend the money. We’re just saying, for

accountability and reporting purposes, have those funds diverted into

that special health account. The government said no to that.

We’re left with one final fallback here, in the name of

accountability and transparency, to suggest through this amendment that

the government consider agreeing to there being a reporting requirement

on the total revenues collected and what the government chooses, at

their sole discretion, to spend those dollars on. No direction being

provided here. Discretion remains completely with the

government.

I would remind members, and I’ve said this many times, that while

the Finance Minister, through this entire process — second reading and

into committee stage…. I completely take her and her colleagues at face

value. I say very authentically that I believe that they’re trying to do

the right thing through this broad action plan. They’re trying to

respond to the youth vaping crisis that we have in this

province.

But words are cheap. Actions are what are really needed here.

While we have a ten-point action plan, which sounds great and certainly

covers a lot of bases, what we’re trying to say and what we’ve been

saying all along is that the education component of this — the

prevention, awareness and addiction support component of this,

particularly as it relates to students and youth in our middle and high

schools — cannot get lost in the mix here.

We will leave this Legislative Assembly in a little less than a

day from now. If this bill passes, if it receives the support of this

Legislative Assembly, it will become the law of the province. We will

then head off back to our constituencies. We won’t be back in this

chamber again until February of 2020.

My worry, and the worry of members of the official opposition, of

many parents, many educators, many health professionals, is that the

intentions that the Minister of Finance has eloquently stated in her

comments in second reading and in committee stage — her intentions to

bring life to the actions in this plan — may start to wane, may get

lost. It may start to fade in people’s memories.

We all know that there are significant budget pressures that this

government has. We want to make sure that in the context of these budget

pressures, we not lose sight of how important it is that as many

resources we can muster as possible are channelled into education,

channelled into those awareness, prevention and addiction support

programs for youth.

In

summary, we believe that this is an important accountability

and transparency measure. We believe that there is no direction being

provided to government in terms of how the funds are collected, how they

must be spent. We therefore hope and expect that this amendment, unlike

the previous two, will not be ruled out of order.

[3:30 p.m.]

We want to ensure that there is transparency and accountability on

the revenues that come in and where those dollars are spent, because at

the end of the day, this is about our kids. It’s about our kids’ health.

It’s about doing everything that we possibly can to invest whatever is

necessary in those education programs.

If we can incorporate an almost identical reporting provision into

the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act earlier in the life of this

parliament…. That was not contemplated by the government. It wasn’t

included in the initial act. It was an amendment that was brought

forward. If we can do this, provide this kind of reporting requirement,

for the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, surely to God we can do it here

and now with respect to the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act in the

context of the anti-vaping action plan that, certainly in concept, is

supported by all members of this House.

Hon. C. James: Seeing no further speakers, I suggest we call the question on the

amendment.

[3:35 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 42

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Sims

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Malcolmson

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

[3:40 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Cadieux: Just a few questions on this

section relating to the tobacco tax

increase. Can the minister please outline the expected revenue additions

for this fiscal year and next fiscal year with relation to

this?

Hon. C. James: So $6 million for this fiscal — as you remember, it’s a quarter

and starts in January — and $25 million per year.

S. Cadieux: Given the Q2 update yesterday and the additional $40 million

reduction in tobacco tax revenue, polling to a total of $50 million

already at this point during the year, are the numbers that the minister

is quoting for expected revenue from this new tax for quarter 4 and for

next year…? Does that take into account that reduction?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it does.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm that this is the third time the tobacco

tax has been increased since Budget Update 2017?

Hon. C. James: An increase in ’17-18 budget, in ’18-19 budget and now in ’19-20

budget.

S. Cadieux: Could the minister put into context for us just the overall…? This

most recent increase, now, here, that we are contemplating, is that done

to bring the tobacco tax in line with the new PST rate

overall?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There are a couple of things that certainly get looked at. One is

tax rates in other provinces and what shift is occurring in other

provinces as tax rates go up. There’s also, of course, the regular

increase to ensure that we continue to discourage smoking. Obviously,

the price falls with inflation, so continuing to ensure that the tax is

increased on a regular basis, as happened with previous governments. The

previous government increased it seven times over their time.

So this is, again, part of that regular increase to ensure that we

capture those pieces and, as I said, the changes that happen —

inflation, but also other provinces and the changes they are

making.

