Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 25, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 297

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence

M. Dean

Violence against women and sexual assault services

J. Thornthwaite

Multiculturalism

A. Kang

Hamperville Christmas program

M. Stilwell

Bernice Gehring

B. D’Eith

Maureen Hafstein and deep brain stimulation surgery

G. Kyllo

Oral Questions

Labour dispute in transit system

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. H. Bains

Qualifications for social workers in Children and Family Development Ministry

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Labour dispute at University of Northern B.C.

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

Coastal forest industry conditions and labour dispute

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government response to labour disputes

M. de Jong

Hon. H. Bains

Advertising by unions at NDP convention

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Petitions

N. Letnick

M. Stilwell

J. Johal

D. Davies

J. Routledge

Reports from Committees

Police Complaint Process Review Committee, report,

November 2019

R. Singh

M. Morris

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 45 — Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Stone

S. Cadieux

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to recognize that we have a number of members of the Canadian

Home Builders Association here in the gallery with us, including Neil Moody,

the CEO, Brian Charlton, the president, and Matt McCurrach, the past

president. They’ve joined us today.

The members of the CHBA are important partners with us across the

province in working to deliver the homes that people need. I want to thank

them for taking the time to meet with myself, the Premier and others here in

the chamber today. Their insights and participation, particularly the ones

that they offered earlier this year through the development approval process

review, were tremendously valuable, tremendously important. I look forward

to continued work with them.

B. D’Eith: It’s always wonderful when one of our citizens from Maple Ridge comes,

especially when it’s an elected official. I’d like to welcome Councillor

Yousef, who’s from the city of Maple Ridge city council, to our House.

Please make him feel very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, would like to welcome the Home Builders Association to the

Legislature — in particular, my constituent Mark Cooper.

Welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Doreen Olson to the

gallery today. She’s the coordinator for the South Okanagan–Similkameen

National Park Network. I met Doreen a number of years ago now, and I’ve

always been so impressed with her passion for the national park. I think

that her dreams and her passion are finally coming to fruition. Please join

me in welcoming her to the gallery.

C. Oakes: Truly, it’s my delight to introduce a constituent of mine, Joe Hart,

the owner of Icon Homes. He is here today with the Canadian Home Builders

Association.

Joe has built possibly…. We have a net-zero home in Quesnel. I had an

opportunity to visit this home. They do a fantastic job. I don’t need to

mention to members in this House sometimes the difficulty it is building a

net-zero home in northern British Columbia, but they’re doing a

fan­tastic job. They’re great citizens in our community.

Would the House please help me welcome Joe.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m sure all members in this House know we cannot do the work we do

every day without the dedicated staff who support us and our work here in

this Legislature. I’ve always been blessed with a great team of people who

sometimes spend really long hours with me in this Legislature and travel

with me around communities. We get to know each other so well. We sometimes

become like family.

Today I’m really, really happy to welcome one of my ministerial

assistants, James Infante, who is visiting us with his partner in the

gallery. He has also worked for the Minister of Poverty Reduction and for

Tourism, Arts and Culture.

I really want to welcome his partner, Tim Lam, who is visiting and

joining question period for the first time. He’s also a young professional

from Vancouver. I hope that he’ll become James’s future husband.

Let’s make them very, very welcome.

Hon. C. James: Matchmaking right here in the Legislature.

[1:40 p.m.]

Joining us in the gallery later this afternoon will be a grade 4-5

class taught by Kirsten Brookes from Strawberry Vale Elementary, a school in

the member for Saanich South’s riding. I’m told this is a very curious group

of students, very inquisitive, some of whom are children of the Ministry of

Finance staff. They’re here today as part of their field trip to learn more

about provincial politics. They learned about the federal system around

their own mock election. So they’re here today to be able to observe the

provincial process in action.

I hope the House will join me in welcoming them.

Hon. G. Heyman: I have the pleasure to introduce a number of guests in the gallery

today. Joining us from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society are

Victoria Ball and Savannah Eidse. Also with them from CPAWS is Kate

MacMillan. Kate is the provincial ocean and coastal coordinator for CPAWS.

Along with her is colleague Georgia Lloyd-Smith from West Coast

Environmental Law.

We had a very good meeting earlier today to talk about their ideas for

a new coastal protection strategy, along with the Parliamentary Secretary

for the Environment and a number of staff from the ministry.

Also, a very, very special guest here today is Emma Atwell. Emma is a

grade 9 student at Mount Douglas Secondary School in Saanich. She’s

currently enrolled in their challenge program for academically advanced

students. She’s a member of her school’s Model United Nations club and is a

keen public speaker.

She also has been inspired by the attention brought to the climate

crisis by Greta Thunberg. She’s currently working to create strategies for a

more sustainable future in this province for herself and for her generation.

By attending today, Emma is hoping to learn more about how decisions are

made that will impact her and people her age. Later today we’re going to

spend some time together, have a meeting and talk about what she has learned

and what she hopes to see.

Will the House please make all of the guests very, very

welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery is a constituent of mine. She’s a remarkable

individual. She’s a psychiatric nurse. Her name is Christina Gower. She was

the federal candidate for the NDP in the riding of Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam,

where she did an amazing job. I would like for the House to make her most

welcome for her first time to see the Legislature in action.

Hon. L. Popham: We have two special visitors in the House today. First off, the love

of my life, Dr. Rob Sealey. He lives his life under the slogan: “Laughter is

the best medicine.”

You bring a smile to my face every day. Thank you.

And his brother. His brother is visiting from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Donald Sealey is here to join his brother at a concert tonight, Roger

Hodgson at the Royal Theatre.

Welcome to Victoria.

A. Kang: I have some really wonderful friends here in the gallery today.

Inspirational leaders of the Ismaili community. I want to take this

opportunity to thank them for the work that they do in giving back. Through

conversations over lunch today, I understand that their inspiration is a

form of self-enlightenment and self-fulfilment.

I want to introduce a few members that are here with us today. It’s

the chair of the Aga Khan Health Board for B.C., Dr. Farah Valimohamed; the

chair of the Aga Khan Economic Planning Board for B.C., Shaez Allidina; the

chair of the Aga Khan Youth and Sports Board for B.C. and also my

constituent, Samir Javer; and a member for Institutional Development

Volunteers in Safety and Security, Amaan-Ali Fazal.

Would the House please make my friends feel very welcome.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to also welcome into this House members of the

Ismaili community who sort of live the Shia values. I know for them — and

this is a subject very dear to my heart, as all of you know — education and

learning are what drives them. I really do appreciate the work they do to

build strong communities and to build understanding across groups and also

to support healthy communities.

With us today, we have the vice-chair for settlement, Anjum Dossa;

member for care for the elderly, Anisha Virani; multi-generational housing,

Rahim Talib; equality of life representative, Farzana Kherani; conciliation

and arbitration board, Karim Fatehali Lalji.

[1:45 p.m.]

Of course, I noticed another name that I’m going to add to this list,

which is Rabiya Merani, who is the administrative officer and who happens to

live in my riding.

Welcome to this House.

J. Routledge: I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the delegation from

the Ismaili community and thank them for their strong commitment to

community. Specifically, I’d like you to join me in welcoming convener,

government relations B.C., Khaled Shariff; honorary secretary, community

relations B.C., Tahira Manji; lead, government relations B.C., Imran Hemani;

and convener, government relations national, Aiya Mohamed. Please join me in

welcoming them.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined by three very special guests today. The first is my high

school sweetheart, my lovely wife, Georgina — 31 years of marriage. Would

the House please make Georgina feel very welcome.

Also, I have the pleasure of having my parents, Knut and Marianne

Thomsen, from Sicamous joining us. We spent the weekend touring around the

province’s capital. We had an opportunity to go to Government House and

Craigdarroch Castle, took in the Great Bear Rainforest movie. I

think the highlight of my mom’s trip was, certainly, having lunch last week

with Keith Baldrey, who was an amazing host.

Would the House please make my parents feel very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to continue with the introductions of our

friends from the Ismaili Centre, the Ismaili Council for British Columbia.

With us today are the president, Samir Manji; hon. secretary, Aleem Teja;

member of community relations, Farouq Manji; and the chair of the Aga Khan

Education Board of B.C., Farah Babul. Please join me and give them a very

warm welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAYS OF ACTIVISM

AGAINST GENDER-BASED

VIOLENCE

M. Dean: Everyone deserves to live a life free of the threat of violence.

In B.C., there are over 1,000 physical or sexual assaults against women

every week. Indigenous, racialized, transgender and LGBTQ2S+ people are

even more likely to be targeted. Too many women, transgender and

non-binary people are hurt or killed because of their gender. We must

eliminate this preventable trauma.

Starting today, the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based

Violence is an annual international campaign that runs from the

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women to

December 10, Human Rights Day. Canadians also recognize December 6 as

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This

date was chosen to commemorate the lives of the 14 women killed in the

Montreal massacre at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The

massacre was an explicitly misogynistic attack, with the killer

separating men and women and screaming, “I hate feminists,” as he

committed his murders.

Violence is also a threat in homes. Today we announced 11 more

projects to build transition housing and second-stage housing for women

and their children breaking away from violence. We know it is long

overdue. We heard about Patricia this morning, who had accessed the safe

transition house in Duncan but had to leave and couldn’t find safe

housing. She killed herself. Our new projects will provide refuge for

people like Patricia in the future.

We all have a responsibility, and we all need to work together to

end gender-based violence. Please join me, not just for these 16 days

but for every day ahead.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: Today I rise with women around the world to commemorate the

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, an

important landmark to recognize the enormous amount of work that still

needs to be done to combat the tragic epidemic of physical and sexual

violence occurring in British Columbia and all over the world every

minute of every day.

[1:50 p.m.]

One in three women and girls will experience physical or sexual

violence in their lifetime, most frequently by an intimate partner. In

British Columbia, one in five women will be sexually assaulted during

their time attending post-secondary, a statistic that has not changed

for over 30 years.

We simply cannot stand for these statistics to continue. We live

in a rape culture. We don’t have enough services for victims and

survivors of sexual assault. On the North Shore, if a woman arrives at

Lions Gate Hospital after being raped, she is turned away and told to go

to VGH at her own expense. There are no services to help her at Lions

Gate Hospital. And it gets worse. Only 20 of the 100 hospitals in B.C.

have trained and ready sexual assault services, just 20

provincewide.

Plus, training for every profession that comes in contact with a

victim is key to ensuring that we are not revictimizing women with a

second rape. All health care providers, police, lawyers and judges need

training in trauma-informed care to properly support victims. I

recommend that everybody in this House watch Unbelievable on

Netflix.

Women and girls need more from us. I ask this House to stand with

me for the survivors of physical and sexual assault. Each and every one

of us, women and men, can help make British Columbia safer in standing

up against violence against women and girls.

MULTICULTURALISM

A. Kang: Last week in the B.C. Legislature was B.C. Multiculturalism Week,

which celebrates the incredible diversity we are lucky to have here in

our province. It was an opportunity for us to think about how we can all

contribute to the greater understanding, respect and appreciation for

everyone in B.C. For me, that starts with connection — connection to the

history of B.C., to our individual heritages and with each

other.

