Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 137

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Protection of Public Participation Act

Hon. D. Eby

Bill Pr401 — Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act

T. Wat

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Anniversary of B.C. government apology to Chinese Canadians

T. Wat

Urban transportation planning

B. Ma

John Penner

T. Redies

Kushiro Cup winner Bill Corson

A. Kang

Village of Chase

T. Stone

Surrey Food Bank

R. Singh

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

S. Cadieux

Camosun College Technology Access Centre and funding for innovation programs at colleges

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mark

Use of private email account by Citizens’ Services Minister

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

Use of private email by Citizens’ Services Minister and contracts for information

technology services

T. Redies

Hon. J. Sims

P. Milobar

Use of email by Advanced Education Minister

M. Stilwell

Hon. M. Mark

Use of email by Premier’s office staff

C. Oakes

Hon. C. James

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Working Within the Rules:

Supporting Employment for Income Assistance Recipients

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. A. Dix

R. Sultan

S. Sullivan

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I have two introductions today. Denise Tambellini is the manager of

intergovernmental relations for the city of Richmond. Jason Kita is manager

of enterprise services, city of Richmond. These two individuals make the

city better each day. It’s a city I love. Please make them

welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m actually going to be introducing a guest who was a long-serving

employee for the Ministry of Transportation. He’s here as a guest of the

member for Kelowna West, but it would be very remiss of me not to mention

that Norm Parkes and his wife, Gwen, are in the gallery.

Norm, as I think everybody in the House who has worked on any

Transportation file will know, was a loyal, dedicated public servant who

retired earlier this year. I know that he’s been invited as a special guest

for the member for Kelowna West, and I thank him for that invitation. I hope

the House will make Norm and his wife very welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today a visiting

delegation of United Food and Commercial Workers 1518 members. There are

about a couple dozen of them. They’re here to meet with all MLAs to discuss

poverty reduction strategies and the aim of creating better and caring

communities.

I know they deeply care about improvements to employment standards and

health and safety at workplaces. I just want to remind everybody that it’s

advocates like these who are the reason that we continue to improve working

conditions and health and safety of all working people in this

province.

Please help me welcome them and say: “Thank you very much, and welcome

to this House.”

E. Ross: I’ve got one of my fellow band members here today. Her name is Dani

Stohl. She’s from the Woods family from my own community. I’m very good

friends with her parents and her grandparents. She’s here to advocate for

worker safety as well. So would the House please make welcome Dani

Stohl.

S. Bond: I know that all of us are grateful and have a significant

understanding of the impact that this job has on our family’s lives.

Especially when you live a long way away, you don’t often get to welcome

your loved ones to the chamber. So I’m delighted to welcome today someone

who has been a partner in my job for more than 17 years. As I commute to

work every week, he’s at home keeping the home fires burning, being a

fantastic grandpa and doing all of those things. I want to welcome Bill to

the Legislature today and ask my colleagues to do that as well.

Hon. D. Eby: Up in the gallery today, Josh Patterson and Meghan McDermott from the

B.C. Civil Liberties Association. I wonder if the House would make them feel

welcome and also thank them, by their applause, for all the work they do

defending rights and freedoms in British Columbia.

N. Letnick: We had the privilege today…. The members of the opposition had

breakfast with people from the B.C. Cancer Foundation, in particular Sarah

Roth, the president and CEO; Andrew Sweeney, the board chair of the B.C.

Cancer Foundation; Dr. Kim Chi; Dr. Dan Renouf; Dr. François Bénard; and

several other board members and colleagues with the Cancer Foundation who

help people with cancer throughout British Columbia.

In particular, we had a moving discussion with Michael Izen. The

Minister of Health yesterday discussed Michael’s story — a very sad story

but a very positive one, for what medical advances have been in cancer

health. I look forward to the work that the B.C. Cancer Foundation

does.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Sullivan: I have three special guests today: Tom Gautreau, and Stan and Jonathan

Sipos. All three of them are business people, very committed to the

well-being of all British Columbians And of course, my amazing wife, Lynn,

who makes it all possible for me to be here. Please welcome them to this

House.

[10:10 a.m.]

L. Krog: I have two sets of introductions this morning. Firstly, here from

UFCW, a group of women I had a chance to meet with this morning: Sarah

Hannah, Jenny Anderton, Samantha Weisbroad, Ashley Campbell, Lindsay Pridge

and, as introduced by the member for Skeena and not the least of them, Danni

Stole.I’d ask the House to make them welcome, please.

Finally, she snuck into the gallery, I believe, with her spouse — a

former member of this chamber who may be retired but was never retiring

while she was here, much loved and respected. Would the House make Joan

McIntyre and her spouse welcome, please.

B. Stewart: It gives me great honour to follow up on the Minister of

Transportation’s introduction of Norm Parkes and his wife, Gwen, who are

here in the gallery today. They reside in Victoria. I had the opportunity to

serve with Norm some years ago as a member of the regional transportation

advisory committee. He was living in Kamloops at that time.

Norm is here because he’s recently retired from the Ministry of

Transportation and is dealing with a personal health issue. I have to say

that some of the things that I found about working with Norm, who was

probably my first interaction with working with government employees, was

one of great passion, commitment and, I think, looking out for what’s in the

best interest. I remember projects like the Park Bridge, Hoffman’s Bluff,

the Bennett Bridge, and many others.

Would the House please make Gwen and Norm welcome, and their son,

Kevin, who couldn’t be here today. I know that he’s looking forward to

getting a tour of the buildings later today.

B. Ma: We all know that we don’t do the work here without the incredible

support of our friends, family and supporters back home, so it is my delight

to be able to introduce four members of the UFCW team that are particularly

important to me. Would the House please join me in welcoming Patrick

Johnson, Abby Leung, Kate Milberry and Keith Murdoch.

I’d like to say a few words about Keith as well. I was a bridesmaid at

Keith’s wedding. He and his wife have been by me through thick and thin. I

really don’t think there’s anybody better than Keith and his wife, Kristin,

for somebody to have by their side through this.

Before I close off the introductions, I’d also like to wish a very

happy birthday to our two good colleagues in this House today, the member

for Delta North and his identical twin, the member for Vancouver–West End —

who, I’m told, is wearing his birthday suit today, which he bought earlier

this weekend.

Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, that’s a finely tailored suit. [Laughter.]

I’d like to take this opportunity…. Somewhere in this beautiful

building is a group of students from Gulf Islands Secondary School on

Saltspring Island. Mr. Dean Crouse — I had the opportunity to attend one of

his classes teaching political science. I had the opportunity to spend some

time with his students. Very well informed, extremely well informed about

B.C. politics, all the members of the House should know. So with great

vigour, I hope that we can please welcome them to this place today as

they’re visiting us in the precinct.

L. Throness: This morning I had the pleasure of greeting 20 grade 10 students from

Timothy Christian School in my riding. They’ll soon be in the House to join

us. Accompanying them are Jody Terpstra and Daniel Van Brugge. They

certainly couldn’t have picked a nicer day to come. Would the House please

welcome them as well.

B. D’Eith: I wanted to welcome to the House a former MLA and an inspiration to me

who represented Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. Jodie Wickens is joining us today

for question period. I just wanted to welcome her to the House.

R. Singh: In the House today, I have a wonderful supporter, Val Spahija, also

with the UFCW delegation. Would the House please make her very

welcome.

R. Leonard: I’d like to also welcome a UFCW member who’s very dedicated to making

the lives of seniors in their homes better. Welcome, please, Brenda

Somerville from the Comox Valley.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION

ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protection of Public Participation

Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Protection of Public Participation

Act. The purpose of this act is to enhance public participation by

protecting expression on matters of public interest from litigation that

unduly limits such expression. Lawsuits that are improperly motivated by

the intent to silence expression are often referred to as strategic

lawsuits against public participation, or by the acronym

SLAPPs.

The act would not, however, require the difficult assessment of a

plaintiff’s motive. Rather, the act would provide for a legal basis and

expedited process by which, at an early stage in the proceedings, a

court would be able to determine whether a lawsuit arises out of

expression on a matter of public interest and, if so, to weigh whether

the likely harm to a plaintiff is serious enough that the public

interest, in allowing the lawsuit to continue, would outweigh the public

interest in protecting the expression that gave rise to the lawsuit. In

so doing, the act would improve access to justice and would balance the

protection of freedom of expression with the protection of reputation

and economic interests.

The act is based on the Uniform Protection of Public Participation

Act adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in 2017, which, in

turn, is based on the 2015 Ontario act of the same name.

Many British Columbians and a large number of civil society groups

in B.C., including the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, have called for

legislation to protect public participation. In 2017, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities adopted a resolution endorsing such legislation, and in

February of this year, 15 eminent legal figures signed an open letter

calling for legislation based on the model of the Ontario

act.

Members will note that although the act is being introduced in the

spring, it will not proceed to third reading until the fall session.

Because this act is proposed to apply to existing litigation, this will

give parties and their counsel time to assess the implications of this

on their litigation.

The ability of citizens to participate freely in discussion and

debate on matters of public interest without fear of undue legal threat

is vital to a vibrant democratic society. The Protection of Public

Participation Act will be of great importance in protecting that

fundamental democratic value.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Protection of Public Participation Act, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With the introduction of that bill, I just want to inform the

House I’ve already had discussions with both the official opposition

House Leader and the opposition House Leader for the Third Party that

while this bill has been introduced, it’s not the government’s intention

to call the bill in this session. Rather, it will be called in the fall

session.

All legislation that we intend to be dealing with this session was

introduced by the seventh of May. I know my colleague across the way is

aware of that, and I just wanted the House to understand that as

well.

BILL P r 401 — CANADIAN CHINESE

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

VANCOUVER ACT

T. Wat presented a bill intituled Canadian Chinese School of Theology

Vancouver Act.

T. Wat: I move that a bill entitled Canadian Chinese School of Theology

Vancouver Act standing in my name on the order paper be introduced and

now read a first time.

This private bill is being introduced to continue the Canadian

Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Society, previously incorporated

under the Societies Act as the Canadian Chinese School of Theology, and

to allow it to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates in theology,

including honorary degrees in theology, within the province of British

Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

T. Wat: Pursuant to Standing Order 105 relating to private bills, I move

that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

Bill Pr401, Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act,

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

[10:20 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ANNIVERSARY OF B.C. GOVERNMENT

APOLOGY TO CHINESE

CANADIANS

T. Wat: Four years ago today then Premier Christy Clark took a historic

and important step to issue a formal apology on behalf of the entire

B.C. Legislature to Chinese Canadians for historical wrongs. On May 15,

2014, all sides of the Legislature came together to express their

deepest sorrow and regret to members of the Chinese community for the

discriminatory legislation enacted by past provincial

governments.

This apology has helped to heal the pain caused during the dark

chapter in British Columbia from 1871 to 1947, when people of Chinese

descent were denied the right to vote, to own property or to hold public

office. As a former Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, I was

proud to lead an extensive three-month consultation process preceding

the apology motion.