S. Cadieux: I have no issues with increasing tax rates on cigarettes. I’m not

a smoker, don’t agree with it, so that’s not my concern. But I am

concerned overall as to the purpose of this particular increase. The

minister had the opportunity to increase the taxes already with the 2019

budget and is choosing to do so again midway through the year. I am

curious now whether or not the purpose of that is to bring the tobacco

tax in line with the tax on vaping or whether it is a tax grab, as such,

to make up for lost revenue in other areas.

The minister opened the door here on the number of things that are

considered. What tax rates have gone up in other provinces that

necessitated this particular increase?

Hon. C. James: Just to confirm for the member, this wasn’t related to making sure

it matched the vaping tax. The taxes are much higher, as we’ve talked

about on the first day of debate, on cigarettes and tobacco than they

are on vaping. Again, we had not made the change in the beginning of

’19-20 budget. We felt this was an opportunity, when we were bringing

forward the changes in vaping, to do our increase in ’19-20.

Again, it’s not a particular province where the tax goes up and,

therefore, we react. We look and use that comparison of taxes across the

country — look at the rates that are there, look at our rates and look

at what opportunity there may be. Alberta, for example, just announced

an increase in their taxes in their budget. But it’s not one particular

province. It’s the comparison of utilizing that as one tool.

S. Cadieux: Great. The minister, hopefully, will indulge me here as this is

obviously a new file for me, and I’m getting all up to speed on the

various pieces of the Finance portfolio. Can the minister tell me what

the current tax rates or the comparable tax rates are in other provinces

on tobacco at this time?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll run through the western provinces, which tend to have a

similar kind of approach around tobacco — differences in Ontario and

Quebec, where they have more of an illegal market and more of a

challenge around the issue. B.C., with the increase, will be at 29.5.

Alberta increased to 27.9. Saskatchewan’s at 27. Manitoba’s at 30.

That’s the western provinces, where there’s the biggest

comparison.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: To finish off debate on committee stage, just a thank-you to all

members in the House. A special thank-you, as we started this bill with

the member from Kamloops South, for his interest, his passion and his

drive in making sure this issue came forward. I think we have shown once

again the importance of…. Where the values are similar, we can come

together and bring forward action that I believe is going to make a real

difference in this province.

I think the tax piece, as I mentioned at the beginning, is simply

one piece of a ten-point plan, one part of a strategy that I think we’ll

need to make sure we’re implementing well. I think I heard that loud and

clear, and I think we all agree on that in this House. We all want to

make this successful, and it’s going to take everybody’s efforts to be

able to do that.

With that, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call Bill 42, Fuel Price Transparency Act, 2019, in this House.

If I could just ask for a couple of minutes of recess, we’ll ensure that

the minister is here.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. We will take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I call committee stage on Bill 42, Fuel Price Transparency

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — FUEL PRICE

TRANSPARENCY

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 42;

J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to begin, because I think this may be helpful in the

discussion, to move the amendments to

section 1 that are in the

possession of the Clerk.

Section 1 , in the definition of

“administrator” , by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

“administrator” means the person

administrator designated under

section 3 to

administer this Act or, if none is designated, the

minister; . ]

Section 1 , by adding the following

definition:

“utilities commission” means the British

Columbia Utilities Commission continued under the Utilities

Commission Act .]

On the first amendment.

J. Sturdy: Madam Chair, we haven’t seen any amendments.

The Chair: Members, the amendment is on the order paper.

Members, would you like a five-minute recess to review the

amendment? The House will recess for about three minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: For clarity here, are we doing the amendment first, or are we just

working through the proposed bill?

The Chair: We will do the amendment first, and

section 1 of the

amendment, so the definition of “administrator.”

J. Sturdy: Could you perhaps just give us a sense of what the objective was

here of changing the

definitions, please?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The preamendment text referred to “person,” which is a legally

defined term which is slightly narrower, potentially, than

“administrator.” That’s why the term “person” is being proposed to be

deleted, substituting “administrator.”

P. Milobar: To be clear, though…. So that clears up the administrator piece.

The other addition is to better define so that people understand that

when “utilities commission” is referenced, it means the B.C. Utilities

Commission. That’s independent of the changes to “administrator,”

correct?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, they’re both amendments to

section 1. The reason for being

very specific about it is just so that it’s clear what is being referred

to. But B.C. Utilities Commission is not a legal person, arguably. So as

a matter of legal prudence, the decision has been made to, in the

proposed amendment, delete the word “person” and add “administrator,”

which would be broad enough to include the B.C. Utilities

Commission.