I’m grateful to live and work on the territories of Indigenous

peoples who have lived on these lands for thousands of years. I

acknowledge and respect their diverse culture and deep connections to

the land. Together with Indigenous peoples, our government continues the

journey forward on reconciliation to make life better for everyone in

B.C.

It is also amazing to be part of a cultural mosaic that is home to

people who trace their origins to all corners of the world. As a

first-generation Canadian, I realize it takes courage. It takes courage

for people to leave their homeland behind and to search for new

opportunities and a better life for their families.

This year, for Multiculturalism Week, I encouraged everyone in

B.C. to find ways to learn about and build connections with people from

cultures and backgrounds different from their own. Personally, I find it

fascinating to learn about histories, traditions, perspectives and ways

of life that are different from my own. As B.C.’s newly appointed

Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, I’m committed to doing

everything that I can to uphold and protect B.C.’s cultural diversity.

When I think about the future, I am filled with hope that our children

will grow up in a world where everyone feels valued and

respected.

I thank all members of the House for joining me last week,

celebrating Multiculturalism Week in B.C. As we stand together to create

a province that is open, welcoming and inclusive, I want to thank

everyone for helping to create a racism- and hate-free

province.

HAMPERVILLE CHRISTMAS PROGRAM

M. Stilwell: Every holiday season I’m reminded of the immense generosity and

compassion of people in my community of Parksville-Qualicum — schools,

community organizations, businesses, first responders and general

members of the public who help to gather food, toys and clothes for

those most in need.

A wonderful example of this is Nanaimo’s Hamperville Christmas

program by the Salvation Army and the Nanaimo Loaves and Fishes

Community Food Bank. The two organizations joined forces more than a

decade ago, understanding that they could do more together to address

the community’s need for food over the holidays. They, along with dozens

of volunteers, distribute food over the month of December to those

who’ve registered for help. Clients can stock their hampers with turkey

or a gift card for meat, non-perishable items, bread, eggs, dairy,

vegetables and fruits.

[1:55 p.m.]

For several years, I’ve had the pleasure of volunteering with the

program. It is such a heartwarming experience to see boxes upon boxes of

donated food for people to choose from — and the impact of their

generosity. The experience is also a reminder that there are many

reasons why people seek help from food banks and that the need isn’t

always visible. It could be a young family struggling to make ends meet,

a person suddenly laid off from work or a senior just trying to stretch

her pension.

Last year $500,000 worth of food was collected, and over 5,000

people were served. The need is anticipated to be the same this season.

As of last Tuesday, 1,279 households, representing 2,892 people, had

registered for a hamper. There is still time to donate non-perishable

food or cash or even volunteer with the program.

I want to thank Peter Sinclair, Loaves and Fishes executive

director, and his wonderful team, as well as the staff at the Nanaimo

Salvation Army — including Maj. Robin Burrows, Maj. Yvonne Burrows and

Leah Howroyd — for the work and dedication in making sure that families

have access to food this holiday season. It’s an important program and a

great example of the spirit of giving.

BERNICE GEHRING

B. D’Eith: Today I stand, and also would like to represent the member for

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, to honour the memory of someone who dedicated

her life to improving Maple Ridge. Sadly, Bernice Gehring passed away

this month at the age of 82. One of our mutual friends, Coun. Craig

Speirs, a past councillor, put it best: “She put history into action, a

host in every sense of the word and someone who would always show up to

do the work.” So true.

Bernice was a trained nurse and served as vice-president of the

B.C. Licensed Practical Nurses Association and a representative for the

Hospital Employees Union. She also served as a Maple Ridge city

councillor and was very active as a volunteer for many political

campaigns, including my own.

In 1973, Bernice and her husband, Don, began an eight-year journey

to transform a building that was built in 1911 into the beloved Billy

Miner Pub. They lived upstairs in the suite above the pub for many years

before selling the pub. The Billy has since been protected as a heritage

building. In fact, it’s among the last structures on River Road

remaining from the pioneer era. This pub continues to be a vibrant

staple of social life in Maple Ridge.

Through her tireless dedication to the community, Bernice took a

potential demolition and transformed it into a vital gathering place. On

a personal note, the pub also sustains two of my sons right now, who

work there to pursue their careers in the music industry. For her

efforts to save the Billy, Bernice was awarded the Queen’s Diamond

Jubilee Medal in 2012.

Now, beyond politics and the historical pub, Bernice had a true

passion for giving back to Maple Ridge. Her desire to build community

went far beyond the walls of the Billy Miner Pub. She was a volunteer

for over 45 years, working in countless causes. She was a chair of the

Haney Farmers Market. She would often give walking tours of Hammond, and

everyone who had the luck to meet Bernice would tell you of her

legendary hospitality and generosity.

Bernice was an inspiration, someone who always thought about the

greater good. Her drive to strengthen Maple Ridge and preserve its

history has left a positive mark on our community forever. She and her

contributions to Maple Ridge will be sorely missed.

I wish Don and her family the best in this difficult

time.

MAUREEN HAFSTEIN AND

DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION

SURGERY

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to speak about a remarkable, inspiring

woman in my community, Maureen Hafstein. I knew Maureen as my daughter’s

teacher. For years, she taught at Eagle River Secondary in Sicamous,

pouring her time and energy into being an exemplary educator and raising

up the next generation.

However, 12 years ago her life was changed when she was diagnosed

with Parkinson’s disease. A few years ago she learned about deep brain

stimulation, DBS, a medical procedure that has proven to have incredible

results for Parkinson’s patients. This procedure is most effective as

soon after one’s diagnosis as possible. The problem is, in B.C., the

wait-list for this procedure could range from two to five

years.

Always an advocate, Maureen came to me with this information,

concerned not just for her own well-being but for all those around the

province who could benefit from DBS surgery but are missing the

opportunity due to long wait-list times. She took the lead, and we

worked together to reach out to the Ministry of Health about this issue.

Thanks to her hard work and dedication and her efforts to raise

awareness, access to DBS in B.C. has been dramatically

improved.

[2:00 p.m.]

This September Maureen finally had the surgery for which she’s

been waiting for years and this month started a series of follow-up

appointments to learn how to make adjustments to help improve control of

her symptoms.

I want to take this opportunity to wish Maureen well with her

treatment but also to thank her for all that she has done, both in her

own community as an educator and for the province as a whole through her

tireless advocacy. Her work has led to increased funding for DBS

surgery, providing improvements in the quality for so many individuals

who live with Parkinson’s disease.

Thank you, Maureen, for all of your efforts and for being such a

positive and inspiring example for all of us.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE IN TRANSIT SYSTEM

A. Wilkinson: This past weekend union bosses made no secret of the fact that

they bankrolled the NDP convention through the loophole of advertising.

Meanwhile, the Premier is nowhere to be seen on the strikes that are now

bedevilling British Columbia: 145 days in the forest sector, 19 days at

UNBC and now an impending massive work shutdown in the Lower Mainland

that will leave 1.4 million people waiting for a ride. The Premier, on

all of these files, has done nothing.

Commuters are about to get dragged into the fourth week of the

transit slowdown. It’s about to get a whole lot worse for the more than

one million people who will be left standing by the roadside wondering,

“Where is the government of British Columbia?” and, more pertinently,

“Why do we have a Minister of Labour?”

Will the Premier do something about the transit strike?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m grateful that the Leader of the Opposition was spending some

time contemplating the activities at our policy convention this weekend,

where we passed a range of positive policies that are going to make life

better for British Columbians. I’d go through that list with the member,

but I know we’ve only got a half an hour.

What I’ll do instead is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: With respect to the issues about transit in the Lower Mainland,

I’m heartened to hear today that the parties are back at the table.

Negotiations continue with respect to bus drivers in the Lower Mainland,

and also, mediation is in play with respect to SkyTrain. Free collective

bargaining requires people to sit at a table and get things done. That’s

exactly what’s going on right now, this minute.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, that’s cold comfort to the people who are waiting for their

care to arrive when they live in their own home and require caregivers

to come and visit them. We heard on the radio this morning that there

are 10,000 people in that situation in the Lower Mainland.

The organizer for that in-home care said that they expect the care

service to go down from daily to every third day because the caregivers

just can’t get there without transit. This is a very real, human aspect

that is going to leave seniors lying in bed helpless because this

government can’t be bothered to even appoint a mediator in the transit

strike. This is coming home in a big way, with real stories about real

people, not some illusory idea of the bargaining table.

Premier, it’s time to focus on humanity, on people, on real lives,

and save people the grief of a transit strike. Why can’t this government

appoint a mediator?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition didn’t hear my answer to his

last question. There is a mediator in play with respect to the SkyTrain

bargaining that’s underway. The parties that….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: “Nothing’s changed.” I’ll have to remind the member that nothing

has changed on that side of the House. If you had made investments in

transit in the 16 years you had to do that, we wouldn’t have those

challenges. But any conversion, no matter how late, to the importance of

public transit is a conversion well worth waiting for.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said in my first question…. Apparently, they don’t want to

hear it again, but I’ll repeat it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The parties are back at the table. We all know that the best

agreements happen through free collective bargaining. It’s happening

right now. Again, I appreciate that the members on that side don’t

understand. Labour, to them, is just ripping up contracts.

[2:05 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: The North Shore has been affected by this transit strike for now

over three weeks, with the SeaBus. Now we are possibly going to have a

full-blown strike that will actually negatively affect everybody on the

North Shore. Commuters, small businesses, seniors, people with

disabilities are going to be hit the hardest.

Meanwhile, we have a parliamentary secretary responsible for

transit who just happens to be the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale,

and I haven’t heard one word of support for her constituents during this

strike.

My question is to the Premier. Can you guarantee that this strike

will not happen on Wednesday?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: It always is stressful, when so many people rely on public

transit, when they see there’s a disruption. No one likes to see

disruption in our public transportation system.

More and more people rely on public transportation. That’s why I

have been encouraging both parties to get back to the bargaining table.

That’s where the deal will be made. That’s where the problem, the issues

will be solved. That’s where they can negotiate and come up with

solutions to the issues in dispute.

Both the company and the union know their responsibility to the

people that they serve. That’s why they have agreed to get back to the

bargaining table. The best agreement comes when it’s negotiated between

the two parties rather than when it’s imposed by somebody.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: A full, systemwide shutdown is pending this Wednesday, with no

SeaBus, no buses, nothing. Does the parliamentary secretary for transit,

as well as the minister — who thinks mediation is a stupid idea, I might

add…? When are they going to make sure that the disruptions that have

already occurred with the SeaBus on the North Shore will cease to exist

before Wednesday’s proposed shutdown?

Hon. H. Bains: You know, one thing is very clear. They have learned nothing in

two and a half years sitting on that side when it comes to labour

relations. We are going to take no lessons from them when it comes to

collective bargaining or labour relations in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: In everything that they touched in 16 years, when it comes to

labour relations, they created a bigger mess than the problem

itself.