As part of that apology, our previous government provided funding

of $1 million to support legacy projects, established the Legacy

Initiatives Advisory Council to ensure the successful implementation of

these projects, fulfilled an important commitment with the new

curriculum supplement for grade 5 and grade 10 students, placed

commemorative plaques at various locations around the province to

provide recognition of the contributions made by Chinese Canadians and

repealed the remaining 19 historical acts containing discriminatory

provisions.

I was so pleased to see last Friday that the advisory council

finally released a celebration book.

The Chinese community has made overwhelming contributions to

B.C.’s culture, history and economic prosperity. A true reconciliation

takes time and effort. We need to continue to ensure that discrimination

will never happen again, because our multicultural society is what makes

our province strong and prosperous.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

B. Ma: Amidst rising costs of living and long commutes and never-ending

congestion, building transit-centric communities is becoming more and

more important to keeping the Lower Mainland livable.

Not too long ago transportation engineering and planning primarily

focused on moving more cars around. But as our cities have changed, we

have realized that the way we plan for the future must change as well.

Now urban transportation planning is far more nuanced and

complex.

It is now understood amongst planners and engineers that you can’t

build your way out of urban congestion with more lanes on a roadway or

wider bridges, that demand for space can actually be induced by

overinvesting in it. We’ve also learned that sacrificing land that can

otherwise be used for housing in favour of supporting vehicle traffic

from commuters who have to travel because there’s not enough local

housing is actually ironic and sometimes counterproductive.

There is a better way, a new way that promotes creating smarter,

complete communities that support people of all sorts and promotes the

development of and use of public transit as the go-to mode of

transportation. By creating communities that support transit and other

transportation modes like walking and cycling, it doesn’t mean that

everyone else needs to ditch their cars. It simply means that you have

created the option of living without a car, if you so choose, as many

young people choose to do already today. That number, by the way, is

growing.

Smart community development and land-use planning are the most

important tools we have when it comes to building livable communities

with effective transportation systems, and it allows us to ensure that

our roads and transportation systems exist to support our communities,

not the other way around. That’s the real goal: to build for people.

Everyone in our cities — transit users, drivers, cyclists and walkers —

will benefit from that.

JOHN PENNER

T. Redies: There are some people that come into your life who you have an

instant connection to. My constituent, John Penner, was one of those

people.

At 92 years young and a resident of South Surrey’s Peninsula

Retirement Residence, I first met John on May 8, 2017, the day before

last year’s election. As a hopeful politician, I’d been invited to speak

at the Peninsula Retirement Residence and take questions from about 40

seniors — quite a daunting event for a newbie politician.

[10:25 a.m.]

As I was coming into the lobby, an older gentleman rushed up and

said: “I’m John Penner. I’d been involved in political campaigns since

the 1950s, and you’ve got big problems. You’re not known in this

community. Who’s your campaign manager? He’s mucking it all up, and you

should get someone else.” This was, to say the least, not what a rookie

politician wanted to hear on the eve of the election.

Notwithstanding, after an hour of answering questions, for

whatever reason I passed muster with John, and from there a fast

friendship developed. We discovered we both had an avid love of horse

racing. John had grown up in Alberta on a farm, riding horses from an

early age. He told me fascinating stories about being at Hastings Park

in the 1950s and ’60s. He’d been a hot walker and done lots of different

jobs around the track.

As John had success in insurance and then real estate in Burnaby,

he also owned racehorses — which, according to John never made him any

money, but he loved them anyways. We shared books on our favourite

racehorses and talked about the upcoming races, including the Kentucky

Derby.

At 92, John had a crackerjack mind. He was always watching the

news, and he would have a lot to say about politics and politicians —

none of which was very positive, mind you. But he was honest and

forthright, and I valued his perspective.

He was also a talented craftsman and woodworker. He made beautiful

wooden bowls, pens and other wooden products that he sold to people, and

all the money he gave to the War Amps to help children who lost limbs.

At Christmas, you couldn’t get away from him. You definitely went home

with multiple objects that John had made. Sales, as well as his

woodworking skills, was definitely one of John’s life skills.

John was the life of the party at the Peninsula Residence. He had

a quick wit, and I’m pretty darn sure he was a favourite of all of the

ladies. I’m sad to say John Penner passed away last week. It was

slightly more than a year that I’d known him, but he made a big

impression on my life.

John, as I watch the Preakness this weekend, I’ll be thinking of

you.

KUSHIRO CUP WINNER BILL CORSON

A. Kang: I rise today in the B.C. Legislature to recognize a 2018 Kushiro

Cup award winner, Bill Corson.

The Kushiro Cup is a special trophy that was originally brought to

the city of Burnaby in 1982 by a representative of Mayor Wanibuchi from

Burnaby’s sister city in Japan, Kushiro. The cup came without

instructions, so Burnaby’s mayor at the time, Bill Lewarne, proposed

that the cup be awarded annually to a non-elected citizen of Burnaby who

had served the community in an outstanding manner. Every year since the

Kushiro Cup has been awarded to an exceptional Burnaby

citizen.

This year we have the honour of recognizing Bill Corson’s

contribution to the city of Burnaby. Bill has been a tireless advocate

for community safety. As a volunteer with the Burnaby citizen crime

watch program, he has devoted countless hours to patrolling the streets

of Burnaby. In addition, Bill volunteers regularly for the southwest

community police office, and for 18 years, Bill has been a Block Watch

captain. In fact, he is my Block Watch captain.

In addition to being recognized as Burnaby’s citizen of the year,

I’d like to proudly recognize that Bill received the RCMP 20-year Long

Service Award in 2016, the RCMP Officer in Charge, Certificate of

Appreciation Award in 2010, the B.C. Solicitor General volunteer award

in 2008, and the city of Burnaby Local Hero Award in 2005.

Congratulations, Bill, on receiving this award, and thank you so

much for your contributions to volunteerism and making Burnaby a more

welcoming place for everyone.

VILLAGE OF CHASE

T. Stone: This summer the village of Chase is celebrating the 110th

anniversary of the establishment of the current townsite. Located on the

shores of Little Shuswap Lake, this close-knit community of 2,500 serves

as the western gateway to the Shuswap Lake region. The history of Chase

and the surrounding area is rich, given that it has been home of the

Secwepemc people for thousands of years.

Since 2004, Chase councillor and local historian David Lepsoe has

been leading walking tours to help locals and visitors alike better

understand the vibrant history of the region. David’s tour now includes

important stories such as how the gold rush brought people to the

region, how the coming of the railway transformed the village and how

the village was named after a flamboyant character named Whitfield

Chase, who settled in the area in 1865. Whitfield Chase was first

non-Indigenous settler that farmed and raised a family in what was then

called the Shuswap prairie.

[10:30 a.m.]

An American logging company came to the area in 1907, purchased

the townsite, subdivided and sold the lots. The Chase mill became known

as the Adams River Lumber Co. and started up the same year. At its peak,

the mill was the largest in the interior of British Columbia and

employed over 300 workers. After the big mill closed, a number of

smaller mills ran until 2005.

In the 1970s, the village began to market itself to the region and

the province as a tourist destination, and growth followed. Today Chase

is full of young families, small business people, artisans,

entrepreneurs and farmers. It’s full of folks keen on retiring by the

lake, perhaps with a golf cart, since Chase is rightfully proud to be

the only community in Canada within which you can legally drive a golf

cart on designated municipal roads during designated months of the

year.

It is a community that offers a tremendous quality of life, it’s a

community full of people with big hearts, and it’s a community that I’m

very proud to represent here in British Columbia’s

Legislature.

SURREY FOOD BANK

R. Singh: In 1981, in response to a downturn in the economy, a coalition of

churches opened a temporary food cupboard in Surrey. Two years later, in

June of 1983, the Surrey Food Bank Society was formed and opened up in a

dilapidated building on King George Highway.

What began as a temporary solution to a temporary problem has now

grown to an 8,000-square-foot warehouse in Whalley, a fleet of five

vehicles, a lift truck, 400 dedicated volunteers and a staff of

The Surrey Food Bank Society currently distributes approximately

2,000 food hampers each week and has many different programs tailored to

specific population groups — programs like Tiny Bundles, which caters to

families with pregnant moms and children under one year of age; a

senior-specific distribution that allows someone aged 65 or older to

collect their food in a respectful and non-rushed environment; and a

hamper-to-your-home program that delivers food to those with mobility or

other health issues who otherwise wouldn’t be able to access services at

the food bank. On top of the food-specific programs they offer, the

Surrey Food Bank interfaces with many local agencies to provide social

services to our city’s most vulnerable.

After 35 years of existence, they have come to the realization

that people will always need their help, but as they like to say, they

are giving people a hand up, not a handout.

I would like to thank the Surrey Food Bank for 35 years of

dedicated service to our city.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON NON-PROFIT

AGENCIES

A. Wilkinson: Last Tuesday I asked the Premier, and I asked him to clarify, what

he meant when he told non-profits and government agencies that they

would be kept whole from the employer health tax. We all know this is a

2 percent tax right off the top of the payroll from any organization in

British Columbia, including charities and non-profits.

The Finance Minister responded rather than the Premier. She said

you’ll see an implementation plan. Well, we’ve seen nothing. It’s been

84 days since Budget 2018 was presented — 12 weeks in which non-profits

and charities have been unable to plan for the future because they don’t

know if they’re going to be exempted from the employer health

tax.

Will the Minister of Finance finally come clean with the charities

and non-profits of British Columbia and tell them whether or not they’re

going to be subject to the payroll tax?

Hon. C. James: I was waiting for a “come clean” response that would come in this

session, so it’s finally arrived.

As the member knows, in implementing the employers health tax, we

have been gathering information. We have been talking to

not-for-profits. We have been talking to school districts and

universities. We are taking a look at the resources they are saving and

which organizations have been paying medical service premiums, because

it’s an important piece to be able to look at when you’re implementing

the employers health tax.

[10:35 a.m.]

Organizations across the board who have been paying MSP will, in

fact, be saving 50 percent as of this year, in 2018. They’ll be saving

100 percent when we actually get rid of medical service premiums in

2020. As I’ve said often and will say again, that is a huge savings.

Individuals will be saving $900 a year, and families will be saving

$1,800 a year.

I appreciate the member’s question. That information, as we

continue with the implementation of the employers health tax, which

starts in January 2019, will be coming forth.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The pattern is now very clear. Whenever a question is asked about

the payroll tax, the Finance Minister stands up and tells us about how

families are going to save $900. What is never made clear by the

government is that they are simply implementing a plan that was

initiated by this government, and they are going to take the credit for

it. What is not clear, though…

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: …is what the non-profits and charities of this province, thousands

of which operate with large cohorts of employees, are going to do in the

years to come. The Finance Minister mocks them. These are volunteers.