P. Milobar: I understand that part of it. I guess my clarification question

is…. By changing “person” to “administrator” and, at the same time,

adding in a definition of the “utilities commission” as a separate piece

of the amendment, it is not guaranteeing or enshrining that the

administrator is actually the B.C. Utilities Commission. It’s simply

adding further definition — the B.C. Utilities Commission as one

definition — and it’s clarifying the definition of “administrator” from

a “person” to “administrator.” Is that correct?

The Chair: Members, just for clarity, we are on

section 1, the amendment

just related to “administrator,” at this point. The “utilities

commission” will be the next amendment.

Hon. B. Ralston: Just for clarity for the Chair then, these are both proposed

amendments to

section 1. So your ruling is that we are treating them as

separate, individual amendments?

The Chair: Correct.

Hon. B. Ralston: To return to the member’s question, that would arise out of

consideration of the next amendment, which would be adding the

definition of “utilities commission.” So I’ll reserve my answer till

then if that’s not too obtuse.

First amendment approved.

The Chair: Now we’re moving on to the second part of the amendment,

referring to “utilities commission.”

On the second amendment.

P. Milobar: Sorry for any confusion on my part around the sections and the

amendments. Just to clarify, then, again, that this amendment around

utilities commission is strictly adding a definition of “utilities

commission” into the

definitions. It does not actually link or guarantee

that the administrator is, in fact, the B.C. Utilities

Commission?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, that’s correct. This amendment, if it passes, would be linked

with the proposed amendment to

section 3, which gives the option to

designate the Utilities Commission as the administrator, which I believe

is the concern of the member. I think he certainly signalled that in

debate at second reading.

The Chair: Minister, would you make the motion to move

section 1,

referring to “utilities commission.”

Hon. B. Ralston: Okay, thank you. I would move, then, that

section 1 be

amended.

Second amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

[4:15 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: I really did want to begin our assessment or committee stage of

this bill by talking about some of the more general concepts and the

general objectives of this bill. Given the rhetoric that’s been going

around over the course of the last year or more — quotes around fuel

prices, looking at options for fuel prices, opportunities for the

province to step in, monitoring prices and taking steps if necessary,

etc….

I wonder if the minister could help me understand the goal of this

act. What would be the minister’s definition of success of

implementation and, ultimately, success of this act, if it is to

pass?

Hon. B. Ralston: The question doesn’t relate to any of the specific

definitions

contained in

section 1, but I will recapitulate some of the comments

that I made at second reading. The goal of the legislation is to create

a level of transparency to British Columbians that hasn’t existed

before.

The intention is to allow the Utilities Commission, which will be,

I expect, the designated administrator, to collect information that will

shed light on how gas companies set their pump prices and make it

available to the public and consumer watchdog. So it’s an effort to make

the price points, the data points that go into the ultimate price of

gasoline at the pump, more transparent and make that available to the

public.

J. Sturdy: Is it fair to say that there is an additional objective aside from

transparency, and that is to reduce fuel prices? That certainly seemed

to have been part of the conversation and part of the comment that had

been ongoing for some period of time, certainly from the Premier’s

office.

Hon. B. Ralston: Certainly, I think British Columbians are fed up with high gas

prices and unexplained volatility in gas prices. Certainly, the

Utilities Commission spoke of an unexplained 13-cent-per-litre cost that

people in British Columbia are paying at the pumps.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is our hope that prices will come down, but it’s certainly not

guaranteed by this legislation. It remains to be seen what the impact of

this bill will be, if and when it becomes legislation, upon gas company

price-setting. We will see. We are optimistic that increased

transparency may lead to a moderation in price increases, but it may

not. That remains to be seen as to how companies react to the

legislation.

J. Sturdy: In April of this year, the Premier said: “If the price increases

persist through the summer, we’ll look at other options.” Then he said

in April: “We’ll see how it goes through the summer, and then if there’s

an opportunity to have the province step in and help, we’ll do that.”

There are a number of other quotes. Is this legislation one of those

steps?

Hon. B. Ralston: It is a step in that direction. But whether it will have the

effect that the member refers to remains to be seen. We’re optimistic

that a more transparent price-setting array of data that becomes public

will have an impact on price-setting, but we don’t know that. Certainly,

it is a first step, and no subsequent steps have been predetermined at

this point.