We respect collective agreements. We respect free collective

bargaining. That is happening right now. Both parties are at the table.

That’s where the agreement will be reached.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORKERS

IN CHILDREN AND

FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY

S. Furstenau: On January 31 of this year, the government announced changes to

the social workers working in the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. No longer are social workers in MCFD required to have a

social work degree.

I understand that this ministry faces a challenge in recruiting

social workers. It is difficult work. Social workers in the ministry are

often faced with unsustainable workload pressures, a highly emotional

and draining work setting, and burnout is high. Surely, lowering

standards for such vital work is not the answer. We have a doctor

shortage, but I don’t hear anyone advocating that the answer just lies

in hiring more people with basic first-aid skills.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Given the vital nature of the work that social workers do and the

significant powers that they have, why is it appropriate to lower the

professional standards for social workers working in her

ministry?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question. I’m always really

happy to acknowledge the incredible staff that we have working for the

Ministry of Children and Family.

I agree. I believe that our front-line workers have some of the

toughest jobs to do in this province, and they work incredibly hard

every day to support the families and the children that they

protect.

I share the member’s commitment to maintaining the high standards

and professionalism of our ministry workers right across B.C. I believe

that the member will also agree that many types of knowledge and lived

experiences have value and importance, particularly when it comes to

front-line work with children and families, and how important it is that

ministry staff in B.C. reflect the diversity of the communities that

they serve.

That’s why we made the changes earlier this year to the

credentials and education criteria for front-line workers — not to lower

it but to ensure that the changes we have made open the door for people

from a greater diversity of backgrounds to apply for front-line

positions for the ministry. It also enables us to open the door to a

greater diversity of candidates, which is particularly important in

Indigenous communities and other areas where recruitment has been

difficult.

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

S. Furstenau: I’d like to delve into this a little bit. I’ll start with a quote

from the BCGEU, which says: “Expanding the range of professionals

working with children and families is one thing, but replacing highly

educated and trained social workers with alternative professions is an

entirely different matter.”

Also, the B.C. Association of Social Workers has made it clear

what their views are, requesting clear protection of title, mandatory

registration of social workers with the college, statutory scope of

practice and accredited social work education.

The complex nature of child protection in social work, which

includes the ability to enter a home without warrant, requires highly

educated and skilled professionals. The lowering of standards is

arguably a step backwards to the goal of serving B.C.’s children and

families.

Rather than lowering the standards, why are the minister and this

government not focusing on investing in education and creating

opportunities to encourage and allow more people, especially Indigenous

people, to earn social work degrees so that they can practise to the

professional standard that all of us would expect when it comes to the

protection of children in this province?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to correct the member. We are not lowering standards. The

assessment process remains the same. Applicants are still required to

meet the same competencies and must demonstrate equivalent skills and

experience before they are even hired. Once hired, employees have to

take additional training that covers interviewing kids who have been

either physically or sexually abused, preparing kids to go to court and

other aspects that aren’t covered by degree programs.

On-the-job training is under direct supervision of an experienced

social worker and a supervisor, and employees also have to complete a

six-month probation period that tests the classroom teaching in the real

world. Our front-line social workers have a really important job to do,

and they continue to be held at rigorous standards.

We’ve also created a working group, a social worker program

officer working group, with stakeholders such as the B.C. Association of

Social Workers, the B.C. College of Social Workers, the B.C. Government

Employees Union and representatives from post-secondary institutions

right across the province. The working group has already met a number of

times. They’re developing terms of reference, and they’re working

together to jointly explore the strategies for recruitment and retention

of social program officers.

I think it’s important to note that I myself and other social

workers — senior social workers, people that work in the ministry — go

out across the province and talk to people that are going to school,

that are learning in the classrooms to become social workers, about what

an incredibly important job this is — how important it is to the

children and kids in this province and the families in this province who

need the supports they need. We go in and talk to them about what an

incredible job it is.

I’m happy to say that we are recruiting more social workers and,

at the same time, making sure that the kids in the province that need

these services are getting them.

[2:15 p.m.]

LABOUR DISPUTE AT

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN

B.C.

S. Bond: My community is frustrated and worried about the ongoing strike at

UNBC. Every single day that it continues the risks of students losing a

semester grows. This is what Madison McCann and three of her fellow

first-year students wrote to the Minister of Advanced Education: “This

situation has left us both frustrated and completely turned off from

advanced education. Our entire semester, quite possibly even our entire

year, is in jeopardy.”

In the Lower Mainland, soon some students won’t be able to get to

their classes. In my community, our students can’t get to their classes

because there are none.

The Minister of Advanced Education has been completely silent.

Will she stand up today and tell Madison and all of those students who

have written to her exactly what she has done to ensure that these

students do not lose a semester of their education?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate finally getting a question from the official

opposition about education. It took 28 months and 19 days.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Mark: I became the minister in July 2017. As soon as I became minister,

the first thing that I did was visit all 25 public post-secondary

institutions in 21 days. UNBC was one of them.

From day one, I’ve been taking action to invest in students. I

have received the emails from the parents and the students and the

faculty that care deeply about UNBC. But make no mistake. The official

opposition are fearmongering. They’re creating this story.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please allow the minister to answer the

question.

Hon. M. Mark: They’re creating a narrative that is not true. The parties were

bargaining over the weekend. The parties are negotiating. That is a part

of a free and collective bargaining process. I respect the fact that the

member opposite wants to create this narrative that I don’t care about

UNBC. I’ve been there six times investing in students — six times — and

the member opposite was there because we invited her to celebrate how

important UNBC is to the north.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, let’s be clear. This discussion is not about how the

minister feels or about her reputation. This is about getting students

back in their classrooms. She’s been absent. We asked questions last

week, and just because she doesn’t get up, it doesn’t mean the questions

weren’t asked.

Let’s be clear. This government and this Labour Minister have

tools that can assist in the bargaining process. He just won’t get up

and use them. Meanwhile, every day more and more students are writing to

this minister and writing to this Premier and saying: “Do

something.”

Let’s listen to another one. Just this morning I got another email

from a student saying she would not be able to finish her application to

veterinary school. Why? It’s because the transcripts won’t be ready

because the semester won’t be finished.

The minister can stand in this House and deflect all she wants.

She needs to get up, do something and help resolve this issue today.

Let’s hear her answer on what she’s actually done.

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question. There are a few layers

to that.

[2:20 p.m.]

First of all, our government respects the bargaining process, and

the parties were at the table this weekend. I am getting updates

regularly about the negotiating process. They are going to reach an

agreement. I expect the parties to set aside their differences and reach

an agreement for the best interests of UNBC and for the entire

community.

While I have a chance to stand up and talk about a government that

actually cares about post-secondary education…. Where were they? The

first thing we did when we formed government was…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: …we brought back free adult basic education. They cut it. They

turned their backs.

If they want to talk about UNBC…. UNBC now has, for the first

time, a civil and environmental engineering program in their backyard —

for the first time. As a point of fact, the member opposite had every

chance to deliver when she was in government, and she failed.

You know what? I will do everything I can to invest in UNBC. At

this moment in time, let’s get the parties to the table to get a good

agreement, a fair agreement for UNBC.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY

CONDITIONS AND LABOUR

DISPUTE

J. Rustad: That was an incredible example of a minister who doesn’t care

about the future of children. That’s really shameful. Students are

losing their courses. That is just unacceptable.

I tell you. There’s another thing going on that is unacceptable

right now. Mosaic Forest Management just sent 2,000 forest workers home

today, along with the strike with the USW and Western Forest Products

that’s gone on now for five months, with another 3,000 workers out in

the cold and thousands more being impacted on the Island.

The mayor of Port McNeill says: “It’s killing our communities, and

it’s heartbreaking to see what it’s doing to the people. We are

struggling and reaching the point where it is going to be very difficult

to come back from.”

The Premier has done nothing. The Forests Minister is doing

nothing. When will this government take the coastal industry seriously

and start providing some help to the struggling families and

communities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, Mosaic. I was disappointed to hear that they curtailed

operations due to current market conditions. That was their reasoning.

Our hearts go out to the contractors and employees that have worked

through Mosaic for their livelihoods. We have been in touch with Mosaic

to ensure that they know about the supports that are available through

our retraining programs offered through the ministry and through the

Advanced Education ministry for forest workers undergoing these kinds of

changes.

We also know that with Western Forest Products, the collective

bargaining process is underway at the bargaining table. Both sides have

taken it upon themselves to engage a private negotiator, Vince Ready, to

try to settle the differences between the two parties.

In the meantime, it’s incumbent upon us as a government to look to

the long term and to make sure that when these labour disruptions are

over and when market conditions are better, there is wood available.

We’re driving domestic logs to domestic production on the coast and on

the Island with our policies, and we’re also making sure that fibre is

more available coming out of the woods for more value-added.

That’s the future of the industry. That’s the future we want to

see for rural and coastal communities when it comes to

forestry.

Mr. Speaker: Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: The reality is that this government’s policies are driving the

coastal forest industry into the ground. There won’t be anybody left to

be able to log, at this pace.

I travelled up the Island, and I spoke with people being impacted,

seeing the homes up for sale, vehicles being repossessed. Food banks and

other service providers are stretched to the limit, not being able to

keep up. Families are leaving these small communities, never to

return.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jessica McLaughlin of the Port McNeill Chamber of Commerce said

this: “It’s not people trying to fearmonger. It’s a reality of what is

happening in our town right now.”

Enough is enough. This coastal forest industry needs help, and the

Premier needs to show some leadership. Step in, use the tools you have,

and help resolve this dispute. Will you take action?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We on this side are a government that puts people and communities

first, unlike the previous government, which put the people at the top

first.

The member talked about realities. Well, let’s talk about some

realities. Between 2003 and 2017, on the coast, log exports increased by

155 percent. Let’s talk about another reality. Between 2003 and 2017,

lumber production decreased on the coast by 45 percent. Let’s talk about

another reality. Between 2003 and 2017, jobs in the coastal forest

sector decreased by 40 percent.

That was under their watch. That’s not going to happen under our

watch because we care about rural communities.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

LABOUR

DISPUTES

M. de Jong: Hundreds of thousands of commuters are wondering how they’re going

to get to work or school in the face of labour disruptions. University

students are worried they are on the verge of losing an entire term

because of strike action. As we’ve just heard, things just get worse and

worse in the forest sector. What has the government’s response been?

Silence. Absolute silence.

Well, silence until this weekend, actually, when the Premier and

his colleagues were thanking the who’s who of the big-union bosses for

their generous advertising support at the NDP convention. The BCGEU,

CUPE, HEU, B.C. Building Trades were all there. They were all there

supporting the NDP with their advertising dollars.

How can British Columbians have any confidence that the NDP

government will fulfil their duty to protect the public interest when

they are so clearly beholden to big labour and won’t even appoint a

mediator without the approval of the big-union bosses?

Hon. H. Bains: We watched this government when they were in action for 16 years.

They hate workers. They hate the unions who represent them.

We respect workers. We value the work that they do. That’s

why….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: That’s why one of the first actions of this government was….