These are people who try to make our communities better. These are the

backbone of the volunteer sector in our economy, and what does the

Finance Minister do? She blows them off. She tells them: “Oh, don’t

worry. You’ll save money.”

By no means will they save money, Finance Minister. When are you

going to tell the non-profits and the charities of this province what

your plans are? Surely you’ve figured that out in the last three

months.

Hon. C. James: I’d say across to the member that in fact, we have been talking to

not-for-profits. We’ve been meeting with not-for-profits. We’ve been

meeting with charities. We’ve been meeting with school districts. We’ve

been meeting with municipalities. I’m sure it’s new to the other side to

actually listen to British Columbians before you implement something. I

understand that the other side wouldn’t get that.

I think the real question here is: what would the other side do?

Are you suggesting that we should leave a regressive tax in place that

actually penalizes families and penalizes individuals, or would you

rather cut health care funding?

We are doing the responsible thing. We are saving families and

saving individuals dollars, and we are protecting health care programs

and providing investments that people and seniors need in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: As we near the end of this session, the interview requests are

coming in, and they’re saying: “What’s the theme about this government?

What’s this government doing? How are they doing?” The theme is very

obvious.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: They’re really good at raising taxes and really indecisive about

governing. Everything goes out for study. “Let’s implement the B.C.

Liberal plan to eliminate MSP, and then we’ll take the credit for it.

Then let’s turn around and tell the non-profits: ‘Gee, we’re just going

to have to tell you to wait.’”

It’s time to govern. The Finance Minister has to make a decision.

You can’t study things forever. When are you going to respond to Board

Voice when they say that not knowing if the province will pay this extra

mandated tax is going to impede their ability to enhance the well-being

of British Columbians? When are you going to make a decision?

Hon. C. James: I think, in fact, that I’ve been spending most of question period

since we started in February answering for decisions that we have made

as government. I’d like to talk about governing. I’d like to talk about

the investments that we have made as government in less than a year, or

just a year now.

We, in fact, have introduced an affordable child care benefit that

will benefit families and child care. We are investing more than $6

billion in affordable housing for families, for seniors, for Indigenous

people, for people in this province. We’re increasing rental assistance

so that people who are the working poor, who are struggling, will be

able to benefit. Seniors will benefit with increases in SAFER. We’re

eliminating MSP premiums by January 1, 2020.

There is so much good news that I’ll save some of it for future

questions. But we are continuing to be proud of the affordability that

we’re providing for families, improving services and building a

sustainable economy across this province.

[10:40 a.m.]

S. Cadieux: Perhaps the Finance Minister isn’t aware that non-profits can’t

just add a tax to balance their budgets. They actually have to fundraise

for every dollar that they spend on services in our

communities.

Now, Board Voice wrote to the minister on March 7 to tell her:

“The impact of the employer health tax is now.” On May 12, Board Voice

wrote again — this time a letter to the editor in the minister’s local

paper, trying to get her attention. Their message is the same as two

months ago: “Her tax will hurt non-profits, and they need an answer

now.”

To the Finance Minister, when will she tell non-profits if they

will be made exempt from the tax?

Hon. C. James: Again, there are many not-for-profits that, in fact, have been

paying medical service premiums for their employees. Those organizations

are saving 50 percent as of January 1 because we have cut MSP by 50

percent. Those are savings for not-for-profits. We are reviewing all of

those organizations, including not-for-profits and charities, taking a

look at the savings from MSP, making those calculations. That is a

normal part of the implementation. That information will be out

shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Again, perhaps the Finance Minister doesn’t know that non-profits

can’t save money this year and spend it next year. It doesn’t work that

way with their budgets.

This is what Board Voice said on May 12: “For a great number of

non-profits, the new tax will add hundreds of….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Cadieux: I’ll do that again, since the members weren’t

listening.

“For a great number of non-profits, a new tax will add hundreds of

thousands of dollars to their expenses. The tax is scheduled to take

effect less than eight months from now. It’s urgent, in the short term,

that the government commit to additional funding….”

Non-profits across the province have been begging for answers for

months. When will the minister get to an answer?

Hon. C. James: I’m very well aware, as our government is, of not-for-profits and

charities and the incredible work they do in this province. In fact,

when we take a look at the supports that we’re putting in place, many

not-for-profits will see increases in supports for programs and services

they provide. We are committed to improving services in British

Columbia, and many of those are provided by not-for-profits.

Those groups and organizations will receive, as is the normal

process for implementation, that information shortly.

CAMOSUN COLLEGE TECHNOLOGY

ACCESS CENTRE AND FUNDING

FOR

INNOVATION PROGRAMS AT COLLEGES

A. Olsen: The Camosun Technology Access Centre, part of the Camosun

innovates program, provides unique and essential services to students

and businesses alike. For students, it’s an opportunity to get hands-on

experience tackling modern problems and developing the skills needed to

succeed in the emerging economy. The problems are brought to students

through partnerships with small businesses. The benefit to local

companies is access to research and development that they would not

otherwise be able to create themselves, because they’re too

small.

I’ve toured these facilities and know that they present an

enormous opportunity for the students who attend them.

My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. I know that

we have taken great strides in creating new spaces for students at a

number of technical institutes and universities, but the Camosun TAC

centre is unique in our province. What are we doing provincially to

support this groundbreaking program and the critical opportunities it

offers its students?

Hon. M. Mark: We’ve been waiting for nine months to talk about post-secondary

and how excited I am as the minister about what we’re doing to invest in

students accessing post-secondary education across beautiful British

Columbia.

We have an amazing post-secondary ecosystem across B.C. I’ve heard

great things about the Tech Access Centre that the member opposite is

speaking about. It is truly the only one in B.C. out of 30 centres

across Canada. I will be working with the member. I’m committed to

working with the member to invest in tech. But if I may, I wouldn’t mind

just a moment to talk about how we are investing in tech.

[10:45 a.m.]

For the first time in a decade, 2,900 seats invested in tech

across British Columbia. Camosun is going to benefit from that. They’re

going to get 40 new seats because of an injection, an investment of

funding from our government of $200,000 for students to study in web

technology programming and engineering graphics. Those are 21st-century

jobs that we’re committed to students by investing in.

Today is the first day of the B.C. Tech Summit that we’re

co-hosting, as government. We’re proud to be investing in 21st century

jobs, new technology and tech all over B.C.

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

A. Olsen: It’s wonderful to hear about the investment of new seats. The

Camosun innovates program receives Technology Access Centre grants, or

TAC grant funding, from the federal government as part of the Natural

Sciences and Engineering Research Council’s college and community

innovation program.

In 2017, it was, as the minister said, one of the only institutes

in B.C. to win a CCI grant award. This continues a trend where B.C.

colleges are receiving comparatively less in CCI grant funding than

their counterparts in Ontario or Alberta. All of the murmuring — this is

not new. This has been going on for quite some time.

Since the mid-2000s, Ontario has made a dedicated effort to ensure

that its colleges are at the cutting edge of innovation, creating new

policy and establishing new programs to facilitate partnerships between

small business and colleges. This has put Ontario institutions in a

strong position to win the competitive and peer-reviewed CCI awards. My

question…

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Thank you.

…is once again for the Minister of Advanced Education. The Ontario

plan is working. I’m wondering: what’s ours?

Hon. M. Mark: I’m not going to take the time to talk about what the old

government had every opportunity to do when it came to investing into

tech, but I will spend all the time the member would like to talk about

our record investments — of having, for the first time, a civil and

environmental engineering degree program at the University of Northern

British Columbia. The members opposite would love to take credit for all

of the talk that they did over the last 16 years, but I’m so proud to be

part of a government that acts.

Let’s talk about the new Innovate B.C. that was announced by the

Minister for Jobs, Trade and Technology — the new innovation

commissioner. The old government had every chance. We’re investing in

new technology. We’re investing in innovation. We’re a government

investing in people.

I want Camosun to shine, like all of the public post-secondary

institutions in B.C., and they’re going to do that with 21st-century

training.

USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT

BY CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

J. Johal: Yesterday the Minister of Citizen’s Services couldn’t get out of

the message box, but there’s been a full day to have the script updated,

so I’m going to ask another question.

Can she explain why she told the media that only a single email on

her private account was government business when she knew this wasn’t

the case?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I really

appreciate members of the opposition, now that they’re sitting on that

side of the House, finally taking an interest in FOI. We’ve been very

clear, unlike the members opposite when they were in government, that

this is an issue we are taking very, very seriously.

[10:50 a.m.]

I’ve answered this question in the House. The member opposite

knows that I proactively ensured these records were part of the

government record. That’s why he has them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: I guess the script hadn’t been updated. Here are the

facts.

The emails sent and received by the minister on her personal email

on February 16 and 17 were identified by professional civil servants as

pertaining to government business. Her constituency staff emailed this

policy advice not to the minister’s government email but to her private

email account, as they were instructed to do so.

Why did the minister instruct her staff to routinely — routinely —

send confidential government policy advice and recommendations to her

private email?

Hon. J. Sims: Once again, I thank my colleague for the question. I’ve been very,

very clear that the emails were transferred into government records, and

that’s why they have them. My staff also retained the records, and the

members across the way have those in their hands because they are part

of the government record. I addressed this issue proactively, unlike the

members opposite.

Here’s what the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

had to say about record practices while they were in government,

following the triple-delete scandal. “It is difficult to overstate the

seriousness of the problems that my office discovered in the course of

this investigation and the resulting effect on the integrity of the

access-to-information process in our province,” said the then

OIPC.

USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL BY CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER AND

CONTRACTS FOR

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

T. Redies: We know that the Minister of Citizens’ Services received personal

correspondence on February 16, with policy advice relating to a

multi-million-dollar IT contract. But what we don’t know is what the

minister sent to the unnamed third party in response.

Did the minister respond to the February 16 email through her

government email, and will she table that response?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for the question. Let me say that the

emails were forwarded into government accounts, ensuring they are part

of the government record. While I was on my personal device, I forwarded

emails to my government account, to my staff on a government account, so

they could be part of the government record.

But let’s take a look at the record of the members opposite when

it comes to good email practices. Following the triple-delete scandal,

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner had this to say.

“In the course of this investigation, we uncovered negligent searches

for records, a failure to keep adequate email records, a failure to

document searches and the wilful destruction of records responsive to an

access request. Taken together, these practices threaten the integrity

of access to information in British Columbia.” That is a

quote.

This issue is one that we take seriously, and I’m happy to

continue to answer questions in this House.

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

T. Redies: It seems to be the height of hypocrisy for the minister to be

lecturing us about our emails, given her track record in this particular

area.

Interjections.

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

T. Redies: It seems logical that the minister would respond to correspondence

that was addressed to her on her private email.

My question is, again: will she voluntarily release a reply to the

February 16 email from whatever email account it was sent

from?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I thank my colleague for the question. The email became a part of

government records because it was sent into a government account. That

was available to my colleagues across the way because they got it from

the government records through an FOI request.