J. Sturdy: Is there a timeline that the minister could share with us around

the regulation and the assessment? What could the public expect to see

as a result of passage of this legislation?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think it would be little imprudent to set a firm timeline,

because what we expect to do is designate the B.C. Utilities Commission

as the administrator. They will have their own administrative internal

timeline as to how this process will be set up, assuming the legislation

passes. So it would be premature to say just when the legislation and

the receipt of data would begin and when it would be sufficient to draw

any conclusions that the Utilities Commission or others might wish to

draw from it, although the role of the Utilities Commission will not be

to analyze the data. It will be merely to collect the data.

J. Sturdy: I think I heard the minister say that…. Aside from being premature

to speculate on the timeline, are there other steps that the government

may be considering taking? Or will there be no real further action until

there is data to act on?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m not in a position to reveal other government plans. But

certainly, as far as this legislation is concerned, assuming that the

bill is passed and the Utilities Commission begins to collect the data….

Then we will have a look at and be able to analyze the data, along with

members of the public, and draw conclusions. If further action is

required, then there’ll be a discussion and, perhaps, a decision at that

point.

But as I’ve said, there are no predetermined subsequent steps.

Although the member may wish me to state that, I can’t state that,

because that would not be factual at this point.

J. Sturdy: In terms of the definition, the minister has referred to the B.C.

Utilities Commission on a number of occasions. Can the minister confirm

that it would be the BCUC that would be appointed as administrator? If

not, what other options would be out there for the minister to appoint

as an administrator?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The legislation, as it’s drafted and assuming it’s passed, will

require an order-in-council to designate an administrator. That would be

a decision of the cabinet. Certainly, it’s my intention — my firm and

strong intention — to recommend that it be the B.C. Utilities Commission

that becomes the administrator.

J. Sturdy: Has the minister consulted with the B.C. Utilities Commission

about the potential for their appointment as the administrator? Could

the minister share with us what the commission’s thoughts are on that

and maybe what kind of consultation did take place?

Hon. B. Ralston: I have not had personal discussions with any members of the B.C.

Utilities Commission, but there has been discussion at the staff level.

I understand that the Utilities Commission, I’m advised, is aware of the

legislation and making preliminary plans as to how the legislation would

be implemented and what steps they would have to take in order that this

legislation have life breathed into it and some of the recommendations

that they would make about what data might be collected. They are

considering the possibility that the legislation will be passed and are

prepared to take it on.

J. Sturdy: The act suggests or states that the responsibility for information

collection falls to the minister in the absence of the designated

administrator. I don’t know what the circumstances would be for that to

happen, but the question does beg: which minister or which ministry

would be the responsible ministry in the case of an absence of a

designated administrator?

Hon. B. Ralston: The act would not come into force until it was proclaimed by

order-in-council. It doesn’t come into effect on royal assent.

Technically speaking, the minister, but it would be the one designated

in the Constitution Act as responsible for the legislation.

[4:30 p.m.]

My recommendation would be that it would be either the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources or myself as the Minister of Jobs,

Trade and Technology. That’s not a decision that that has been made

yet.

J. Sturdy: Yeah, we were curious about that. It struck us that the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is a natural fit here.

Although, when we’ve looked at some briefing materials from the

ministry…. I have here one from April of this year that summarizes the

end of the….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is a Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

briefing note for information prepared for the deputy minister with the

issue of gasoline prices. It summarizes the situation in the province

and has a discussion, and it concludes that there appears to be no

gouging between wholesale and retail gasoline prices in the Vancouver

market. You can see a consistent correlation between the two prices,

going back to April 2017, using public information. I guess it doesn’t

surprise us, particularly, that that ministry is not necessarily leading

this particular initiative.

In terms of the data that is going to be collected, can the

minister describe to us the range of that data to be

collected?

Hon. B. Ralston: The detailed section, which will deal with the proposed data and

submissions, is in

section 5, but I can give some examples of types of

information that could be collected. It would be refined fuel imports

and exports, including volume, source, destination and mode of

transportation; the capacity of primary fuel terminals, upgraders and

refineries; the sale prices of fuel throughout the supply chain,

wholesale and resale. Those are only examples. We can deal with this,

perhaps, in more detail in

section 5.

