Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 5, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 94

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Equal Pay Certification Act

S. Cadieux

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

North Shore transportation planning project

B. Ma

South Cariboo Business Excellence Awards

D. Barnett

Work of B.C. Federation of Labour on gender equity and violence prevention

M. Dean

B.C. role in production of The Kindergarten

Teacher

J. Yap

Business Excellence Awards in Maple Ridge–Mission area

B. D’Eith

Capilano University

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Electricity rates

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

Employer health tax and role of MSP Task Force

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Electricity rates

M. Lee

Hon. M. Mungall

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

S. Gibson

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies

T. Wat

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on school districts

L. Throness

Hon. C. James

Reports from Committees

Information and Privacy Commissioner Appointment

Committee, March 2018

D. Routley

M. Polak

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

M. Bernier

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Information and Privacy Commissioner

D. Routley

Ministerial Statements

U.S. tariffs on aluminum and steel

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Fraser

N. Simons

D. Ashton

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Bill 4 — British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. B. Ralston

G. Kyllo

T. Stone

Hon. J. Sims

C. Oakes

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Sturdy

A. Olsen

M. Bernier

D. Davies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

C. Oakes

J. Rustad

D. Ashton

L. Throness

E. Ross

J. Thornthwaite

A. Weaver

D. Barnett

J. Tegart

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2018

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

T. Redies: In the House today, we are joined by Ondina Love, CEO of the Canadian

Dental Hygienists Association in Ottawa, and Cindy Fletcher, executive

director of the B.C. Dental Hygienists Association in Burnaby. Along with

their colleagues, Ondina and Cindy have been meeting with members from all

sides of the House to discuss important issues relating to oral health. I’d

ask for the House to join me in making them feel very welcome to our

proceedings today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the pleasure today of introducing to the House Robert Turner,

who is the assistant deputy minister of emergency management in B.C. and who

does an amazing job. Bob is accompanied by his wife, Laura, and their two

children, Molly and Reid. They have out-of-town guests — Laura’s parents,

Ron and Jan Linkenbach, who live in Cary, North Carolina, which is close to

the capital of Raleigh. I would ask the House to make Bob and his family and

guests extremely welcome.

S. Sullivan: I have some very special guests, all the way from Montreal: my brother

Pat, who works for the Canadian Space Agency; his wife, Janic; son Dali; and

daughter Alixe. I also have my sister-in-law Nicole Lalonde, my niece Hannah

Taylor and my mother, Mom. Please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: I was slow off the mark there. This morning some interns from the

Washington State Legislature were here. They got to hear from the member for

Vancouver–False Creek and, I believe, the leader of the Third Party and you,

hon. Speaker, and from myself. We’ll let them indicate by their applause

here who they liked the best. I wanted to introduce them.

I have a second set: Omar Abdulla, Dane Anderson, Alexis Arambul,

Rachel Case, Hunter Cooper, Kaylee Ditlefsen, Thalia Flores-Perez, Angelica

Garcia-Macias, Fiona Gredvig, Sarah Griffin, Marshall Greenlaw, Quinton

Harrington, Crystal Leatherman, Jarred Mack, Peter North, Libby Postovoit,

Reed Stannard, Avi Socha. Paula Rehwaldt is their coordinator in the House

of Representatives, and Kristin Alexander is the coordinator in the

Washington state Senate. I’d like the House to bid all our guests from

Washington state welcome.

I wanted to join the member for Surrey–White Rock, who already

introduced Ondina Love, to introduce guests from the B.C. Dental Hygienists,

who are meeting with members of the Legislature on both sides today: Ondina

Love, who is the CEO of the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association;

Christina Capy; Brenda Currie; Tammy Gulevich; Cindy Fletcher, who the

member has just introduced; Mandy Hayre; Beverley Jackson; Mandy McGill;

Brenda Wisdom; Wendy Jobs; Leta Zaleski; Danielle Ayotte; Liz Morch; Krista

North; and Amber Lapshinoff. I’d like the House to wish all these people,

who do so much for the health of British Columbians, a great welcome to the

Legislature.