But let me say that it really, really does seem hypocritical to

hear my colleagues talking about emails and things. When they were in

government, they had a history of triple delete and “Win at all

costs.”

Once again, those emails were transferred, as per the

requirements, into government emails, and that’s why those colleagues

have them.

P. Milobar: Let’s be clear for the minister. The reason that we keep asking

for the reply email is because it has not shown up in any FOIs.

Therefore, the natural assumption is that it’s yet buried in her private

email accounts.

Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’

Services did not address questions related to her

responsibilities for government procurement. Her private correspondence

included policy advice on multi-million-dollar IT contracts.

Did the minister inform the project board or a fairness adviser of

her communications with the third party related to the

contracts?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question as well. An email

came into a non-government account. That email, following the processes

that we have, was sent forward to staff, as would be appropriate in this

case. It was an email of an

article that was in a newspaper, and it was

sent forward….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me….

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Sims: As I have said previously, the emails, as per policy, were

transferred into government emails and dealt with

appropriately.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, imagine how refreshing it would be if the minister would

take responsibility for her own actions, instead of trying to blame

things that happened years ago.

Fairness is a legal obligation in any procurement process. The

minister’s use of personal email to send and receive policy advice or

recommendations related to IT contracts is incredibly

reckless.

Has the minister reported the advice she received on her private

email, about the contract, to the project board or the fairness

adviser?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank the member for the question as well. Let me assure

the members across the way that we take this issue very, very seriously.

I’ve answered this question in the House. The member opposite knows that

I transferred those emails into government records, and that’s why they

have them.

But let me just read out a quote from the Privacy Commissioner

about their practices. “In the course of this investigation, we

uncovered negligent searches for records, a failure to keep email

records, a failure to document searches, and the wilful destruction of

records responsive to an access request. Taken together, these practices

threaten the integrity of access to information in British

Columbia.”

This is an issue that we take very seriously. I will continue to

answer questions, so bring them on.

[11:00 a.m.]

USE OF EMAIL BY

ADVANCED EDUCATION

MINISTER

M. Stilwell: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training. Did the minister send any emails, text messages, BlackBerry

messages, Slack messages or WhatsApp messages during the month of

February?

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t have Slack. I don’t have WhatsApp. I have Twitter. I have

Outlook. I don’t have a BlackBerry.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: I have an Outlook email, yes. Sorry.

How many emails? I have a Nisga’a warrior princess email. I get

Gmail.

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

M. Stilwell: So the minister acknowledges that she has email and she has text

messages. However, shockingly, it seems that the minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we need to hear the question.

M. Stilwell: Shockingly, it seems that the minister didn’t use her government

phone at all. A request was made for all of the minister’s sent messages

during the month of February.

The response we received was that a thorough search was conducted,

but no records could be found — not one. Every single message had been

deleted.

Did the minister actually not send anything worth

retaining?

Hon. M. Mark: I am proud to stand in these chambers as the Minister for Advanced

Education, Skills and Training, investing in public education, governing

for the province.

I do not do business on Post-It Notes. I work with my team. I was

fully aware and briefed when we formed government on the FOI laws and

expectations as cabinet. I take the role seriously.

For members opposite who are familiar with working with Outlook,

you are able to create folders. I have sent, inbox and drafts. I can

give you a full briefing on how to use Outlook. I can explain to you

that I have a whole bunch of drop-down folders. If you want any

questions on housing, there’s a drop-down folder there. I file the

emails that come to my attention.

Thank you for the question from the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: I’m going to allow the question, and that is the member for

Cariboo North.

USE OF EMAIL BY

PREMIER’S OFFICE

STAFF

C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier’s office staff have routinely deleted every single

email that they’ve sent. This practice, we now know, has continued to at

least January. Yesterday the Premier stated: “Those records do exist on

servers, if the members want to look for them.”

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain why, then, if these

records do exist as the Premier said, that they were not produced in a

response to the freedom-of-information request?

Hon. C. James: As the Premier has said, government and staff have been directed

to manage records appropriately, consistent with all of the

recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We believe

it’s important that best rules and practices are followed, and that’s

what our government is doing.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present a report intituled Working Within the

Rules: Supporting Employment for Income Assistance Recipients from

the Office of the Ombudsperson.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 33, the South Coast British

Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Health.

[11:05 a.m.]

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call committee on Bill 19, the Protected

Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

C. Oakes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Oakes: I see that we are joined today by some lovely guests that I met last

night. They are from the great state of Hawaii, and they’re here on a trip

travelling across British Columbia. Would the House please help me welcome

my friends from the state of Hawaii, and may you have a beautiful trip

across British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 33, South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, be now read a second time.

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

This bill will provide TransLink with a new authority to impose and

collect development cost charges in TransLink’s transportation service

regions, and it will support the agency’s ability to make important

investments in the expansion of the regional transportation

system.

These investments are needed to address growing congestion in

Metro Vancouver and will help people spend less time stuck in traffic.

It will provide them with the opportunity to have more time with their

friends and with their family, because that’s what people

want.

This legislation provides the authority for a new development cost

charge and will help to ensure that the new growth that benefits from a

healthy transportation system is paying its fair share. The proposed

amendments for the new DCC authority are modelled on the existing

framework that is in place for local governments. This is a system that

is tested and well understood by local governments. It’s similar to the

existing authority for local governments, and this legislation will give

TransLink the authority to set DCC rates by bylaw.

[11:10 a.m.]

It provides for the DCC to be collected and remitted within

TransLink’s transportation service region by local governments or the

responsible jurisdiction. TransLink will be able to use these funds for

the capital costs of expanding its regional transportation system, and

it will have the authority to vary rates by different zones, uses and by

different sizes or numbers of lots or units in a development.

TransLink will be able to apply DCC revenues to a range of

critical expansion projects, including rapid transit lines and stations,

bus depots, SeaBus and the expansion of any road and bridge

infrastructure that TransLink owns, including pedestrian and cycling

infrastructure.

Now, a number of accountability and transparency provisions have

also been built into the structure of the proposed DCC legislation. For

example, the DCC bylaw must be approved by the provincial inspector of

municipalities. This will ensure an opportunity for oversight on

important matters, including whether meaningful and informed

consultative input has occurred on proposed bylaws.

In line with this government’s commitment to transparency, the

legislation will also require TransLink to list the revenue it

anticipates it will collect from DCCs for each year of the plan in its

investment plan, and TransLink will be required to publicly report on

its DCCs as part of its annual reporting process. These measures will

ensure that rates are fair and equitable and that they are set and

maintained openly and transparently.

As we all know, housing affordability is a significant concern

here in British Columbia, and this crisis has had a significant impact

on Metro Vancouver. That is why it’s important that any new charges

levied on housing do not have negative effects or negative impacts on

increasing the supply of housing that people can afford. To this end,

there are several provisions within the legislation that will help

ensure that housing affordability objectives are met.

First, the inspector’s bylaw approval role gives oversight over

whether consideration has been given to the potential for rates to deter

development or discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing.

The legislation also permits TransLink to provide waivers and reductions

to DCC amounts for developments that provide affordable rental

housing.

Looking towards implementation, this authority provides for a

12-month protection window from the new DCC rates for those projects

that are in stream — in-stream development applications. This new

authority is a critical element of a funding strategy for TransLink and

will support the agency in making important investments in Metro

Vancouver’s transportation system while not impacting housing

affordability in the region.

I hope that everyone here in this chamber joins me in support of

Bill 33. I look forward to hearing the discussion.

T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 33, the South Coast B.C.

Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I want to start off by first

making very, very clear for the record that I am very proud, we are very

proud on the official opposition side, of what we believe is a very

strong record on transit investments in Metro Vancouver and, indeed,

across British Columbia.

Our former government was the first government in the country to

sign a bilateral agreement with the federal government to pave the way

for the most significant injection of federal investment in transit in

British Columbia. I was fortunate to be the minister responsible at the

time that we got that deal done. Of course, over our last term, we were

able to work with the Mayors Council to assist them in the development

of a very good plan.

The mayors have put some exceptional work on the table and have

come up with a plan for transit investment across Metro Vancouver. Phase

1 was fully funded as per all of the partner contributions. Phase 2 is

now the focus of that expansion plan.

[11:15 a.m.]

We do know that the Canada Line, the Evergreen Line and the

significant improvements in service levels on SkyTrain generally across

the Lower Mainland have been very, very important and that more is

needed to address and deal with the growth that the region is

seeing.

Overall, in our last budget, we provided $3.2 billion over three

years for continued transportation investments. When you add in federal

contributions over that time period, it works out to about $4.6 billion.

So I’m very, very proud of the work that we did when we were in

government and very supportive of the Mayors Council, in working with

TransLink, which has come up with their current plan, which will see

about $890 million in service upgrades, bus service upgrades, across the

region.

That will provide for an 8 percent increase. There will be a 7

percent increase in handyDART service levels across the region — that’s

very good — and $495 million more for enhanced SkyTrain service. There

are about 100-plus new SkyTrain cars that are on their way that will

help upgrade the system and complement that added capacity.

Of course, there are the major rapid transit expansions: the

Broadway line in Vancouver and the Surrey L-line, as well as, in the

longer-term plan, likely SkyTrain service from Surrey centre out to

Langley. That’s currently a $7.3 billion plan. Again, it’s very

reflective of some exceptional work that the mayors have

done.

In terms of Bill 33, at the request of the Mayors Council, this

legislation gives authority to TransLink to set and levy development

cost charges, DCCs, on new construction in Metro Vancouver to, in part,

fund the local portion of the mayors’ ten-year TransLink plan. The other

funding measures at the local level include, I believe, a 2 percent

transit fare increase that kicks in, in 2020, an increase in the sales

tax on off-site parking and a modest property tax increase as

well.

Now, when TransLink and the Mayors Council, a couple of years ago,

were doing some work on potential funding sources and the development

cost charge, the DCC piece was one of many potential revenue sources for

consideration. TransLink estimated that this charge would likely be in

the neighbourhood of $300 to $600 per unit, depending on the specifics

that would be determined later, if that revenue measure was

pursued.

We now learn that this per-unit development cost charge could be

more realistically in the neighbourhood of $1,200 to, potentially, up to

almost $3,000 per unit of new residential housing in the Metro Vancouver

region. We understand that for commercial construction, commercial

development, DCC would likely be assessed in the range of 50 cents to a

buck 25 per square foot. And for industrial development, the charge

would likely be in the range of 40 cents per square foot.

I do want to acknowledge that, as I say all of that, I’m

foreshadowing our main concern with this piece of legislation. That is

the potential for these added costs to actually work against the

government’s initiatives, initiatives that we also believe are very

important, and that is to address the housing affordability situation

across Metro Vancouver. I’ll go into that in a bit more detail in a few

moments.