Because they were beholden to their donors and their friends in high

places, we got rid of the big money from politics. That was one of the

first actions we did.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we risk not having an opportunity for a supplemental by

the member for Abbotsford West.

Minister.

Hon. H. Bains: There is a litany of their half-baked ideas that never worked in

those 16 years when it came to labour relations.

Let’s talk about teachers. They tore up….

Interjections.

Hon. H. Bains: Obviously, the truth hurts. They don’t want to hear it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the minister to answer the

question.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: They tore up their collective agreements. That was followed by 14

years of litigation, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The

Supreme Court of Canada had to tell them that their actions were illegal

and to go fix it.

Their hate for workers is the result that…. People right now are

frustrated. They’re trying to make up for all the losses and the neglect

and the ignorance by their side, the government when they were on this

side. Now they are trying to say: “We need to get up, and we need to be

respected again.”

This is a government that respects those workers. We do respect

free collective bargaining. We will not tear up a collective agreement

that was legally negotiated between the parties.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

ADVERTISING BY UNIONS AT

NDP

CONVENTION

M. de Jong: Well, that was a remarkably incomprehensible answer, but it does

actually lead to a supplemental.

How much in advertising dollars did the government, did the NDP,

actually take from the union representatives that they’re not supposed

to be taking political donations from? The minister stands up and

proclaims purity, and at the same time, we hear that these union bosses

are handing over advertising dollars. Well, how much?

In the midst of negotiating their latest advertising contract, did

the minister or the Premier ever get around to actually thinking about

appointing a mediator so that the people that rely on buses to get to

work will know that there will be buses running on Wednesday?

The Premier and his minister and his colleagues may think it’s

convenient to skirt the rules by re-designating donor dollars as

advertising dollars, but what British Columbians expect is a government

that takes their public responsibilities truly seriously and will ensure

that they use the tools to make sure the buses are running and that kids

are getting to university and not losing out on an entire term because

this minister and this government aren’t doing their job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Now, the member is making some pretty serious accusations about

the B.C. NDP. I can advise the member that the party says that they

worked with Elections B.C. If the member has a complaint, he knows where

to file it: with the independent office of Elections B.C.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Hon. J. Horgan: On a point of order, during question period, the member for

Richmond-Steveston and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena used

unparliamentary language, and I’m very confident they’ll do the honourable

thing and withdraw.

Petitions

N. Letnick: I rise to introduce a petition from 14,547 B.C. residents, mostly from

the Rutland neighbourhood of Kelowna. The petitioners “request that the

development at 130 McCurdy Road in Kelowna be ceased until public

consultation occurs, perhaps looking into more suitable potential uses for

the property.”

M. Stilwell: I rise to present a petition asking for government to modernize the

scope of practice for denturists to improve patient care, with modernization

of services in the safest manner for the public.

J. Johal: I rise to present a petition signed by 6,600 British Columbians who

support the use of class 5 driver’s licences for people who wish to work for

ride-hailing companies in British Columbia.

D. Davies: I rise today to introduce a petition of nearly 1,800 signatures for my

constituents in the Red Creek subdivision, located just north of Fort St.

John and areas around Fort St. John.

[2:35 p.m.]

I want to thank Jim Little, Andy Ackerman and Joyce Smith for the work

they did on this.

This area is heavily used, year-round Crown land, by outdoor

enthusiasts from Fort St. John and surrounding communities as well as all

the local residents. Hiking, hunting, quadding, horseback riding,

snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, bird watching and wildlife viewing, just

to mention a few of the things that are enjoyed on the Crown

lands.

The petition states that the TLE process is flawed, specifically in

regards to adequate, meaningful consultation and transparency with

landowners and stakeholders.

I’d also like to hand over to the minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation 60 handwritten letters from residents and organizations also

to talk about these issues.

J. Routledge: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,671 people who are asking for

a ban of electric shock collars used on domestic pets in B.C. They feel very

strongly that when humans willfully use shock collars on domestic pets, it

is, for all intents and purposes, animal abuse. They believe shock collars

need to be specifically named as such in the B.C. Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act and that this would give clarity and humane direction to pet

owners across British Columbia.

Reports from Committees

POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS

REVIEW

COMMITTEE

R. Singh: I have the honour to present a report by the Special Committee to

Review the Police Complaint Process.

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

Motion approved.

R. Singh: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

R. Singh: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments. As part of its review process, the committee engaged MNP LLP

to conduct a compliance audit and a performance audit of the Office of

the Police Complaint Commissioner and held a public consultation to seek

input regarding improvements to the police complaint process. The input

received informed the committee’s 38 recommendations to increase the

Continued confidence in the police complaint process is essential,

and the committee’s recommendations include measures to improve

accountability, transparency and fairness. The report also includes a

number of recommendations to streamline the police complaint process in

appropriate circumstances.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and MNP LLP as well as the

organizations and individuals who participated in the

consultations.

I would like to thank all the committee members for their hard

work and dedication throughout the process and, in particular, the

Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Also, my sincere thank-you to Susan Sourial, Clerk of the

committee, and Lisa Hill, committee research analyst, for all their hard

work in this process.

M. Morris: Again, I won’t repeat the good words of the Chair here, but it was

an enlightening exercise that we had. I would like to thank all the

participants in making the presentations to the committee and my

colleagues. The entire goal of this whole process was to make the

exercise a lot more transparent than it has been. I think the members in

the police community and the public will notice that that is definitely

the case.

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 45, the Taxation Statutes

Amendment Act, 2019. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued

committee on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act,

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: I just want to introduce the staff who are with me, before we get

into the discussion on the committee stage. I have Richard Purnell,

executive director, and Keith Preston, who is strategic advisor, both

from the tax policy branch.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to start working our way through this

bill. I’d like to begin with some general questions. We’ll ask them in

section 1. They’re more overarching to the policy issues, but we’ll

start with those. The minister has been very helpful in allowing us that

in previous bills we’ve discussed.

This really goes to the sense of the definition of vaping devices

and components. We want to be sure that the definition is broad enough

to capture all of the parts. There are oils. There are accessories that

go into vaping products.

Can the minister give us a sense of her comfort level, and perhaps

be fairly explicit, about the components that are covered? We want to

make sure it includes oils and accessories that go into vaping products.

Can the minister give us a sense of her understanding of that

definition?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, this is a critical piece. I think, as the member has pointed

out, it’s important, when we’re looking at vaping, to make sure it’s a

broad-based definition. Really, we’re talking about, as the member can

see, through this section, all products. We’re talking about all

products that are related to the device as well as the products that are

used in the device.

That would go as far as including chargers, for example, and

cases. We have been broad-based in the approach that’s here. It would

include solid, liquid and gas products that are used in the vaping as

well. It includes zero nicotine as well as nicotine. It includes both of

those products, because I think, as the member knows and as we talked

about in second reading, often those chemicals are mixed. It includes

liquid cannabis, again, because cannabis is often mixed with other

liquids which could cause health issues. So that’s included as well. The

vaping devices, for example, will include the pens, the pod systems, the

vaporizers, the hookahs and the electronic cigarettes.

We’ve made the

definitions broad enough to include, exactly as the

member has pointed out, the need to make sure that we’re capturing all

of the vaping products.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell us, in the event that there is something

that’s been missed…? I mean, it sounds like a fairly comprehensive list,

and we’re appreciative of that — things like chargers, cases, all of

those kinds of things. What remedy is there if there are other things

that…? Having a broad-based definition is important. We don’t want a

list in legislation, because it means we have to add to it or take away

from it. So in the event that the minister discovers other things that

haven’t been captured, how would that be rectified?

Hon. C. James: I think that this is an important point, because as was, again,

discussed so well in second reading, marketers are very clever. They

will look for opportunities to be able to go outside or to be able to

find another product to be able to market to youth. So I think this is a

really important piece. You will see in the

section that there is the

ability to add, in regulation, additional products that may come on the

market that are similar — in other words, used for vaping. We have the

ability to add those in as well.

S. Bond: Certainly, one of the things that I know…. I should point out

that, obviously, we’ll have a number of my colleagues involved in the

debate this afternoon. So we’ll try to signal where we’re headed ahead

of time, to which person.

That is an important piece for the minister to reflect on. How

will that be monitored moving forward? I think that one of the things

we’re going to be looking for is effectiveness, monitoring, making sure

we’re on top of this. Not just to introduce a bill. And then what? So

how will there be an ongoing process to monitor, for example, to look at

new products that might appear, people that are attempting to skirt? How

will that be handled in the ministry? Who will be tasked with making

sure they’re keeping track of products or the component parts that are

reflected in the definition?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s a good example of work across government, just as we

talked about in the ten-point plan that’s been put together on vaping.

It’s important after the legislation, if the legislation goes through,

and after the plan is developed that we continue to have that close

connection between ministries.

Certainly, the revenue branch and the tax policy branch will be

doing monitoring. But I think just as important will be the connections

that our branches will have with the Ministry of Education and the

Ministry of Health. We expect that if new products start appearing, it

will be probably education…. It could be schools, it could be parents

reporting to schools, it could be Ministry of Health, community health

nurses, etc., who may first notice those kind of things. So a very close

connection between all of those ministries and all of those parties and

people in communities.

There’s also the opportunity for audits, as always happens and can

happen as well. I expect the close connections between those ministries

and between people on the ground will be the best opportunity to be able

to spot if something tries to get around or is new on the

market.

S. Bond: Just to pursue that a tiny bit further. Is there an ongoing

working group, then, across ministries? It’s easy to have joint

accountability, which typically means no accountability. Is there an

ongoing, focused working group that, now that the bill has been

announced and is being debated here today, that those ministries…? The

minister is correct. There does need to be cross-ministry work with

Health and Education. They all have key components.

This definition can’t simply be monitored by the people, from my

perspective, in the Finance Ministry. So is there an ongoing, dedicated

working group that is cross-ministry?

Hon. C. James: If the bill passes — we have to wait till the bill goes through

the debate — certainly this is the beginning. I think, as the Minister

of Health spoke to so well, as others did, in second reading, this is

just starting. This ten-point plan is just being developed. Certainly,

we’ll take the member’s suggestion into account. There are close

contacts with the staff as well.

I think we’ll be looking at all of the options to be able to get

the information. It’s critical for us, obviously, in the Ministry of

Finance, but more importantly, it’s critical to the ten-point plan. This

is one piece of the plan. The other pieces have to be integrated, and it

has to be done together.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. I know that throughout the course of our

discussion and committee questions, we’ll certainly be pressing for

transparency and accountability. This is about a health issue. There are

financial implications, obviously, and that’s why we’re here today. I

thank the minister for those answers.

Let’s move on to subsection (

d) for a moment. When we look at

subsection (d), it appears to exclude vaping devices from the products

that qualify for a “small seller” designation. Can the minister confirm

that or give us a better explanation?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: There is, within the tax rules, a small-seller rule. The

small-seller rule means that if you have revenue that’s not more than

$10,000 and you don’t have a business premises — so on line, eBay, where

you’re selling things — you don’t have to collect the PST. This exempts

vaping products from that small-seller rule. They will not be allowed to

use that opportunity not to collect PST.