[1:40 p.m.]

R. Sultan: In the House today, I have two guests, Francine Anselmo and her son

Kevin Battilana. Kevin is a grade 10 student at Carver Christian School in

Burnaby. He has a keen interest in politics and has come to the Legislature

to shadow us and learn what we do. Would the House please make them both

welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: There are a number of women who are here today from the B.C.

Federation of Labour. I know that some of my colleagues will be introducing

some of them. But for my part, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Karen

McVeigh and Ana Rahmat, Jennifer Whiteside from the Hospital Employees Union

and Val Avery of the Health Sciences Association. Would the House please

join me in making these women very, very welcome today.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to name the 21 wonderful people visiting us

from Washington. The Minister of Health already has done it. But on your

behalf, I would like to reintroduce them anyway.

I have the pleasure of introducing 21 Washington state legislative

interns who are visiting from Olympia with us today. They’re here as part of

an annual exchange between Washington State and British Columbia that is

arranged by our parliamentary education office and their equivalent office

in Olympia. During their program, the interns work for members of the House

of Representatives or the Senate while earning academic credit from colleges

and universities around the state.

This morning they met with several members of the Legislative Assembly

and B.C. Public Service staff to learn about our system of government and

the current issues of importance for our province. They are accompanied by

two staff, Paula Rehwaldt and Kristin Alexander with the civic education and

intern program. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, one more. I have another introduction to make, a very

important introduction. In the House is my sister-in-law, Toni Grewal,

visiting with the B.C. Federation of Labour women’s lobby. If I don’t

introduce her today, then I won’t be able to go home. That’s why it is very

important for all of you to join me to give her a very warm welcome,

please.

J. Routledge: I, too, have the honour of introducing some of the women who are here

as part of the delegation with the B.C. Federation of Labour. There are 31

of them in all. It’s my pleasure to introduce my constituent and the

president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Irene Lanzinger; executive

director of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Lynn Bueckert; director of the

B.C. Federation of Labour, Kassandra Cordero; another director at the B.C.

Federation of Labour, Nina Hansen; and a director at the BCGEU, Emet Davis.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. S. Robinson: Today we have visitors to the Legislature that brought the Canadian

Jewish Experience Exhibit, A Tribute to Canada 150, a display that’s located

in the Hall of Honour. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank

them. I hope the House will join me in thanking Tova Lynch, who was the

powerhouse behind this. She was joined by her husband, James. They came all

the way from Ottawa, putting this wonderful tribute together. They were

joined by Karen James of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver and Nico

Slobinsky from CIJA — and, of course, Cdr. Kimanda Jarzebiak, who helped

pull it all together.

I want to invite all the members and anyone here to take a look at the

Hall of Honour and take a look at the history of the Jewish community here

in Canada. Please give them a warm welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I have a number of great ladies here that I had lunch with just before

question period. I’d like to introduce them. They are Tetyana Golota,

director of community outreach at SheTalks — she’s an eco-designer and Mrs.

Canada Globe; Sharan Sumal, head of product innovation at Daily

Hive ; Manjit Gill, former CA to an amazing MLA — I will add that

those are her words, not mine; Lisa Langevin, president of the B.C.

Tradeswomen Society; Narges Nirumvala, CEO of Executive Speak Coaching

International and vice-chair of the Dixon Transition Society; Raminder

Thomas, the executive director of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce;

Barinder Rasode, co-founder of SheTalks and CEO of Niche Canada; Linda

Stromberg, who is a strong local advocate in my community and a member of a

number of boards, including SheTalks, Surreycares and Women Transforming

Cities; and Dr. Grace Lore, who is an adjunct professor at the University of

Victoria.

We had a wonderful and very exhilarating lunch talking about women.