But I do want to acknowledge that this bill does provide for some

exemptions — areas or examples of where the charges would not apply. The

DCC would not apply to developments with less than four units or where

units are smaller than 29 metres. DCCs would not apply to the

construction, alteration or extension of a building that will be exempt

from taxation, such as a place of public worship. And DCCs will not

apply if the work doesn’t exceed $50,000 in total value.

[11:20 a.m.]

The bill would also set rules for where the development cost

charge can be waived or reduced, but these can all be later amended in

regulation as well. At the moment, what’s hard-coded in the act is that

the DCC can be waived or reduced in the case of not-for-profit rental

housing, for-profit affordable rental housing, subdivisions with low

greenhouse gas emissions and developments with low environmental

impacts.

The bill also sets out that in setting the development cost

charge, TransLink must take a number of items into consideration: future

land developments, the phasing out of work and services, how to achieve

low environmental impact, whether charges will be excessive in relation

to capital costs of the eligible project, whether the charges will deter

development, whether the charges will discourage affordable housing or

discourage that desire for low environmental impact.

Much of that is fairly subjective and will be left up to an

independent inspector in consultation with TransLink. I have some

concerns about that as well.

There are some accountability and transparency provisions built

in, as the minister mentioned previously. There is a requirement for

TransLink to list the revenue it anticipates it will collect from

development cost charges for each year of its investment

plan.

There is a requirement for TransLink to publicly report on its

development cost charges as part of its annual reporting process. That’s

good.

As well, in setting up these development cost charges, TransLink

must take into account some very specific items, such as or including

future land use patterns and development; phasing of works and services;

the environmental impact, as I mentioned earlier; the impacts,

potentially, on development and affordability; and the development of a

certain type of housing, as I mentioned previously.

TransLink must also detail for each local government in Metro and

make available to the public on request…. I do have a problem with this.

It should just be made public; the public should not have to request

it.

TransLink must detail for each local government and make available

to the public on request the considerations, information and

calculations used to determine the development cost charges — except for

information respecting the contemplated acquisition costs of specific

properties. Again, why this information just wouldn’t be made available

to the public in a gesture of transparency is beyond me.

Now let me focus more on our concerns with this bill. As I said a

moment ago, our main concern is the reality that we’re all concerned

about: housing affordability in Metro Vancouver. It is a well-understood

fact that development cost charges add a significant burden to the cost

of construction of residential housing in Metro Vancouver. By many

accounts, development cost charge levels in Metro Vancouver are very,

very high.

Again so that we’re clear on what there is today, development cost

charges are levied by municipal governments to cover the costs of growth

typically associated with the costs of roads, water and sewer networks,

and so forth. But there are also many other charges that are layered on

top of residential construction in this province and by many local

governments in Metro Vancouver.

Community amenity contribution fees are quite prevalent and have

been steadily increasing. Public art fees. The myriad of permit

requirements, with the associated costs and inspection fees. These are

all layered onto the costs of construction of residential housing in

Metro Vancouver.

The Urban Development Institute in Vancouver estimates that in

2008, the average 900-square-foot home in Vancouver had a total

cumulative cost of taxes and fees associated with construction of that

unit — the total cost of fees and charges — of $43,000,

whereas ten

years later, the total cost of all of those fees and charges — community

amenity fees, art fees, and so forth — is over $340,000 per

unit.

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s the cost of construction today. That doesn’t include

layering on top of the existing reality these new TransLink development

cost charges.

Interesting timing. Just today the C.D. Howe Institute released a

report called Through the Roof: The High Cost of Barriers to

Building New Housing in Canadian Municipalities . It comes to

the conclusion that excessive regulations and costs are choking the

supply of new housing in Metro Vancouver. One of the co-authors said:

“You look at what the price of housing is, and you compare it to what it

actually costs to build a house. When there are great big gaps between

what it costs and what people end up paying, that tells me there is some

pretty serious market dysfunction.”

There is a huge gap that this report identifies, a huge gap

between the cost of building new housing and its market price, with

extra costs on new housing ranging from — this is what the C.D. Howe

Institute found — an average total, of these costs, of $229,000 in the

eight most restrictive cities across Canada. So $229,000 is the total

cost in new units of residential construction across those eight

restrictive cities.

The total cost in Vancouver is estimated to be just north of

$600,000 per unit for those fees — the cumulative impact of those fees.

Again, that is before we layer onto the cost of construction these

additional development cost charges, these TransLink DCCs, which we’re

now learning, again, could be in the range of, on the lower end, $1,200

per unit to, potentially, upwards of $3,000 per unit.

The cost of construction is already very high, and it’s in large

part because of that cumulative impact of the fees and the charges that

are there today. I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge that,

yes, there’s a decreasing supply of available land. Land acquisition

costs are increasing, and that’s driving some of this escalation in

costs. So are strict zoning regulations at the local level, which is why

we’ve called for work to be done, in partnership with local governments,

on that point as well.

I’ve said many times, in and outside of this House, that it

continues to baffle me as to why the focus on the part of the current

government continues to be almost exclusively on addressing the housing

affordability crisis with measures on the demand side as opposed to the

supply side of the equation.

We’ve got the foreign buyer tax that was increased and more

broadly applied across the province. There’s a speculation tax. There

are the federal mortgage rules, the tightening of those federal mortgage

rules. These are all playing their part, but they’re all on the demand

side. We need to focus on supply. I will say it again: we need to focus

on supply. One of the flaws of this legislation is that there’s no focus

on densification along the transit lines.

We need to also work with local governments to speed up the

approvals process. I and a number of other members of this House have

talked about the huge backlog that exists at the local level: 120,000

units of residential construction is sitting in local government offices

awaiting approval. The time to approve those permits can take five to

six to seven years, depending on the municipality. That’s not

acceptable.

We’ve said: “Let’s work in partnership, in collaboration with

local government, to figure out what those tools are that the province

could put on the table to incent local governments to speed up the

approval process.” Perhaps it’s some additional short-term resources to

add some additional capacity inside a local government, to speed up

those approvals. But let’s get on with approving those tens of thousands

of units of residential market supply, residential housing units, that

the private sector wants to build, and they want to start building

tomorrow.

[11:30 a.m.]

I mentioned densification a moment ago. The bill does not in any

way tie these fees to densification along the transit lines. There

should be a direct correlation or a linkage through the charging of any

fees, such as are proposed in this bill, and the type of densification

that we want to see around key transit hubs.

We’re also very concerned about the fact that this legislation

provides for a blanket development cost charge across the entire Metro

Van region. This is not just a proposed fee, a proposed DCC, within a

certain distance of key transit hubs or along the key transit corridors.

As we read this legislation, this is a proposal on the table that would

impose this development cost charge on all new construction, new

development — residential, commercial, industrial — across the entire

region, even if you’re tens of kilometres away from a transit

hub.

Talk to folks in Surrey — as I have at great length in recent

weeks and, certainly, since the introduction of this bill — and folks

are rolling their eyes once again. It’s another opportunity here, in

this legislation, for Surrey to step up, through construction costs that

are incurred in one of the fastest-growing municipalities in British

Columbia and Canada, to cover the costs of transit improvements that the

folks in Surrey deem to be taking place largely elsewhere.

Now, a lot of that is addressed in the mayors’ ten-year plan.

There’s significant transit investment coming to Surrey, and again, I’m

very proud to have done a lot of work on that.

But why doesn’t this legislation restrict where these DCCs are

applicable, both out of an interest of fairness and also out of an

interest of really driving the densification that’s required in those

transit hubs and those key transportation corridors? That’s another

major, major flaw of this proposed piece of legislation.

We’re always concerned — it’s our role to hold the government

accountable, ask these questions and put these issues on the table —

about a belief that some have that TransLink has an insatiable appetite

for new revenue.

The original proposed development cost charges plan that TransLink

had put on the table was originally proposed to raise $20 million per

year. The Urban Development Institute actually advised the current

government that they would prefer to see the new TransLink DCC charge

not go ahead but that if it does go ahead, there should be a cap of some

sort. UDI suggested $20 million per year.

We now learn that this DCC is anticipated to generate upwards of

$29 million per year, and there are no controls in this piece of

legislation that make it difficult for TransLink and the current

government to continue to ratchet up those development cost

charges.

Now, I went and looked at development cost charges, community

amenity fees and art fees. As I mentioned, there are all kinds, a

million different names for them, in different municipalities around

Metro Vancouver. You have to really look hard to try to find an example

of a municipality that implemented, say, a community amenity charge at a

certain level and actually began to ratchet it back at some

point.

All I can find are examples of these kinds of charges that, once

they’re put in place, are almost never repealed. They’re almost never

reduced, but they always increase. I’m worried about that, because this

is, essentially, downloading a cost onto homeowners. This is making

housing less affordable to build and less affordable to purchase in

Metro Vancouver.

TransLink gets 17 cents a litre as it is. They’re going to

modestly increase property taxes. There will be a 2 percent increase of

fares at the transit farebox. There will be the increased sales tax for

off-street parking. If this bill goes through, as I’m sure it will —

with the government supported by the Greens, they will push this through

— TransLink will have a development cost charge.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’m very concerned about where the level of those charges is today

and where they may go in the years ahead. We know how this government

loves to increase taxes. I don’t see this government standing up to

TransLink in the years ahead and saying: “No. You know what? We’re going

to say no to a further increase in these DCCs.” I just don’t see that

happening. I hope I’m wrong.

The other context here is that the overall cost…. When I say I’m

worried about TransLink’s appetite for revenue, it’s because I

understand how and I’m paying close attention to how the costs are

escalating, on the major rapid transit projects in

particular.

You know, it wasn’t that long ago that the total cost of the three

major rapid transit lines was $6.3 billion. It was only about four years

ago. Just weeks ago the TransLink CEO, Kevin Desmond, released the new

plan for phase 2 of these transit investments, and the total cost is now

estimated to be $7.3 billion.

The Broadway line cost has escalated to $3 billion. That’s up 20

percent since 2015. The Surrey L-line is now estimated to cost $1.65

billion. That’s up considerably. And the proposed rapid transit to

Langley is now going to cost $2.83 billion.

Where it gets really worrisome is when you hear a comment like was

made publicly by the TransLink CEO, who, by the way, I have tremendous

respect for. I think he’s doing a very good job with this organization.

It’s not an easy job. He’s doing a good job.

But recently he was asked: “What’s your level of confidence with

these costs, considering they’ve gone up $1 billion in the last couple

of years?” And his exact quote was: “By the time we go through the

procurement process, the numbers could change again.”

I would suggest they’re probably going to change again. The land

acquisition costs are continuing to escalate. There is cost inflation in

the construction industry. The Canadian dollar, if it weakens any

further…. These are all external pressures.

What’s going to happen, if the cost of these projects continues to

escalate, is TransLink’s going to have to come back to the well again,

and the well is the taxpayer. And they now will be provided, through

this legislation, a very simple, straightforward, easy-to-use tool —

this development cost charge tool — to raise the revenue that they need

to meet the region’s component of the funding for these projects. I

think we should all be very worried about that.