S. Bond: Rather than exempt or protect vaping products, this actually does

the reverse? They will now be part of being held accountable for that,

rather than the reverse.

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct. It closes a loophole, basically.

S. Bond: Thanks. That’s a much more elegant way of saying it than I was

coming up with.

Can the minister elaborate on how excluding…? When we look at….

Let’s ask it this way. Will all sellers and resellers of vaping products

pay the 20 percent tax?

Hon. C. James: Yes, they will all be required to collect it.

S. Bond: How does that work if, for example, we look at things like

Craigslist or other things? I’m sure the minister has had a discussion

with her ministry about that. How is that going to work? How do we

manage and control behaviour that’s, for example, on line and those kind

of things? Let’s face it. The more that we focus on what traditional

sellers are doing, there are going to be all kinds of creative ways that

people are going to try to avoid the 20 percent tax.

Can the minister give us some sense of what discussion has taken

place around things like Craigslist, something on Craigslist?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that’s important to note is that this

issue isn’t unique to vaping. The issue of online sales, the issue of

collecting PST is not unique. There is experience and a group in the tax

branch already, a revenue branch that looks at exactly these kinds of

things. There is a team responsible already — unfortunately, sadly,

needed for these kinds of things.

As we’ve talked about before in other bills, I won’t describe all

of the things that the auditors do, because that would take away the

point of having an audit and having an auditor go in. But they would be

doing things like watching for ads. The team would be watching for ads

on Craigslist or eBay or used-whatever, whichever community. That

tracking could then give the opportunity for an audit to have to go in

if they felt that there was something there. There is already a group

responsible, and certainly, as I said, it’s not unique to vaping. This

would now be included as part of their responsibilities.

S. Bond: Does the minister anticipate any issues with capacity? When you

think about now adding vaping…. I’m going to go on to talk a little bit

about tobacco in a moment. But are there issues within the ministry in

terms of the capacity to now monitor vaping along with all of the other

things that those auditors and the audit team look at?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Certainly, as we do each year, we take a look at sources. We look

at staffing. We look at the need for support for every branch. We don’t,

at this point, foresee anything, but again, this is new. This is early.

So that would certainly be a discussion that would be important each and

every year. It would be to look at the revenue branch and to look at

staffing.

I think the other piece that’s important to note is that a lot of

this work is also done through technology, and so there are, in fact,

some efficiencies that happen with technology and being able to do

audits and being able to do those kinds of searches. So there are

opportunities there, but certainly, that’s something that we take a look

at each and every year.

T. Stone: I’ll be weighing in here and there as we go through this committee

stage. I appreciate the minister’s willingness to answer questions from

a number of our colleagues.

Just on this question of capacity and audits and so forth, the

Minister of Health, in introducing the anti-youth-vaping action plan,

indicated that one of the critical components of the plan is to require

retailers to identify themselves to self-register. The Minister of

Health had indicated that while no one knows for sure how many retailers

there are out there, estimates suggest that there could be up to 90,000

retailers in all forms all over British Columbia currently selling vape

products.

Of course, part of the action plan was to require self-reporting.

There are some time frames that the minister alluded to in his remarks

in terms of how much time. I believe it was three months. There was

going to be a three-month phase-in period, where the retailers, by

regulation, would be required to register with their local health

authority. I’m not sure if those regulations have been prepared yet or

if the Minister of Finance is familiar with them.

The question that relates to what we’re talking about here today,

I think, would be this. Whether the number is 90,000 or 50,000, it’s a

huge number. Granted, going forward, as part of the vape action plan,

there will be a sort of differentiation between vape shops, which have a

19-year-or-older requirement for entry. They will be allowed to sell a

much more reduced array of flavoured vape products — presumably after

the weeding out of kid-friendly flavours has taken place. Then everybody

else, your corner convenience store, would only be able to sell

tobacco-flavoured. Well, no flavours or tobacco flavour would be the

only flavour, I think, that’s being contemplated.

Can the minister speak to what her sense is in terms of the

timelines associated with the tax coming into place in January 1 and the

requirement to begin paying the PST on sales, when there’s a three-month

clock, which I’m not sure has even started ticking yet, in terms of

retailers actually having to self-disclose that they’re actually selling

vape products?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think, as the member points out, there are two different

processes here. There’s the tax process, which will happen January 1,

and then there’s the registration or licensing or whatever process that

the Ministry of Health will end up with at the end. The Ministry of

Health is working on that piece, so I won’t jump into that. That’s their

piece that they’re working on around that.

For us, on the tax system, the reason we’re able to move on

January 1 is that, as the member would imagine, most of the sellers will

be existing sellers of items that have a PST on them. They will be

required to update their systems. This will give them enough time to be

able to update their systems with the new price and the new tax on

vaping. But most sellers would have an existing structure in place for

PST

T. Stone: I appreciate that. I suspect that the minister is probably correct

for the vast majority, but again, we don’t know whether we’re talking

about 50,000 or 90,000. I would agree that the vast majority are

probably reputable operators that have systems in place, because they

sell other products beyond just vaping products. But there are a

tremendous number of specialty stores, specialty operators, in the

vaping market that really just sell vape juice, and they sell vape

devices and other paraphernalia related to vaping.

Again, I just want to understand, from a timeline perspective. The

tax kicks in on January 1. I understand how the PST works in terms of

remittance and so forth. This reporting requirement where we’ll actually

know how many — who’s actually selling what and in what volumes and so

forth — is likely to come into place not perfectly in tandem with

January 1 but shortly thereafter.

What confidence does the minister have that there won’t be a real

challenge in a bunch of retailers getting caught between the two time

frames, which will be potentially quite different? It might be different

by a month; it might be different by a couple months. But this would

require, I think, a fair bit of additional enforcement and audits and

whatnot.

I’m just trying to understand what thinking might be in place to

best manage this transition process. It probably would be all sorted out

within about a six-month period. But it might be a little bit bumpy in

those first two or three months.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the piece that’s clearest is to, basically, look at the

tax process. That’s really where the Ministry of Finance is involved,

which is to ensure that people are paying their correct rate of

tax.

If this legislation goes through and if we move ahead with the 20

percent…. People now who are selling vaping products are collecting PST.

They’re already collecting the 7 percent of PST. By January 1, if it

goes through, they’ll have to start paying 20 percent.

We can begin our audits any time, because it’s already in place.

They already know they have to collect it. They already will have the

new rate. They’ll have notices. That information goes out, as any tax

change when it happens, and people will have to collect it. Then we can

begin the audits and we can begin the tracking.

Will that coordinate — I think, if I get the member’s direction

they’re looking at — with the work that the Ministry of Health is doing

around tracking to make sure that the right people are selling the right

vaping products, because that will be the Ministry of Health’s

responsibility? We expect that, yes, there will be an opportunity for us

to look at that kind of work together. But in the meantime, we begin our

process, because our process is focused on the tax and the tax rate,

while the Ministry of Health is developing the rest of the

plan.

T. Stone: Then, if I’m to understand correctly, the expectation here — I

guess, the law — would be that the tax has changed from 7 to 20 percent,

with respect to the sale of vape products. So anyone who’s actively

engaged selling those products, whether they’re selling them currently

at 7 percent or not, would be required to sell them at 20 percent,

irrespective of the registration requirement that the Ministry of Health

will be — through regulation, presumably, in the coming weeks — imposing

on the sector? Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: Yeah. I think the member has described the process well. I think

the other piece that overlays that, of course, is that once regulations

are passed through the Ministry of Health, then they also have the

requirement, of course, to follow that law as well. So it’s not simply

that they get an opt out. They just get to pay their tax. They actually

have to follow both laws, both the regulations that will be in place

around selling and what they’re allowed to sell as well as the increase

in the tax.

T. Stone: Then can the minister speak to what the enforcement plan or

auditing plan may look like for even just this initial period? Is there

a significant ramp-up contemplated, recognizing that the vast majority

of operators are not known, necessarily, to be selling vape products at

the present time?

What level of enforcement does the minister have in mind in terms

of this initial period, when, as the Minister of Health has suggested

separately, there could be upwards of 90,000 points of sale for vape

products across British Columbia? Surely the minister would recognize

that there’s an enforcement issue here that probably is more significant

in the interim than it will be once things have smoothed out over time;

once there has been this registration system put in place; and once we

know who’s actually selling what, where, when and in what

volumes.

Certainly, there must be some contemplation to a more short-term

enforcement and audit plan, recognizing just the nebulousness, if that’s

a word, of how many operators there actually are selling these products

at the present time.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think, just going back to the issue of collecting PST and the

challenge of collecting PST or ensuring people are paying the correct

PST on their products, as I mentioned earlier, there is a team already

responsible in the revenue branch for that work. That team will be

responsible, again, for the vaping. Because of the new rate, they’ll be

responsible. There will be an audit team there so the team responsible

can do the tracking.

As I mentioned, they already do this for other products to make

sure if people are selling it on line, that there’s some kind of

tracking there. Will it capture everyone who might be selling vape

products who haven’t collected the PST or isn’t doing that? I don’t

think there’s any system that would be 100 percent foolproof, but

certainly, the tax department, as I said, has this

experience.

Once the registration, the system or the structure that’s put in

place through the Ministry of Health is in place, it gives us the

opportunity then, obviously, to look at how, as I mentioned earlier, the

coordination will happened between the ministries.

We think it will require Education, we think it will require

Health, and we think it will require Finance together. They’ve had

initial conversations, but as the process is developed through Health,

they’ll be working closely with Finance. We can look at: are there

information-sharing requirements that need to be in place? Do we need to

ensure that we have that ability? Will that then help us be able to get

to people who aren’t paying their PST that we weren’t aware of, that

haven’t been claiming it — give us a chance to be able to do that

follow-up? All that work is still to come.

T. Stone: My last question on this particular line of questioning, then,

would be this.

In light of the fact that estimates suggest that there could be

90,000 points of sale out there — the minister, I think, is

acknowledging that there could be a little bit of extra work in the

front end of this and that not everyone is necessarily going to

self-identify or be identified as selling these products and, therefore,

be captured by the PST tax on the sale of those products — has the

Ministry of Finance increased the enforcement, the actual team that the

minister just referred to, the men and women that work in that branch

that do audits and enforcement? Has there actually been an increase in

the number of positions in light of this particular file, this new tax,

coming on line?

[3:20 p.m.]

If so, how many additional FTEs are we talking about that will be

engaged in enforcement? If there isn’t going to be an increase in the

enforcement, as reflected through an increase in FTEs, then is it safe

to presume that the focus of the existing team might shift from other

areas of audits and enforcement, for a time being, to focus on at least

the early days of what is a significant increase in the PST on vaping

products?

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, each year we go through that process within every

ministry, and within the finance branch as well, to take a look at the

audit team, to take a look at the workload, to take a look at what’s

coming in. It is possible, once this structure is in place and once we

have the ten-point plan up and running — and the tax branch does this

very well because they’re used to doing this — that they will reallocate

resources as they’re needed.