Please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so happy to have the opportunity here today to say happy birthday

to someone who’s very special to this Legislature and also to me personally.

He’s like a father to me, although we don’t look a lot alike. That is the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds and our Deputy Speaker, who just celebrated his

birthday yesterday. Many people have known him as a strong advocate for

social justice issues, workers’ rights, human rights and racial equality.

He’s also been a hard-working MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds for the past almost 13

years and is really loved by people in his community.

One thing that many people may not know about him is that when he was

young, he had an opportunity to almost become a Bollywood star. According to

his lovely wife, Inder, who is also like a mother to me, he was very, very

handsome when he was young. But he said no to Bollywood, and he decided to

come to Canada and become a social activist. I guess it was Bollywood’s loss

but our gain for British Columbia.

Thank you for everything you do, and happy birthday, Dad.

Hon. S. Robinson: I neglected another introduction. A wonderful friend, Tetyana Golota,

is here from Coquitlam. She’s an amazing woman who just takes everything she

does and does it to the nth degree. She’s a powerhouse in my community, and

I’m really thrilled to see her here in the House today. Would everyone

please make her feel very welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be welcoming and introducing a number of women who

are joining us here for B.C. Federation of Labour women’s committee and for

their lobby here.

We have the vice-president of MoveUP, Annette Toth; the health and

safety officer, Linda Harding, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada;

the B.C. regional women’s coordinator for the Public Service Alliance of

Canada, Kelly Sidhu; and, as well, the secretary of the women’s committee,

Sabrina Prada, from the Union of B.C. Performers, the affiliated branch of

the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, TV and Radio Artists.

As well, congratulations and welcome to the newly designated director

of the executive board, Angela Moore-Parsens, two months in for UBCP and

ACTRA; and to the outgoing president, Joey Hartman, for the Vancouver and

District Labour Council. I’d also invite everybody to join Joey at her open

house to see her off on Friday, March 23, from five to eight at the Maritime

Labour Centre. I ask everybody here to please make them all

welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Today is a special day. There are two people from Stikine visiting the

Legislature, and neither of them is related to me. It’s not family members.

One is Jim Fowler. Jim and Pauline operate a farm greenhouse birch-syrup

operation in the Kispiox Valley, way up the valley. Jim has also been

elected to the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets board last year and to

the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association board in November. It’s great to

have Jim down here. I’ve been out to his farm and tasted his birch syrup. I

see him regularly at the farmers market. Would the chamber please welcome

Jim to the chamber.

Secondly, a very good friend of mine is here. I think I can see her up

in the gallery. Mandi Ayers is here representing the Health Sciences

Association of B.C. She’s from Smithers, and it’s really good to see her

here. We usually only meet in airports and, occasionally, at Stikine

executive association meetings. Would the chamber please welcome Mandi as

well.

S. Furstenau: It’s great to hear so many young people being introduced today, and it

gives me great pleasure to introduce Saryn Knox, a grade 9 student at

Reynolds high school, who is with the flex program that visited the

Legislature in the fall. Saryn wrote a terrific thank-you letter to me. I

responded by writing back and asking her if she wanted to come and shadow

for the day, and she took me up on the offer, for which I’m very

grateful.

[1:50 p.m.]

One more thing, hon. Speaker. There are currently two Reynolds

Premiers in the building today. Saryn is the Premier of the Youth Parliament

at Reynolds School. Please make her feel welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: I can’t tell you how nice it is to be looking up and seeing 21 happy

faces looking back at me from St. Joseph’s Elementary School. We have 21

grade 5 students here and their teacher John Zuback. Welcome to the

Legislature.

B. Ma: It is my pleasure to introduce today a young woman who is very

important to me, to the member for Vancouver-Kensington and to the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. She keeps us organized. She keeps us

well-dressed. She keeps us well-behaved and in line. I’m certain that none

of us would actually be able to make it anywhere we needed to be if it

weren’t for her firm management and not-so-gentle prodding. She is, of

course, our legislative assistant, Tamara Connor, who is in the House for

her first witnessing of question period.