J. Sturdy: Can the minister confirm the list of activities defined in this

section as reportable? Is that a complete list under “reportable

activity”?

Hon. B. Ralston: Subsection (

b) of that definition, which reads as follows, “…a

prescribed activity in relation to reportable fuel,” gives the

discretion to add additional activities to that list by

order-in-council.

J. Sturdy: Does the minister have a sense of what type of additional

activities may be considered?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Subsection (

b) would enable other activities to be added,

providing that they’re consistent with subsection (a). It’s really as a

matter of caution, simply in case there’s something that has been

omitted or occurs to the Utilities Commission as being desirable in

order to have a thorough reporting or what they may deem to be an

appropriate reporting. It simply gives the opportunity to add, if

there’s a necessity after examining and making some analysis of what

would be the most appropriate activities to report.

J. Sturdy: Given that, as we look through the reportable activities, some —

in fact, a significant portion — may be outside of the jurisdiction of

British Columbia, is there a mechanism to require information from

outside of British Columbia, or is this just internal to this

province?

Hon. B. Ralston: If a business has a substantial presence in British Columbia, that

would give jurisdiction to require reporting. But if, for example — and

I think, probably, this is what the member may be thinking of — there

were a foreign refinery, the purchase would be reportable in the hands

of the wholesaler who bought the product, assuming that that wholesaler

was in British Columbia. That would be the way in which the price for

that particular delivery would be able to be reported.

J. Sturdy: Will the minister comment on whether information related to

government policies and taxes are included in the

definitions under fuel

data?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The issue of taxes on fuel is a matter of public information. In

fact, the Ministry of Finance has a tax bulletin that’s published — I’m

not allowed to use props, but I do have one here before me — which

refers to tax rates on fuels. Anyone can quickly find out how much those

costs are in their region, and they can easily determine where that

money is going to. The lack of clarity is at the oil and gas company

level, where their price-setting is not transparent. All the taxes on

fuel are well known, well established and available publicly.

J. Sturdy: Are not, though, certain taxes variable in terms of a taxation on

the price of fuel at the pump, be it GST or PST on fuels? So they would

change. The rate would be consistent, but the actual number that a

consumer was to pay would be variable.

Hon. B. Ralston: Just looking at the fixed taxes as some examples. For example, the

dedicated motor fuel tax for TransLink in the Vancouver area, or what

they call the south coast British Columbia transportation service

region, is 18.5 cents per litre. That’s a fixed cost per litre, not a

variable cost.

[4:45 p.m.]

In that region, there’s a dedicated motor fuel tax, 6.75 cents a

litre, and a provincial motor fuel tax, 1.75 cents. Then that’s

totalled. The carbon tax is added at this point, 8.89 cents. So there’s

a total provincial tax — I believe members may have referred to this in

their second reading speeches — of 36.89 cents.

It is then, at that point, that the goods and services tax is

added, and that is a percentage tax. It would be added onto the retail

price, calculated on the retail price at the pump. In that sense — I

think what the member is referring to — that is variable.

J. Sturdy: How will the low-carbon fuel standard be considered here? Is it

the inputs to the standard? Is it the complete blended product? How does

that factor into this?

Hon. B. Ralston: The focus of the legislation is to focus on areas that the BCUC,

in its report in August and its supplementary report in November, wasn’t

able to achieve clarity on, notwithstanding the examination that they

did. That would be, largely, the wholesale price and the retail prices

at different levels of the price chain.

In terms of low-carbon fuel standard, the reporting requirements

would be set by order-in-council, and that’s not a decision that I’m

able to predetermine at this point. I have the member’s point that he

would wish that that would be examined, but that would be something that

would be considered in due course.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

Hon. B. Ralston: I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper to

section 3. I would move the amendment to

section 3 that is in possession

of the Clerk. Perhaps I can read it. The amendment to subsection (1) —

I’m proposing this to be a single amendment, but subject to the ruling

of the Chair.

Section 3 , by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Administrator

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in

Council may, by regulation,

(

a) designate the utilities commission or a person

to administer this Act, and

(

b) restrict or impose conditions on the exercise of

powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act by the

administrator.

(2) If the administrator is a corporation, the

administration of this Act is a purpose of the corporation.

(3) If the administrator is constituted or continued

under another Act, subsection (1) (

b) of this

section applies in

relation to any powers and duties under that other Act as they

relate to the administration of this Act. ]

Those are the proposed amendments to

section 3.