The last point I’ll touch on briefly is this. Again, it’s a

pattern that we’ve seen in virtually every piece of legislation that

this government has introduced, and that is: to provide for significant

details of a particular piece of legislation to be determined at a later

date through regulation. This bill is no different.

I would be remiss if I did not remind the members opposite of the

years — certainly the four years that I was the Minister of

Transportation and would bring bills into the House — of howls of

outrage that the members opposite would throw onto the floor in this

chamber at the inclusion, in a bill, of the right of details to be

determined by order-in-council at a later date.

[11:40 a.m.]

Now, it’s one thing if it’s housekeeping details, but there are

some pretty significant components of this bill, this issue relating to

development cost charges, that the minister can implement and change and

remove and alter and expand and reduce at a whim through

order-in-council. We won’t know what those details are. We’ll ask some

questions in committee stage of the bill, of course, but I point out the

hypocrisy here in pushing significant details of this bill into

regulation.

At the end of the day, the official opposition is not going to

support this bill. We’re very supportive of transit investments and

continued transit investments in the region. We’re equally supportive of

ensuring that all that can be done is being done to make housing more

affordable in Metro Vancouver.

This bill and its imposition of thousands of dollars of

development cost charges per unit of residential housing will not make

housing more affordable in Metro Vancouver. It will not. It’s sad to

say, but this bill provides for yet another NDP tax that will be layered

on the backs of homeowners, who are already struggling under the weight

of significant tax increases in other areas, by this government to this

date.

We will not be supporting this bill. We will be canvassing it

thoroughly in committee and certainly hope to get some answers from the

minister to the questions that I’ve posed here today.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to stand today and speak to Bill 33. It seems like

a lot of sitting and standing going on this week. I spoke to a number of

bills.

This bill is an important one, as we continue the discussion in

our communities and in the various regions in our province about

transportation, the impact that transportation has on the overall family

budget, on the overall budget of the province and, as well, the impact

that it has on the mental health and well-being of our people and our

families.

I don’t think that we have had, as part of the discussion of

community development, a loud enough conversation or a strong enough

conversation about the impact that transportation and transportation

planning has on the health and well-being of citizens, constituents and

on families. There is, as we know, a social cost to congestion, as was

mentioned by the previous speaker.

I would also like to emphasize that the fact remains, when you’re

locked up in a car either going to or from work or to and from your

daily activities, that there is an increasing level of frustration,

increasing levels of stress. The last thing that I want to be doing

after a long day here in the Legislature is to be spending time in the

vehicle, locked up in my vehicle. My preference, of course, would be

with my son, as he plays — he’s got a baseball practice tonight — or

hanging out with my daughter or going off to an event in our community.

As we get locked in congestion, the stress levels rise and it decreases

the quality of life.

Of course, there’s a cost to the environment, the congestion on

the environment, to damaging ecosystems, to increasing greenhouse gas

emissions. The next bill, Bill 34, which will be debated in this very

chamber, is going to be about setting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Of course, we know that huge percentages, up towards 40 percent, of the

greenhouse gas emissions in our society are created by transportation.

Finding ways to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by providing other

options — mass transit options — in our communities will go a long way

to us hitting the targets that we are going to set by the end of this

spring session.

I think that it’s really important to point out that we have had a

generation or two of what I would classify as poor planning — poor

planning in the sense that we’ve disassociated the construction of our

residential and commercial infrastructure from the infrastructure

required to transport people.

[11:45 a.m.]

We’d often say, when I was a councillor in the district of Central

Saanich, that the roads are what the economy rode on. We provided those

roads and provided them connected to a provincial network, no question.

I think that it’s important for us to strongly connect the development

of our communities, the development of residential and commercial

infrastructure buildings for people to live and work in, with really

modern and state-of-the-art transportation networks.

When we don’t have those networks…. I think we see right here in

the capital region, where we’ve got one part of the region who will

boldly stand and proclaim, with great verbosity, the housing

developments that they’re creating and the solutions that they’re

creating for housing, while on the other hand, they diminish the

challenges that they’re creating with transportation.

Having differing levels of government responsible for that, it’s

easy for a local government to approve housing developments. As was

pointed out, the supply side of the housing affordability equation

always keeps being talked about and for good reason. We have to continue

to provide supply, but we also have to do it with care and attention. We

have to make sure that, as we’re building communities, we’re also

extending the types of transportation networks that are going to allow

those people a quality of life that’s going to be worth living

in.

We don’t want to be jamming people into neighbourhoods just for

the sake of driving housing costs down, while increasing transportation

costs. That makes no sense. We often disassociate the cost…. We talk

about housing affordability. The affordability of life also includes

transportation costs.

While we hear the former Minister of Transportation talk about the

grand investments that were made in transportation, I would think that

it’s important to point out that there was considerable concern from the

many people that I’ve talked to in and around the transportation field,

my colleagues at the local government level — not only in Metro

Vancouver but, as well, in the capital region, the Cowichan Valley

regional district in Cowichan Valley as well in other parts — that the

former government did not make the kinds of investments that were needed

in mass transit.

We’d talk about lots of bridge building, building big, wide

bridges for single-occupant vehicles to travel back and forth on. We

don’t talk enough about the kinds of investments in green and clean mass

transit, moving people in and around our communities that could have

been made.

In fact, arguably, it could have been said that the fight that

happened, the referendum that happened in Metro Vancouver around

TransLink and the insatiable desires the former minister talked about,

could have gone a long way to the seat count in the last election, as we

see the former government’s seat count strongly diminished in the Lower

Mainland. That’s what happens when you fight people in their

transportation and the feelings that they have around the increasing

stress levels.

I think that it’s important that the current government look at

that very closely in making sure that we’re providing people an ability

to be transported around their regions, around their communities and

neighbourhoods.

I think we often get into a discussion about transportation

infrastructure and transportation funding. We have to recognize that you

have to invest in transportation ahead of people utilizing

transportation. It may seem like a rather simple equation, but you can’t

put the wagon before the horse on this. You have to build the

infrastructure for people to be able to utilize it.

These investments in transportation are often long-term

investments, ones in which governments that are focused solely on a

four-year plan of getting re-elected and continuing to get re-elected

term after term don’t focus on the long-term investments and the

long-term benefits of transit and transportation.

Having a much longer-term plan, not only for the Lower Mainland

but, as well, for the capital region and the Cowichan Valley regional

district, who have all seen cuts in their transportation budget, their

transit budgets…. Making those investments now will not only increase

the quality of life in the short term, but also will help the community

development over the long term.

[11:50 a.m.]

Through Bill 33, as has been pointed out on several occasions but

I’ll reiterate…. This allows TransLink — it’s focused on Metro Vancouver

— to apply a DCC, a development cost charge, something that those of us

who have been in local government are quite familiar with. These are

cost charges that are applied directly to new development. This allows

for the community to put in certain amenities. They’re very strictly

focused towards specific amenities. In this case, through Bill 33, we’re

enabling Metro Vancouver and TransLink to expend and to charge a DCC on

new development so that it can be targeted towards funding.

This was part of the commitment that the government made to fund

40 percent of the projects that the former minister, now in the official

opposition, was talking about. It allows for some stable source of

funding to allow for the construction of much-needed transportation,

mass transit, infrastructure. It also allows for municipalities and

local governments to waive or reduce the fees should there be an

affordable housing component in this.

What was interesting from the member in the official opposition

who just spoke was that the main concern was around housing

affordability. I think that everything, from the backlog that was talked

about when it comes to supply…. Every single aspect of development, the

longer it takes, clearly, the more costs that the developer must hold or

must incur. Of course, developers then pass that along to the end-user.

The same thing could be said, of course, for adding a charge for

transportation.

It is also important to recognize that the overall affordability

for people in our society includes transportation costs. If we can be

providing transportation options that will allow a family to go from a

two-car family, as an example, to a one-car family — if we’re providing

that mass transit or the transportation infrastructure for them to

transition out of their vehicle — then we can also be decreasing the

costs.

I think that it’s very easy to simplify these arguments in here

and make things appear to be the way that they’re not, actually. It’s

important that when we have this discussion that we maintain the

complexity within it. These are not easy conversations to be having.

It’s not easy to be making a decision to invest in transportation

infrastructure that’s going to not only just benefit us in the short

term but also benefit over the long term. It’s not easy to see that

amortization in a short period of time.

It’s important for us to be having the complex conversations and

not just drawing this down to the simplest terms and turning it into a

purely emotional dollar-and-cents argument. We have to be talking about

all of the benefits that transportation investments make and have for

our families and for our communities in terms of quality of

life.

Finally, I would just like to say that this is a bill that we, as

a Green caucus, look at and are very supportive of. We’ll be supporting

the government to move in this way. I think that it is important for us

to ask some questions in the committee stage. We will be doing that.

I’ll listen with great interest to the member of the official

opposition, the questions that he asks as well, in an effort to improve

this bill so that we can get the funding necessary to build the

infrastructure we need to provide for our citizens.

I think that it’s important that we make these investments because

they are, in fact, generational investments. They are ones that are not

only going to improve our quality of life now, but they will improve the

quality of life for our kids and our grandkids. If we make the right

decisions and we connect that to the planning arm of the municipalities,

then we can make sure that our communities are moving much more smoothly

than they are now. We see gridlock happening in our communities, and it

is largely because we’ve disassociated the community development and the

transportation development pieces.

I see the light come on. I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour, if you’d be so kind as to move

adjournment of the debate.

A. Olsen: This will be the first time I’ve had the opportunity to move

adjournment of the debate. I don’t even need to reserve my right,

because I’m done. I thank you very much for the opportunity to

speak.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[11:55 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Simpson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Ma in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $19,606,664,000

(continued) .

J. Thornthwaite: I just have one question to the minister as a follow-up to my

question yesterday that actually wasn’t answered. So I’m going to re-ask

my question with regards to the therapeutics initiative. Who are the 65

experts on the therapeutics initiative, and what specialties do they

represent? Are there any people, experts, on the therapeutics initiative

that have any expertise in psychiatry?

Hon. A. Dix: The member has, I think, misunderstood something. I’ll try and

take her through it. She’s referring to a therapeutics initiative

letter. A draft of all those letters is sent out to professionals for

comment.

In the case of letter No. 95, which is in question, that went out

to 65 professionals for feedback. That included several psychiatrists,

both local and international. So that feedback informs the letter that’s

finally produced.

The purpose of the letters generally is to inform both family

practice doctors and others as to the most recent information and to

provide advice around issues of prescribing. That’s what happened here.

The 65 people it’s sent out to are to provide advice back to the

therapeutics initiative before the letter is finalized and sent out to

doctors and others in the province.

R. Sultan: I would like to begin by thanking the Ministry of Health for the

significant progress they have achieved with respect to the

modernization and expansion of the Lions Gate Hospital campus of

Vancouver Coastal Authority.