I think people will remember, certainly, through the first

application process for people with the speculation tax, additional

staff were put in place to be able to help in that. So if additional

staff and a focus are needed at the beginning, that will certainly

happen. But this is also part of the budget process — taking a look at

what resources will be needed.

I think that some of that, particularly for the education

program…. Again, the Minister of Health will have more to say about this

as he creates and develops the plan further. You know, those are going

to be ever changing, I would expect. I would expect that we’ll see

resources going in. There will be other programs that want to be added.

There’ll be other school districts, perhaps, or other communities that

want to be expanded.

I think this is new, as the member knows, and we’ll ensure that

the resources are there to make sure it’s a fulsome program. We don’t

bring forward, and we haven’t brought forward, a plan to simply put a

plan in place and leave it alone on the paper. I think everybody said

that in second reading on all sides of the House — how critical it was

to make this work and that this is simply one step. The work actually

starts after we have announced it and after it’s been identified. The

work then starts to really make sure that it’s implemented well and

moves ahead.

I know I said this, as well, in second reading, but I think the

other piece that is important is that this is not a big revenue source

for government. These are resources coming in to help pay for some of

the additional supports that are going to be needed, some of the

additional health care costs that are already being paid for, some of

the additional pressures that are there when it comes to vaping — the

quit products, all of those kinds of things. So the dollars that are

needed will be part of that process and part of that discussion and part

of the intent of making sure we implement this well.

S. Bond: We talked earlier about the exemption when it comes to small sales

and dealing with that from a vaping perspective. Can the minister

perhaps let us know how tobacco will be treated? Is there a change? Will

it be treated in the same way that vaping is when it comes to small

sellers?

Hon. C. James: There’s no change in the tobacco. The small sellers doesn’t apply

now. They have their own piece of the act, and nothing changes with

this.

S. Bond: Does the additional PST apply to tobacco-free vaping products? And

if the minister can tell us why or why not that is the case.

Hon. C. James: Just to differentiate. If nicotine is in it or it’s nicotine-free,

all of those will be taxed as part of the vaping piece. If it’s tobacco

— actual tobacco, not tobacco flavouring — then it’s under the Tobacco

Tax Act.

[3:25 p.m.]

All vaping products, as I said, whether they’re nicotine or

nicotine-free, are included, and we went through the broad list included

under the tax.

T. Stone: I just had a few questions with respect to the definition here of

“e-substance.” I understand…. I mean, it’s pretty clearly laid out in

terms of it being defined as meaning “a solid, liquid or gas” and then:

“(

a) that is designed for use in an e-vaping device, (

b) that, on being

heated, produces a vapour, and (

c) that may or may not contain nicotine,

but does not include….” There are a few more words there. I’m curious as

to why the definition, considering it includes “may or may not contain

nicotine,” doesn’t also include reference to flavours.

It has been identified by everyone — from Health Canada to the

Surgeon General in the United States to jurisdiction after jurisdiction

across North America — that the inherent health risk associated with

vaping really boils down to two areas. One is, indeed, nicotine. This is

a part of the action plan that the Minister of Health launched, which I

was calling for as well. And I really think the minister got it right in

terms of the intense focus on controlling nicotine concentration levels.

So I understand, therefore, why “may or may not contain nicotine” is

specifically teased out in this definition.

When everyone that I’ve just mentioned is also indicating in their

next breath — no pun intended — that the flavouring that is very often

contained in vape liquids is also increasingly proving to be of concern

from a health perspective, why is there no contemplation of flavouring

in this definition?

We know that the nicotine is what truly is addicting our youth who

are getting hooked on this practice. But we know that the flavouring is

often the entry point or the attractiveness — a big part of luring our

youth into the practice in the first place.

Can the minister offer any thoughts as to why, again, nicotine

would be contemplated here but there’s not any reference whatsoever to

flavouring? The minister and I canvassed this in second reading. I think

we’re all on the same page about the flavouring question, generally.

Candy floss. I saw one yesterday — a crème brûlée flavour, which is

ridiculous. But these are all intended to lure our youth into this

dangerous, unhealthy practice.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the best place to start is that the beginning point for

this definition is the existing Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act.

The first place that you start in looking at

an act is to look at where

a previous or another definition would be. The definition is already

there in the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act. What we certainly

felt, and any of the advice we received, is that e-substance, meaning a

solid, liquid or gas…. It doesn’t mention flavouring. It doesn’t not

mention flavouring. Therefore, it will include all of it.

It doesn’t define flavouring, which then someone might say they

found another way of putting a flavour in. So from our perspective, we

looked at the definition that was already there. It included the

nicotine in the definition in the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control

Act as well, which is why it’s here. But we were advised, and we felt,

it was broad enough to include, as the other act does, flavoured

products.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

T. Stone: Fair enough. I do recall, however, as part of the general

consensus that we all arrived at insofar as the need to build upon a

foundation of regulation that was there from, I believe, 2016, which I

think we unanimously passed in this House….

The minister was here. I was here. We’ve all since recognized that

much of that good, well-intentioned foundation that was in place three

years ago isn’t currently meeting today’s circumstances. Today’s

circumstances, in large part, relate to us finding ourselves in a place

where we have tens of thousands of youth across the province who have

been lured into this unhealthy practice, in large part because of

flavouring.

Again, I hear the minister insofar as saying there was a

definition that was there. I guess I just want to ask one more time here

why we wouldn’t be defining, or including as part of this definition of

an e-substance, the flavouring.

Often the vape juice contains nicotine. Often it doesn’t. Often

there is a tremendous amount of vapour, by the way. I think, mark my

words, we’re going to get caught on this in years ahead, because

increasingly, the amount of vapour that’s being produced is getting less

and less and less. They’re suggesting that there may not actually be

much vapour produced in the not-too-distant future with where the

technology is going. In fact, anything that is produced would just be

absorbed completely inside of your body. So would that fit the

definition of e-substance here?

Maybe there are two parts to that question. Again, one more time

on the flavouring: why wouldn’t we have included some contemplation of

flavouring here? Secondly, is the minister confident that this

definition is going to stand the test of time over the next…? We know

how quickly we’ve gone from A to Z just in the last 18 months, how

dramatically the landscape has changed. Is she confident that this

definition will be resilient enough to keep up with current trends in

technology, particularly as related to vapour?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s an important discussion. Also, I think, as the member

has pointed out in second reading, it was a main focus — and, certainly,

a main focus of the ten-point plan as well — around how to regulate and

how to get the flavouring and the ability to get flavouring limited as

much as possible — or eliminated, hopefully. I think all of us would

like to get to that place.

I think the key, though, with this definition is to look at how we

mirror the Ministry of Health Act, because we also don’t want someone to

utilize those

interpretations to use a loophole to find a way through.

So I think because it is broad-based, talking about a solid, a liquid or

a gas…. It doesn’t say whether it’s flavoured or not flavoured.

Therefore, it’s inclusive — includes all of them.

The member raised the issue of a second piece, which talks about

“on being heated, produces a vapour.” There’s an additional piece which

says: “…capable of vaporizing an e-substance for inhalation or release

into the air.” So that piece is, at least, taken care of. There’s at

least a recognition that there may be a challenge around new products,

as the member points out. So that piece is actually included in there as

well.

Then I think the last piece is…. I don’t think anything is ever

100 percent. I think we’ve seen the technologies change so quickly that

there’s always the opportunity for people to look for ways around. We’ve

certainly seen that with tobacco and now vaping and their opportunity to

target.

We continue to have the ability, through regulation, to be able to

add. So there are opportunities through the e-devices. For example, if

new devices come up, if there are new ways that they try and hide some

of the products that the member is talking about, there are

opportunities to add those in regulation as well. It’s more a matter of

making sure that we don’t provide a loophole for people with a different

definition in the Ministry of Health Act than is in here and recognizing

that the Ministry of Health definition was broad enough, so it was

inclusive, not exclusive.

S. Cadieux: A PST notice went out recently from government that stated

cannabis e-juice — cannabis in a liquid form designed for use in a

vaping device — is a vaping substance for this act. Can the minister

confirm that cannabis oils, then, are not included and taxed as

e-substances under

section (b)?

Hon. C. James: I think there are two pieces here. It has to be liquid. That

liquid could include oil, could have some oil. But the

part 2 of that is

it also has to be designed to be vaped. So those two pieces have to go

together when it comes to cannabis. It’s not the product that includes

cannabis. It has to be liquid and has to be designed to be vaped, in

whatever way to be vaped. Then it would be taxed at the higher

level.

S. Cadieux: Why did government choose to tax cannabis e-juice under this

section?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Cannabis e-juice has the same kinds of risks as any kind of

e-juice does. As has been pointed out so well by everyone who took

part

in this debate, no one really knows the substances found in e-juice,

which are added in addition to cannabis or any other products they might

be using. The glycerine — vegetable glycerine, propylene glycerine, all

of those. There is more and more research that’s pointing out that that

may be part of the harmful product that people are vaping.

From the perspective of looking at harm and looking at young

people, we felt it was important to be consistent about the vaping

products and the challenges of vaping products for our youth.

S. Cadieux: Did the Minister of Health then advise that cannabis e-juices

should be included in the taxation regime?

Hon. C. James: Discussions happened with all ministers across

government.

S. Cadieux: The minister has previously stated the projected revenue overall

for the tax measure, but how much of it is expected to come from

cannabis sales?

Hon. C. James: We haven’t broken it down. We expect it to be negligible, when it

comes to the amount. As the member will know, there’s not a lot of money

coming in right now on the issue of cannabis and on PST. So we don’t

expect that that’s going to be a huge piece of the revenue on this piece

as well.

I do think it’s important to note that this isn’t a tax on

cannabis; this is a tax on vaping. It’s a tax on the juice, the liquids

that are used for vaping. Some of those include cannabis. Some of them

don’t. So this isn’t a cannabis tax. This is a tax on vaping products

and all of the paraphernalia used for vaping.

S. Cadieux: Following up on that exactly, through June of 2019, B.C. only sold

$19½ million worth of legal cannabis, according to Stats Canada, and

that’s on all the products. At a 7½ percent provincial tax rate, that

would suggest that B.C. gained just around $1.5 million in revenue off

those sales. Can the minister confirm what the total cannabis revenues

were for fiscal 2018?

Hon. C. James: We can get the number around the federal excise tax and what the

total was for the year to you.

S. Cadieux: I guess I’m just struggling with this a little bit. If the

cannabis revenues have been so small and the sales have been so slow in

comparison to the rest of the country, there is a lot of commentary that

part of the reason for that is the way British Columbia chose to roll

out its legal cannabis process or program. But it’s also about the

taxation and the cost differential between the black market and the

legal market.

Is the minister concerned at all about pushing more of the market

to the black market with an increase in tax to 20 percent on vape

products that contain cannabis?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Two different conversations here. I know the member will look

forward to having those conversations with the Solicitor General and the

Attorney General, who are responsible for the process of licensing, so

I’ll leave that one to them, to discussions that I’m sure will

occur.