On the amendment.

[4:50 p.m.]

P. Milobar: On 3(1), the change where it highlights the Utilities Commission….

We’ve heard the minister say that it would be the minister’s intention

to have the Utilities Commission take care of this. We’ve also heard the

minister say that cabinet will decide whether this is the minister in

charge of this act or not or which minister will be in charge of this

act or not.

Just to get absolute certainty, and I know the minister has

already answered this, this by no way guarantees that the Utilities

Commission is, in fact, the administrator of this act. In fact, it could

just be a person appointed as an administrator instead.

Hon. B. Ralston: My intention is to recommend that the Utilities Commission be the

administrator. They’re the logical body with the expertise, the skill.

They’ve already been consulted. But the member is technically correct

that this does not legally guarantee, in the sense of complete

certainty, that it would be the Utilities Commission.

P. Milobar: Could the minister clarify for me, then…? I’m confident that the

Utilities Commission would qualify, if the Merit Commissioner were to

take a look at their appointment, as the administrator. But if it is

indeed a person, would that person need to go through the process around

the Merit Commissioner to make sure that it was an appropriate person,

in the eyes of the Merit Commissioner, to become the

administrator?

Hon. B. Ralston: This is a designation by order-in-council, not a hiring by the

public service commission.

P. Milobar: Okay, thank you. I’ll take that to mean it could be a pure

patronage appointment, if cabinet so desired.

On the addition of the administrator, in section (3), it says: “If

the administrator is constituted or continued under another Act,

subsection (1) (

b) of this

section applies in relation to any powers and

duties under that other Act as they relate to the administration of this

Act.” I want to jump to the phrase “if the administrator is

constituted…under another Act.”

Could the minister point to what other act this administrator

could be constituted under?

Hon. B. Ralston: At the outset of constituting an agency — in this case, the B.C.

Utilities Commission…. That would be at the legal initiation of creating

the Utilities Commission. The term would be it was being “constituted.”

The word “continued” — if it were merged or became part of another body,

then it would be continued under another act. That’s a requirement, I

think, of prudence and caution in case there are legislative changes

that are unanticipated at this point.

Certainly, the intention is clearly to have the Utilities

Commission as the administrator to administer this particular statute,

assuming it passes.

[4:55 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Okay, thank you. That makes sense on the “constituted” part as it

relates to the BCUC. I’m still a little unclear, then, on the part of

“or continued under another Act,” as it relates to if it’s an individual

person.

What would be the other act that a person appointed as

administrator would have already been working under and, therefore, that

this act is continuing on with as a person?

Hon. B. Ralston: The staff has been advising me of the legal complexity of the term

“continued.” I think I may be able to better explain it by an example

that they have offered. Take, as an example, the Oil and Gas Commission.

It was constituted in 1999. In 2008, new legislation, the Oil and Gas

Activities Act, was passed. That act continued the Oil and Gas

Commission under the new act.

This is simply to make sure that the administrator — in this case,

the Utilities Commission…. We want to make sure that it continues under

another act, if that’s what takes place, if there’s any legislative

amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I move the amendment to

section 4 standing in my name that is in

the possession of the Clerk.

Section 4 (2) , by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

(2) The administrator must administer provisions of

this Act

(

a) in accordance with any general or special directions

of the minister, and

(

b) subject to paragraph (a), so as to

promote

(

i) the competitiveness of the market for reportable

fuels, and

(ii) public confidence in the competitiveness of that

market.]

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Ralston: I would describe it as more of a housekeeping amendment. I think

it’s more for grammatical clarity and would ensure that any direction

the minister gives will apply to the powers the administrator has under

any other enactments to the extent that those powers relate to the

administration of the act. That’s the purpose of the proposed

amendment.

P. Milobar: I can appreciate it may seem to clear up some of the language. But

when read in conjunction with (a)…. “The administrator must administer

provisions of this Act (

a) in accordance with any general or special

directions of the minister” was the original. That would make the reader

tend to feel like, okay, there’s only the odd

section that the minister

may be able to give special direction to the administrator; i.e., the

administrator shall do as I say for that provision if I’m the

minister.

This amendment seems to make it very clear that although we have

an administrator, the administrator must administer this act with any

direction that the minister tells them. Is that essentially saying to

the minister that all the other sections of this bill at a certain point

are somewhat irrelev