It’s my understanding that the mobilization of the strategically

vital energy plant has broken ground or is about to break ground on the

North Vancouver campus, on a site that’s already been boarded off, ready

to go. Equipment, in fact, has already been mobilized. I saw it myself a

few weeks ago.

The schedule, as I understand it, is for completion of the new

energy plant by late 2019. That’s the information I’ve received.

Approximately $25 million was committed by the government for the

project. Could the minister indicate whether my information is generally

correct?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes.

[11:15 a.m.]

R. Sultan: Thank you to the minister.

In February 2017, the Ministry of Health announced its approval of

a concept plan for a new acute care facility at Lions Gate Hospital.

This announcement was made alongside the Lions Gate Hospital

Foundation’s commitment to raise $100 million from the community for the

proposed new facility.

The North Shore community, acutely aware that a new facility is

long overdue, has once again rallied behind its hospital foundation. In

just over one year, more than $86 million has been raised from over

4,700 citizens. In other words, they’re $3 million and change shy of

attaining their goal, and through the hard work of chair Pierre Lebel

and foundation CEO Judith Savage, I’m very confident that the $100

million promise will be fulfilled.

To the hon. Minister of Health: I understand the business case was

submitted to your ministry two months ago or so. The next step is to

approve the necessary procurement specifications so that the design bid

aspects of a contract could begin to be quantified. There’s an awful lot

of calculating and estimating, and so on and so forth which has to be

done before bids can be received, clearly, and this itself is about an

18-month process. So even if we got the go-ahead from the ministry with

respect to the project itself, construction is hardly

imminent.

Can the minister please give some indication of when the

government will approve or, in fact, will approve the business case and

when this good news can be relayed to the North Shore community so that

the bid specification work can begin?

Hon. A. Dix: I think the answer is soon. The business case was provided

recently. And what we’ve been trying to do in the Ministry of Health is

reduce the time that we move from concept plan to concept plan approval,

from business plan to business plan approval, unless there would be some

reason to change that.

This project, I think, represents…. I think it’s really of

interest, because I meet regularly on these issues with the Chair, the

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, as well, who’s a strong advocate,

as the member is, for the hospital — as really the whole North Shore

community is.

I think this is a remarkable and unusual project. The member will

know that many health care projects of this size and scope go through

the Treasury Board process. In this case, it’s the combination of the

extraordinary commitment…. I think we can speak a little bit about Paul

Myers and his family and all they’ve contributed to this project and so

much else. That’s just an extraordinary story.

Because of this, the amount contributed by the local community and

the fact that the remaining money is from Vancouver Coastal Health and

has come from disposition of assets, things are very much in line to

move forward. We’re hoping to move expeditiously in our review of the

business plan, and we’re hopeful for good news for people on the North

Shore.

This is a long-overdue project. As was raised earlier in

estimates, and the member will know this, we had an extensive debate

around another issue that my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale has

been raising with me regularly. The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain

raised it in estimates around Evergreen, which is obviously connected on

site. That’s a separate set of questions.

But on this project, there’s enormous community support and

approval. I just can’t praise the foundation enough for their work, and

I think their work reflects the extraordinary work of hospital

foundations all over the province in making projects happen. It’s

especially important in Metro Vancouver, where, as the member will know,

there’s no local contribution to major capital projects.

R. Sultan: Thank you to the minister for that very encouraging response. And

yes, indeed, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, embedded in the

government as she is, has certainly helped, shall we say, grease the

skids on this project, one would expect, and things seem to be pretty

much heading for the green light. I also would like to repeat the

minister’s praise of the generosity of Paul Myers, a union contractor

for many years who took $25 million out of his own pocket and

contributed to all of us on the North Shore.

[11:20 a.m.]

Turning now to another major ministry project, can the minister

give a broad-brush timeline progress report, with perhaps some ballpark

financial numbers, on another project which, while not on the North

Shore, is clearly a vital component of the entire Metro Vancouver health

system? It will provide services in many specialized areas to the North

Vancouver community. I’m referring to the new Providence Health Care

campus at False Creek — a project also of great interest to our

community.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, there is something in that. I feel that the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country is asking for this response — a lengthy, historical

overview of this project — because I think he was suggesting yesterday

that the answers were not fulsome and detailed enough.

As the member will know, the St. Paul’s project was first

announced by the previous government in 2002. It was then announced in a

business plan in 2006 that the project would go to the False Creek

Flats. It was then announced in 2009 and again in 2011 that it would

stay on the current site. It was then announced in 2015 that it would go

to the False Creek Flats. It was then announced in 2016 that they were

moving towards a business plan phase.

When I arrived as Minister of Health, we’d gone, in 11 years, from

a business plan to a pre–business plan phase — in July of 2017. Now we

have received, from Providence Health Care, a business plan for the new

St. Paul’s Hospital. So it’s a long venture. I feel like at the end of a

book, my

part in it has merely been an afterword. Hopefully, we’re going

to write a new book, which is the building of the new St.

Paul’s.

I think St. Paul’s Hospital is one of the most extraordinary…. If

you look at the history of Vancouver and how long St. Paul’s has been

there on the current site, from the 1890s to the present, it’s arguably,

certainly, the most important building, the most important place, the

most central place of care and the institution that’s affected the most

people in Vancouver, most importantly.

I strongly believe in a continuing role for Providence Health Care

in our health care system and that as we work to achieve a new St.

Paul’s and a new generation of people receiving care on a new site, we

maintain the Providence Health Care structure. I’ve made that very

clear. I think the future for what’s sometimes called Catholic health

care, which includes quite a bit of long-term care but also, obviously,

has as its centrepiece St. Paul’s, is crucial and valuable.

If you look at what St. Paul’s has contributed, and we can name

hundreds of things over the years — their contribution of people at that

hospital in the development of a worldwide response to the HIV/AIDS

crisis, changing that disease, in many respects, from a deadly disease

to a chronic disease by the work of the extraordinary doctors and

researchers associated with the hospital and the generosity and openness

of the people of Providence Health Care — I think that it’s a reflection

of how our health care system benefits from having Providence in the

midst of it.

I’m very positive and very hopeful about the new St. Paul’s. We’ve

received a business plan, and we’re doing, obviously, lots of work on

it. It’s a major and significant project for all the people of B.C. When

I meet people on St. Paul’s, often these projects are seen as Vancouver

projects. But when I meet people all over the province who go to St.

Paul’s to get the care that they need, I think it has — more so than

maybe any other hospital project in the province — provincial support as

well as local support.

R. Sultan: Let me add my strong endorsement to the need to revitalize this

important institution serving all of Vancouver. I have occasion to be at

St. Paul’s from time to time. If ever a facility was overcrowded,

somewhat dangerous and, obviously, seismically highly

vulnerable….

[11:25 a.m.]

With some of the most dedicated professionals I think you will

find anywhere, working very hard and delivering superb service despite

their physical circumstances, it is a tribute to the management of the

institution. I am delighted to hear that the inevitable jockeying

between the pope, on the one hand, and the minister, on the other hand,

seems to have been resolved, and we are now moving forward. That’s good

news. Thank you, Minister.

Again, on the topic of this same institution. As a partially deaf

person — that’s me — I have a special interest in the treatment of

deafness. In that regard, I was encouraged that Providence Health Care’s

St. Paul’s hospital project appears to be providing for specialized

deafness facilities at the new False Creek campus when it emerges from

this extended planning process.

Is special attention being given, in the ministry’s thinking, for

what appears to be a growing epidemic of hearing loss generally — and

plans for an advanced hearing loss medical facility at the new

Providence Health Care clinic campus? I’d be very curious about any

thoughts the minister may have in that regard.

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, these issues, especially the adult

cochlear implant surgeries at St. Paul’s, are a significant part of St.

Paul’s current mission. They are the place to go in B.C. It’s good news,

and we’re continuing to work on this. The average wait time for a

referral to surgery at St. Paul’s has gone down. Clearly, that work will

have a major role in the new St. Paul’s as well.

One of the advantages of the new St. Paul’s is, in more modern

circumstances, to be able to do a better job across the board. That

said, the issue of what’s contained in the new St. Paul’s is part of the

business plan and part of what we’re working through with Providence

Health Care and the people working on the project. This is an important

part of what St. Paul’s does now, and it would be my expectation that it

would be an important

part in a new facility that’s more modern in the

future.

R. Sultan: Thank you, Minister. A final question. The minister has already

anticipated it, in part. Namely, the cochlear implant capability lodged

at St. Paul’s is, clearly, vital to many severely deaf persons. I’ve

been told I don’t qualify, but I wanted to declare my potential conflict

of interest here in advance.

It is also my understanding that the ministry, not so long ago,

increased the funding program for cochlear implants to work down what

appeared to be, from my limited information, a growing backlog of worthy

candidates for a procedure which, in fact, allows persons who otherwise

might be totally disabled to return to useful employment.

My question to the minister is: is there any way of getting a

quantitative feel for the magnitude of this program and its prospects in

the future?

Hon. A. Dix: What I’ll do is I’ll share…. I have a fact sheet on the program

that can take the member through the details of it.

[11:30 a.m.]

I think one of the…. There had been an accumulating wait time for

surgery that was, to some degree, dealt with in 2015 and 2016 at St.

Paul’s. In that short period, the number of implants moved from 56 to

83, which had, obviously, a significant impact on overall wait times.

There are still some wait times there.

There’s also a pediatric cochlear implant program at B.C.

Children’s. St. Paul’s addresses adult issues, and there’s also a

similar program at B.C. Children’s, which is the appropriate place for

similar procedures at that level.

We’ve got the details in terms of number of surgeries, in terms of

what St. Paul’s does and B.C. Children’s has, and I’ll be happy to have

my office forward that to the hon. member today.

R. Sultan: Thank you, Minister. I am sure the responses of the minister will

be received in a welcoming manner at St. Paul’s.

S. Sullivan: My question is further to the previous question on St. Paul’s. I

just wanted to emphasize the urgency of the situation there. As the

minister mentioned, in 1894 the building was begun, and since 1912,

there have been all these additions. Right now the main floor is not on

one level. You have to take elevators to get back and forth, and the

elevators always have a traffic jam there.

This is not a downtown hospital; this is a British Columbia

hospital. All heart transplants in British Columbia, about 500 so far,

have been there. It’s a centre of excellence for renal issues. I think

it’s one of two where you can get a kidney transplant. It’s also a very

important centre for the Downtown Eastside, and a lot of the ambulances

are wending their way through the downtown to get to St. Paul’s. The new

site would be blocks away from the centre there that is the source of so

many calls. And I know that the minister who is the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant would be very pleased.

Interjection.

S. Sullivan: Well, it would be in her riding that this new hospital would be

established.

It’s a great site because it has such great access from the

SkyTrain station, literally blocks away from the Main Street SkyTrain.

It’s very accessible from the Evergreen Line, from the Expo Line, even

from the Canada Line.