On the issue of vaping, I think the really important piece here is

that this really is a strategy. It’s not a revenue strategy. It’s a

strategy to be able to discourage vaping, particularly by our youth. I

think we all know that price point is…. Youth are price sensitive.

Ensuring products reach that point…. I think the member raises a very

important point around: what number do you pick, and what pushes people

to the black market and what keeps them in?

We did some work around that to look at where we could start that

would be important. For example, if the cannabis vaping liquids were

exempt and only received the 7 percent sales tax, that, from my

perspective, would not be sending a positive message to youth about

vaping. You can buy a cheaper product because it has cannabis in it than

you can buy the other products. I think having consistency across vaping

products is very important when you’re sending a message to youth about

not wanting them to vape and making sure that we keep the products out

of their hands.

As the member will know well, you can’t tell what kind of product

is being vaped when somebody is vaping it. Again, youth and use of

cannabis at school — youth, period, using cannabis — has all kinds of

health implications as well. From our perspective, looking at it from a

vaping health issue and trying to keep it out of the hands of our youth

in particular, it just seems that consistency is critical to being able

to ensure that.

S. Bond: Speaking of the black market, we want to ask a few questions about

that and the implications of the taxation process that’s been put in

place here. Can the minister tell us whether she took a look at…? The

minister said she and her staff have had a look at the black market

implications. Can she tell us what her thoughts are related to the black

market for cannabis products and whether or not it is more prolific? Did

any of the work that the minister looked at demonstrate that it’s more

prolific than the black market for tobacco?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think two very different products, two very different histories

with those products, which I think is important.

I think the risk is the same, which is why I certainly raised the

black market. I think, again, we talked about it in second reading. The

risk of moving things to the black market, I think, is similar. But

tobacco we have a long history with. We have a long history of watching

what happens with tobacco. It’s an extremely regulated industry compared

to vaping, which has very little regulations.

I expect the regulations and the discussion that occurred through

the ten-point plan and the Minister of Health will have an impact, no

question, and also will need to be looked at and will need to be

studied. Certainly, when we took a look…. We looked at the research out

there. There’s an example in the British Medical Journal . They

have a journal of Tobacco Control .

They did a study around price point and how you can discourage

behaviour with price point. Their study talked about how a 10 percent

price increase should be able to reduce demand by 12 to 19 percent. That

was an interesting piece to take a look at. Some of that certainly

informed our view around product and pricing and how you can increase

the price and reduce the demand. So that’s one of the tools that we

looked at when we looked at raising from 7 percent up to 20 percent. It

was, as I said, the research.

There’s not a lot out there on vaping. Vaping is a new product, as

we’ve talked about. It’s an ever-changing product, both by technology as

well as the push to try and include young people. So we felt it was a

reasonable approach to increase it by the amount that we have — not

enough to push it into the market, but something we’re going to have to

watch carefully, something we’re going to have to pay attention

to.

If changes need to be made, I know this House will be interested

in having that discussion as well, because I think that everybody, as I

said, in this House wants to ensure we get youth away from vaping

products. If we start seeing a positive direction, there may need be to

changes to increase that positive direction as well.

S. Bond: I do think we appreciate the fact that the minister and the staff

have taken some time to look at black market implications, because they

are significant. The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that only 12 percent

of cannabis sales in Canada are legal. Think about that. That means that

88 percent of cannabis sales go to the black market.

Can the minister give us an estimate of the black market for

tobacco?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I can get that information. We don’t have it with us, but we’ll

make sure we get it back to the member.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. The issue is really that

the robustness of the black market for cannabis is significantly

different than the black market for tobacco. I guess the question, then,

emerges as to why the minister is treating two different products and

markets basically in the same way.

Hon. C. James: Perhaps some clarification around the issue. We’ve been talking

about cannabis and the legal and illegal market. We’ve been talking

about tobacco and vaping. We’ll get the specific numbers to the member

around illegal sales of tobacco, but we expect it’s probably the reverse

of what you’re seeing with cannabis.

Again, because of the long history of tobacco, because of the

regulation in tobacco, you’re probably seeing the reverse. Where the

member used the 12 percent of sales legally, it’s probably the reverse

when it comes to tobacco.

I think, again, if we’re talking about cannabis products in

vaping, it’s important to remember that we’re simply talking about the

vaping products that have cannabis or don’t have cannabis in them, not

cannabis itself.

Just to clarify for the member, was the member talking about the

issue of taxing tobacco and the issue of taxing vaping being a same kind

of approach?

S. Bond: Yes.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for that clarification. I think the issue

of price point is the same in both products, so that’s really the basis

that we’re bringing this forward on — that it has been shown that price

point makes a difference. B.C. is the example of continued efforts, not

simply….

Again, I think it’s important to remember that this tax work is

one part of the ten-point plan. Just as for the tobacco industry,

taxation was a huge piece in getting people to quit smoking, but it was

also the products. It was also the advertising. It was also the laws put

in place around where people could smoke and couldn’t. I think it’s

important to remember this is simply one piece.

The price point is the same. Whether we’re talking about vaping or

whether we’re talking about tobacco, that price sensitivity is there,

particularly for youth. Increasing the cost makes it more difficult for

people to be able to access it. That’s why we’re utilizing the same kind

of process to be able to address the vaping piece.

The tax is not near as high as it would be if we were matching

tobacco, an increase in tobacco tax or increase in tax on vaping.

Tobacco is much higher taxed. That’s why I say that we’ll have to watch

it. We’ll have to watch it and see whether it’s having an impact,

whether we can define how much of an impact is coming here, how much of

an impact is coming from the other points in the plan, and make

adjustments as needed.

S. Bond: I think there is general agreement about price point likely

impacts behaviour, when the minister talked about price point having an

impact on whatever product the person is choosing to use.

[4:00 p.m.]

Was there any variation or differentiation that made it less

likely that the price point would impact a person, whether it was

tobacco vaping or whether it’s cannabis? Was there any sense of…? Did

the minister look at: is the price sensitivity different in various

categories, or is the ministry simply working on the principle that if

you tax it more, there will be a behavioural change?

Hon. C. James: I think that there is very limited vaping economics, as they call

it, that’s out there, but there is some research, as I talked about,

around price point. One of the things that is clear is that youth are

more price-sensitive than adults. That’s clear market research that’s

out there.

Certainly, again, if we’re looking at the work we’re doing on

vaping, this isn’t about revenue. This is about making sure that we do

what we can to stop vaping, particularly in youth, who are highest at

risk. Therefore, the price sensitivity was part of what we were

utilizing as we looked at what we’re setting the rate at.

S. Bond: Thanks for that answer, Minister. If we look at the Stats Canada

sales data that was referred to earlier…. In 2018, we’re talking about.

If the legal market is only 12 percent of sales in Canada, then if you

were to calculate, the black market must have been worth roughly $143

million in the reported October-to-June period. So losing roughly $10

million in tax revenue.

Can the minister tell us whether her data estimates the tax losses

from sales occurring in the black market?

Hon. C. James: Revenue, obviously, we calculate based on what we can generate,

not what we might have lost. It wouldn’t apply, in fact, simply to these

products. It would, in fact, apply across the board. Part of the work

we’re doing around money laundering and other areas is to try and get at

that, to try and get at revenue that could provide resources back to

government, but that’s not a calculation we would use in our budget or

in our calculations. We use the money that we can generate.

S. Bond: The chair of the drug advisory committee of the Canadian

Association of Chiefs of Police, Mike Serr, has said this: “If there is

a strong, vibrant dark market out there selling illegal drugs, people

will go to that, and we need to direct them to the legal market.” That

was in October of 2019.

I’m wondering how the minister would react to the suggestion of

tripling the PST on cannabis direct sales. How does that impact people

and look at directing them to the legal market?

Hon. C. James: I think the important piece, again, that I’ll emphasize is that

this is not a tax on cannabis. We’re not talking about a tax on

cannabis. We’re talking about a tax on vaping products, whether they

include cannabis or don’t include cannabis. We have to be very clear

about that: this is not a tax on cannabis.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Bond: If the black market for cannabis is significantly more vibrant

than the one for tobacco, is the minister not concerned that it will be

easier for people to turn to unregulated, illegal cannabis vaping

products?

Hon. C. James: I understand. I recognize that the member wants to have a debate

about the cannabis issue and the issue of cannabis and black market and

getting more market in legally. I think you would not get disagreement

from anybody on this side of the House, including the ministers

responsible, that we want to see the market be legal. There are steps

that are being taken, and that’s a debate for other ministers and other

days.

What we are talking about are vaping products. A very small part

of the vaping industry is related to liquids that include cannabis —

again, to have a differentiation between liquids that include cannabis

and that do not include cannabis. From a youth’s perspective, providing

the opportunity for people to be able to access a product that includes

cannabis, because it has a lower tax, would be reverse encouragement for

people to utilize the vaping products that had cannabis and not the ones

that didn’t.

Again, I recognize that the discussion is a bigger discussion to

have, but this is talking about vaping products and keeping vaping

products out of the hands of youth, as part of a ten-point

plan.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate the minister’s desire here to stem the growth of the

vaping market and put in place some mechanisms — any and all mechanisms,

I think — by which we can do that. I think both sides of the House are

in complete agreement on that.

What we’re trying to get at through this line of questioning is

whether or not government did the necessary policy work around two very

different products that, when treated the same from a tax perspective,

could have two very different policy outcomes.

At the minister’s press conference earlier, announcing these tax

measures, it was stated very clearly that nicotine was the health

threat, not cannabis. So what are the health reasons behind tripling the

tax on cannabis? Or was there just a large oversight at the press

conference?

Hon. C. James: I will continue to correct the member. We are not taxing cannabis.

We are taxing vaping products, including vaping products that have

cannabis in them.

Cannabis e-juice is not without health risks. The member asked

about the health risks. Cannabis is not without health risks. In fact,

it includes many of the products that are found in e-juice, which are

also a risk and are being pointed out to be more of a risk than some of

the other products.

Whether we’re talking about the liquids that are used to add the

product in there…. On the health side, we wanted to ensure that the

risks of vaping were taken into account. That includes all vaping

products, which includes vaping products that may contain

cannabis.

S. Cadieux: Well, reports on the risks of vaping definitely have shown that

one of the major risk factors has been people using black-market

cannabis vaping juices and that it contains dangerous by-products. They

include cannabis, and they include other things that have been mixed

with it for this purpose. In the U.S., NBC News lab tests

suggested that with knock-off marijuana vapes they found pesticides

linked to hydrogen cyanide in ten out of ten products. Of course, nobody

wants anyone using that, least of all children.

[4:10 p.m.]

At this stage, with a tax coming into effect mere weeks before the

official launch of regulated, securely managed and sold cannabis vaping

juice, has the minister factored in the timing of this tax with the risk

associated with increased cost pushing yet more users into the black

market, especially given that of the users of cannabis products, legal

and illegal, about 20 percent report using cannabis vapes as their

preferred mechanism?

We already know it’s a large portion of the illegal market. Would

we not want to, at minimum, be moving them to the legal, regulated

market rather than pushing it further underground?