There are serious problems with the heritage structure there, with

brick buildings that would fall down in an earthquake. But I notice that

there is nothing in the budget for this hospital, to move it forward.

Can the minister give me some reassurance that things are in fact moving

forward?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, and I mentioned this earlier. I think part of the problem at

St. Paul’s has been a tendency to treat the issue as a political

football, so I won’t reflect on a project that was announced in 2002,

2006, 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2016 and really not proceeded with. But I

think we’ve reached a point….

I think the member makes an important point. This is something I

think about every time I think about St. Paul’s, which is its absolute

centrality to the health care system in B.C. — the number of patients it

serves, the extraordinary work done by the clinicians there, how people

in the whole of Metro Vancouver and the whole province feel about the

hospital — and the fact that we’ve now pushed the lifetime of the

existing building, without significant renovation, so far that waiting

is itself no longer a luxury, if it ever was a luxury. I’m not sure it

ever was a luxury, but it’s not a luxury now.

The member will know that projects that are at the concept plan

stage and at the business plan stage do not appear in the budget, and

that is the case with St. Paul’s Hospital. So even though there was a

business plan provided back in ’06 and so on, until a business plan is

approved, which is the stage we’re at now, it doesn’t appear in the

budget document.

[11:35 a.m.]

This is true of a number of other hospitals and other projects

that have received approval, say, at concept plan stage. For example,

the Mills Memorial Hospital, which we approved at a concept plan stage

in advance of the budget, doesn’t appear in the budget and won’t until

the business plan proceeds. Obviously, the St. Paul’s project, which is

one of the most significant hospital projects that this government, or

any government, will undertake in B.C., because it really….

We’re making decisions now, in terms of the planning of what will

be in the new building, that we hope will guide health care for the next

50 years. That’s a humbling thing to make, from this point. If you think

back 50 years, could policy-makers have imagined what the health care

system would look like today? In some respects, it hasn’t changed. But

in some respects, in practical ways in hospitals, it’s changed

dramatically.

These are difficult processes, but I hear, absolutely, what the

member is saying — that this is a project that’s long overdue and that

we need to proceed with. Obviously, it’s a high priority for the

government, for Providence Health Care, and I’m hopeful that we can move

forward.

But when we move forward, it doesn’t necessarily appear in the

budget. The reason it’s not in the budget isn’t that it’s not in the

plan, but it won’t appear in the budget until it gets past that

stage.

T. Redies: As we discussed the other day, the hospital needs of the

communities of South Surrey and White Rock continue to grow every day.

We have thousands of new townhomes going in, and we have, of course, one

of the fastest-aging populations in the province, if not the

country.

Peace Arch Hospital is getting a new emergency tower thanks to the

Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, which has raised a ton of money, and

also the support of the previous government to build a new emergency

tower and a few operating rooms. But the challenge, I believe, is that

the growing needs of the community are such that it will probably be too

little, too late by the time that tower is finished.

Now, the minister also knows that there is land that the hospital

owns free and clear across the street in Surrey. Your government made a

promise to build another hospital in Surrey. I think the opportunity in

our ridings of Surrey South and Surrey–White Rock is that we have the

land. It would be cost-effective to build. We have a growing population

whose needs are not being met today, and probably, again, it will be too

little, too late.

What I’m asking is: can the citizens of White Rock and South

Surrey rely on the support of the minister in order to build that

hospital and bring it up to the needs where it will meet the future

demands for our population?

Hon. A. Dix: The member is correct. The previous government announced a number

of emergency rooms in Fraser Health prior to the last election. While

they had the privilege of making those announcements, it’s my privilege

to find the money to pay for them, which I am proceeding to do with the

extraordinary work of foundations everywhere.

We extensively canvassed this issue yesterday with respect to

another ER project where, again, announcements were made, but the task

of actually delivering on those announcements falls to me. No money was

put aside, in some of these cases, to make that happen. The challenging

part is that in the case of these projects, that money comes from

capital resources or future capital resources of Fraser Health and not

through the Treasury Board process.

The Peace Arch Foundation. We were speaking earlier of Lions Gate

as one of the most extraordinary hospital foundations in the province,

and we’re very appreciative of their role.

With respect to the new hospital, I announced in December that

there would be a planning process, so right now, in consultation with

the community, a concept plan process is in place. The Fraser Health

Authority, under the direction of Mr. Marchbank, is directing that

process and working with the community.

I’ve heard the member’s suggestion. She’s raised it with me

personally, and I’m sure she has or will be raising it with Mr.

Marchbank and the people involved in that process. We’re reaching out to

get ideas. As she will know, the mayor of Surrey has suggested another

location, so there’s a discussion about that.

What I’m doing is saying that we should have the people who have

expertise and are working on this process do that over the course of the

year. I think the concept planning process will be about a year, where

they look at locations.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, this is a critical decision for health care in Surrey. We

have Surrey Memorial Hospital. Some of Surrey is served, obviously, by

Royal Columbian Hospital, as well, to the north, although there are

transportation issues that we know around that. Some people in Surrey

are served by Delta, Peace Arch and Langley.

What I’m doing is allowing experts to provide advice on the

various options in terms of land and not making, as the member would

expect, my decision or my ideas about where the second hospital should

be situated until I hear what the response is both from the community

and from the people looking at that. But it’s a significant question for

Surrey.

I know that there are people around Peace Arch who have made

suggestions around the expansion of that hospital. We’re open to looking

at all of the ideas, whether they’re from the municipality, from Peace

Arch or from wherever we can. It’s not just, obviously, a decision about

the present. This hospital will be there for 30, 40, 50 years. I think

we have to be guided by a view of Surrey in 30, 40, 50 years as well as

in the present. That’s why we’re leaving it to planning experts to do

this.

I will be guided, ultimately…. Obviously, the decisions land at

Treasury Board and with the government, but we’ll be guided by the

advice we receive from Fraser Health, from the people involved in the

process. There’s opportunity for people to get involved in that and make

their ideas felt.

T. Redies: Thank you for the response, Minister. If we are talking about 30

or 40 years, that’s a lot of population growth in our area. If the

minister is looking at that time frame, surely we wouldn’t be looking at

just one hospital in Surrey, given that there are hundreds of thousands

of people likely to move into the community, my riding of Surrey–White

Rock, over the next few years.

My question: is the ministry willing to look at additional

hospitals to the one that they promised, based on need?

Hon. A. Dix: I think we’re always reviewing the capital needs of

municipalities. It’s hard to visualize, I think, that far out. We felt

that there is a need for a second hospital in Surrey and that we should

start the process to proceed on it right now. We’re responding to

that.

Surrey also has — and it was built by the previous government —

the Jim Pattison Centre, which provides a lot of services. Health care

is changing as well. So we have to look at the evolution of health care.

The average length of stay in acute care has been reduced year over year

over year in recent times, so we have to look at what it is that a new

hospital will present that meets the needs of people in

Surrey.

The member is right. We’re going to see enormous population growth

across the province. Where I have a greater concern…. We’re obviously

addressing the immediate period in Surrey by building a second hospital.

I think the issue of greatest concern in communities such as Surrey,

which is, right now, a younger community…. It’s maybe the youngest

community in all of B.C. overall. That’s not the case, necessarily, in

White Rock, although I would say it’s certainly young at

heart.

I’d say that if you look to the future, even if it’s a young

community overall, that doesn’t mean the absolute number of seniors

isn’t high. We’ve got a concern in Surrey about the very significant

number of people who are unattached to a primary care doctor and the

demands in home care, home support and in community care, which are

profoundly linked to the effectiveness of a hospital such as Surrey

Memorial.

Frequently, what you see in communities…. The member for

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and I talked about this over the last number of

days. When you have a problem in hospitals, it’s frequently that people

are stuck in hospital because there’s no place immediately to support

them in the community.

These aren’t one decision. It’s not all that we need three

hospitals or four hospitals. We need a continuity of care in a community

like Surrey that meets the needs of the community. That means, for

example….

We’re not doing this, because we’ve just done magnificent work at

Children’s Hospital. But if we were starting from scratch today, and you

said to yourself: “Where should the new children’s hospital be….?” If

you had no children’s hospital, you’d clearly be putting it in Surrey,

in Metro Vancouver. But we’re obviously not going to do that. It is

where it is. It’s outstanding. It’s beautiful. It’s a new facility.

That’s not going to happen.

Those are the issues we have to look at it in terms of health care

planning. Really, the link between the community and acute care in

Surrey is something that we’re really looking at seriously. Right now,

we’re proceeding to a second hospital. We also have Peace Arch, Langley,

Delta and Royal Columbian that are around Surrey which deal with some of

the population needs of Surrey at the acute care level. But my real

focus in Surrey, in addition to the second hospital, is improving

services in the community.

I move that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 19;

J. Rice in the chair.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if I could get a bit of further explanation around

the name change with the Boya Lake Park — more specifically, how the

name came about. Obviously, there was a First Nations discussion, but

there are typically several First Nations that would touch on a park

boundary. Was more than one First Nation consulted, and was there

agreement, overall, around the name change?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member knows, it

was the Kaska Dena First Nation that requested the change. The

Indigenous name, Tā Ch’ilā, was used, and it means, in the elders’

language, “holes in a blanket.”

[11:20 a.m.]

There is an established process for consulting in cases like this,

and the consultation was, to the best of our knowledge, with the Kaska

Dena Council. That includes a number of nations.

P. Milobar: If I could get some further clarification on a similar style of

question around the renaming of the Brooks Peninsula Park: who were all

consulted around that name change as well, please?

Hon. G. Heyman: In terms of M u q q i w n ,

or Brooks Peninsula, Park, there are three nations. The park is within

the traditional territories of the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’, the Che:k:tles7et’h’

as well as the Quatsino First Nations, and all three of the First

Nations supported the naming request.

P. Milobar: It’s my understanding that a lot of the increases of the various

parks in this bill have a lot to do with mapping, of that nature. I’m

just wondering if we could get a bit more clarification around the

increase in the size of Monkman Park — if it’s around any specific

features or if it’s strictly a mapping exercise.

Hon. G. Heyman: I understood the member’s question to be around the addition to

Monkman Park. There are in fact 268 hectares being added. That’s the

addition of Slate Falls, to protect the waterfalls.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. I’m wondering if the minister could just

reconfirm for the record. My understanding is that the Haig-Brown family

was supportive of the name change, as well as the local First Nations,

who had a lot of input into the new naming of the Roderick Haig-Brown

Park. I just wanted to confirm that that is, indeed, the

case.

Will there be dual signage, much like we see with the a.k.a. of

the Boya Lake Park, where both names will be identifiable if people are

searching for the park area, at least in the short term?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, the name change is by request and to reflect

the Secwepemc name Tsútswecw Park. The Roderick Haig-Brown family is

quite supportive of the name change. There will not be a dual name for

the park, but there will be recognition of Roderick Haig-Brown e