Hon. C. James: We’re talking here about vaping, and we’re talking about taxing

vaping. The issue of the illegal market for vaping is exactly the reason

that we looked at the research that I talked about to the previous

member, where we talked about the study that was looked at to look at

how you decrease demand, how you discourage people from vaping and how

we find that balance.

There is no question. I believe this balance will have to be

looked at over the next number of years, just the same way the bill was

passed in this Legislature around vaping, presuming that it was going to

be fine, and it wasn’t. It had to come back for discussion and for this

ten-point plan, because the times changed. The research changed. The

science changed. I believe we will be looking at, just as we’ve done

with tobacco: is it time for an increase? Is it time to look at the

black market? How do we look at balancing that off? I think this will be

exactly the same kind of process that will have to happen over the next

number of years.

We do believe, based on the research that’s out there around price

and on changing behaviour, that we have found that spot that will

provide the balance of discouraging youth, in particular, but everyone,

from utilizing vaping and not push the black market out. Again, it will

have to be monitored.

This is a relatively new market. It will have to be monitored, and

we’ll have to pay attention to it and make changes in a way that’s going

to meet the goals that we all have, which is: how do we discourage

vaping in British Columbia, particularly amongst our youth?

S. Cadieux: What analysis was done by the ministry related to this particular

tax, adding a significant amount of tax to the e-cannabis juice, in

comparison to other jurisdictions? Our closest neighbours, like Alberta,

whose legal market has been much larger and has grown much quicker than

ours, and Washington state…. Our two closest neighbours — how are their

vape tax regimes compared to British Columbia? Are we likely to see

people access those markets to be able to access this

product?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Alberta has just simply announced their change. They haven’t

implemented it yet. We would be one of the first jurisdictions to

actually have an increased tax and a taxation rate on vaping.

T. Stone: I just wanted to ask one question for my clarification on this

particular piece of the committee stage debate here.

Surely the minister can agree that taxes on tobacco, if set at the

right level…. They tend to go up marginally year after year or at least

every other year. There’s analysis done that ensures there is that right

tipping point where the taxes are not increased so dramatically, so

fast, as to drive people to purchase their tobacco in the black market.

If the taxes are increased just incrementally, as they typically are,

the tobacco taxes tend to be a significant strategy that has been proven

to be successful in getting people to quit smoking.

With respect to the taxes on cannabis products, the reason we’re

trying to be so thorough in our questioning here in the context of tax

changes that are about the vapour market, of which…. Cannabis products

are increasingly being included in vape juice. I think we know the

minister acknowledges that, or there wouldn’t be any contemplation of

capturing cannabis in this legislation and in this tax

increase.

When it comes to cannabis taxes, I think the number one concern

that we’re certainly trying to reflect that we’re hearing and that you

certainly see pre-eminent in every debate and every jurisdiction around

North America — well, across Canada, certainly, but I think also in U.S.

states where there has been legalization of cannabis products — is if

that tax is a burden, if the tax expectation is set too high on cannabis

products, the result, generally, that has been demonstrated in other

jurisdictions has been that it has driven people to not quit their

consumption of cannabis but, rather, to pursue the purchase of cannabis

products in the black market.

Further, with respect to the entire production chain, the entire

regulatory scheme that has been established in the Canadian context and,

in part, here in British Columbia with respect to cannabis retail, the

entire production scheme, the entire regulatory scheme, has been

designed to keep these products out of the hands of our youth. So it’s

not like our kids, our youth, are, at a point of sale, distinguishing

between a juice product that has nicotine in it or not or cannabis in it

or not.

Again, I just want to try one last time to understand what

analysis has been done here to suggest that incorporating, in the

context of a tax change, a PST increase on vapour products…. What

analysis was done that satisfies the minister that including in this

tax, this PST increase, the sale of vapour products — that include

cannabis even for medicinal purposes, I would point out…?

Is she satisfied that that analysis she has looked at has told her

that we are not going to see a corresponding increase in people simply

moving even more to the black market for cannabis purchase, cannabis

sales, than we have already seen as the government has rolled out their

broader retail environment for cannabis sales here in British

Columbia?

[4:20 p.m.]

The two are very much linked, Minister. The vapour world and the

cannabis world have intersected here. There is no doubt that

cannabis-infused vapour products, the juice, are expected to be one of

the fastest-growing segments of the vapour products market.

We think this discussion is very relevant at this particular

juncture and hope that the minister can shed a bit more light than

perhaps she has to this point on what has led her to be satisfied that

the analysis she has seen would suggest that applying this 20 percent

PST to the sale of cannabis-infused vapour products is not going to

drive people, particularly our youth, to obtain these products,

increasingly so, on the black market.

Hon. C. James: Just to, I think, come back to the policy, the reason we’re here

having this discussion. We’re here having this discussion because all

members — certainly, that’s what I heard in the second reading — in this

House want to do what we can to discourage vaping, particularly youth

vaping. That’s the reason that we’re having this discussion. It’s the

reason the Minister of Health brought forward such a thorough bill. It’s

the reason we’re looking at a ten-point plan, with taxation being one of

those points.

We know, based on the research, that price point makes a

difference, that increasing prices will discourage behaviour,

particularly for youth. Youth are particularly sensitive to this. A 10

percent increase in prices can reduce demand 12 to 19 percent, based on

the research information that’s there. We are increasing by 13 percent.

Let’s remember there’s already a 7 percent tax on the

products.

No changes on all other cannabis products. There is no change on

any other cannabis product. But if we are looking at vaping products, to

exclude products that have cannabis in them doesn’t follow the policy

direction of doing everything we can to discourage youth, in particular,

from vaping.

The member asked whether I feel comfortable and confi­dent

in the research that was done and in the work that was done. Yes, I do.

I feel that we found that price point. I do believe it’s going to have

to continue to be monitored.

I do believe it’s going to have to continue to be watched, just as

I know the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are doing their

work around the legalization and ensuring they get more of the black

market of cannabis ended and people moved into the legal

market.

I think we will have to continue to monitor this to see whether

the policy direction that we all believe in, which is discouraging

youth, really occurs.

S. Cadieux: As a part of this, then, what’s the average price of a

tobacco-based vape product and the average price of a cannabis-based

vape product?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think this is exactly the continued information that will be

helpful to everybody, as we go through this.

We’re presuming that vaping products with cannabis would be more

expensive than the tobacco or added flavours, but again, that’s going to

vary. That’s going to vary out there, depending on the product,

depending on the store, depending on the sales that are out

there.

S. Cadieux: While I am 100 percent behind doing what we can to keep vaping

products out of the hands of youth, the reality is that the vast

majority of youth using products are not getting them legally. They are

using them from the black market. I mean, they can’t even legally buy

them until they’re 19. When we’re talking about kids in high school,

we’re talking about kids who are getting products through the black

market, one way or another. Whether they were legally purchased first,

the secondary purchase is a black market purchase.

We are relatively…. You know, the minister can cite some relative

comfort with the issues around taxation and price point increases and

the elasticity of demand and the push to the black market with tobacco

products but with absolutely no sense of what that would be for cannabis

products, with a legal market in its complete infancy in British

Columbia, especially given the botched rollout that we’ve seen. The

reality is that we have a thriving black market for cannabis products in

British Columbia.

I would think that we would want to be doing everything we can to

ensure that we keep the price point on the cannabis products as low as

possible to move people from the black market to the legal market at a

minimum, where we know the products are regulated, where we know that

government, be it through Health Canada or be it through the provincial

government’s distribution and supply processes, is and has the ability

to monitor the content of the products being sold and who they’re sold

to.

At this point, I’m going to move an amendment to this

section and

suggest that this

section be amended.

SECTION 1 (

b) be amended by deleting the text

shown as struck out:

(

b) by adding the following

definitions:

“e-substance” means a solid, liquid or

gas

(

a) that is designed for use in an e-vaping

device,

(

b) that, on being heated, produces a vapour,

and

(

c) that may or may not contain nicotine,

but does not include cannabis within the meaning of

the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act other than

cannabis that is in liquid

form ; , ]

Hon. C. James: This is the first we’ve seen of this amendment. Can I suggest we

take a ten-minute recess?

The Chair: Absolutely. The House is in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: I’m speaking against the amendment that’s in front of us. While I

appreciate the discussion around how we encourage more legalization of

cannabis and how we ensure there’s less of a black market for cannabis….

It’s something that I certainly strongly agree with and think we have to

do everything we can, and I’m sure the Solicitor General and the

Attorney General would have lots of conversation about steps that could

be taken. I don’t believe that making a change on the e-juice, the

vaping products that include cannabis, is going to help in that

regard.

Because it would require two completely different systems for

businesses, it could, in fact, jeopardize the January 1 date because of

the requirement of the systems. Many vaping products are, in fact, sold

in packages, and we would, in fact, again, have to create two different

tax systems, because you’d be talking about one system with 7 percent

and one system with 20 percent. So it certainly would be a huge

challenge for many of the businesses that we’re talking about and would

create difficulties.

It also could potentially create a huge loophole. How much

cannabis in vaping liquid? How much do you think you would require to be

able to only charge 7 percent versus 20 percent? What opportunity would

that provide for…? We’ve talked a lot in this House, during second

reading in particular, about how the marketers are very clever at being

able to market to children, very clever at being able to change their

products. This could, in fact, provide an opportunity for marketers to

say: “We have a couple of drops of cannabis in this vaping product.

Therefore, it’s only 7 percent now. It doesn’t cost 20

percent.”

I appreciate the sentiment around discouraging the black market. I

appreciate the direction about doing that. I don’t believe that the

amendment does that.

S. Cadieux: Just a clarification, please. I understand the minister’s

position. But the minister said a couple things there that I question.

First, the minister suggested that this could set up a difficult

situation for people having two systems. I don’t believe that cannabis

products of any kind can be sold in the same locations as tobacco

products. Am I incorrect on that?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Maybe the member can clarify. What I’m talking about are two

different products. Through the amendment that the member has put

forward, we would have products with cannabis in them that would be

charged at the 7 percent rate. We would have products not with cannabis

in them at the 20 percent rate, which creates, then, a challenge and an

additional piece for the business people to have to look at, whether

they’re talking about packaging or whether they’re talking about the

combining of the products that they have. You’d have two different

products with two different prices.

Amendment negatived on division.

S. Cadieux: Well, moving on. Now, cannabis is currently prescribed medically.

Can the minister confirm that medical cannabis will be taxed, if it’s

under this section, if it is in liquid form?

Hon. C. James: We’ve talked about…. It has to have two pieces. It has to have the

cannabis, but it also has to be produced for vaping in order for it to

be taxed under the higher rate. So other medical products obviously

wouldn’t, but if it was a product that was used for a vaping machine,

yes, it will be taxed.

S. Cadieux: The minister is content to tax prescription cannabis if it is in

the vaping form?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: If someone has the medical authorization to use cannabis through

their medical authorization, they have the ability to use any product.

That’s the ability that’s there for them.

S. Cadieux: The minister is saying that if that patient who has a prescription

for medical cann