Tamara, from all three of your loyal subjects, welcome to the

chambers. I ask the rest of the House to please make her feel welcome as

well.

M. Dean: I, too, am very proud to welcome some of the women from the B.C.

Federation of Labour. Today I have the pleasure of introducing, from the

BCGEU, the president, Stephanie Smith; also, Wendy Mah, Kari Michaels and

Sussanne Skidmore. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Singh: I, along with my colleagues, would like to welcome some more women

from the B.C. Federation of Labour who are here with us today. I would like

to welcome Teri Mooring, Trish Mugford, Shanee Prasad, all from BCTF; Laura

Snow from CEU; and Shelley Saje Ricci from CUPE 728. Would the House please

make them feel welcome.

R. Leonard: First, my apologies to our Deputy Whip, who organized to make sure

that we all had a turn to welcome our union sisters to the House today.

Thank you, also, to the hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for

giving me the opportunity to welcome a constituent of mine, who is a guiding

light and who, I am sure, is one of the main reasons that I’m here today:

Anne Davis from the HSA.

I’d also like to ask the House to welcome Kelly Moon from IATSE;

Stephanie Jang from the IBEW 213; as well as Lisa Langevin; and from MoveUP,

Caitlin Davidson-King and Rysa Kronebusch. Please welcome them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M203 — EQUAL PAY

CERTIFICATION

ACT

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Certification

Act.

S. Cadieux: I move that the bill intituled the Equal Pay Certification Act, of

which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced

and read a first time now.

Thirty-one percent — the difference in earnings between working

men and working women in Canada. Eight percent — the wage gap adjusted

for a host of contributing factors like industry, occupation, age, union

status, and so on, otherwise referred to as the unexplained gap.

Whichever stat you use, the reality is that women are paid less than

men.

The gap exists in every province, for major occupational group and

has only slightly improved over my working lifetime, despite the fact

that education levels for women have surpassed men and the percentage of

women in the workforce has grown from 42 percent to nearly 60 percent.

At the current rate of change, the global economic gender gap won’t be

closed for another 170 years.

According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study, gender parity at all

levels in the workplace “improves affordability, workplace culture and

the economy as a whole.” The same study estimated that the gap in Canada

would likely see a $105 billion growth in GDP if we closed the gap. So

it only makes sense. Why hasn’t it happened, and what’s it going to

take?

[1:55 p.m.]

Courage — for all of us, as legislators, to help shift attitudes

and behaviours, acknowledge that gender stereotypes and subtle sexism

are a part of the problem, and challenge the status quo. It starts with

this bill.

While equal pay for equal work is enshrined in the human rights

code, discrimination can only be prosecuted retroactively once it is

detected or brought forward. This legislation would require firms to

proactively rectify wage gaps on their payroll.

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

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M203, Equal Pay Certification Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NORTH SHORE TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING

PROJECT

B. Ma: The issue of transportation and road congestion on the North Shore

continues to grow, impacting residents, commuters, businesses, students,

services and quality of life. The need for action amongst the many

governmental jurisdictions that have transportation responsibilities is

real and urgent.

“As the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, I am proposing an

integrated North Shore transportation planning project which seeks to

drive collaboration that will result in transportation solutions for the

North Shore in the short term, while developing a unified and

collective, cross-jurisdictional, long-term North Shore transportation

vision.” So read the letter I sent on January 1, 2018.

With the support of the city of North Vancouver, the district of

North Vancouver, the district of West Vancouver, TransLink, federal MP

Jonathan Wilkinson and the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure, the integrated North Shore transportation planning

project was born — INSTPP, for short.

The purpose of the project is to get all three municipalities,

along with the two senior levels of government, TransLink and First

Nations, all working in step towards a common and collective, long-term

transportation vision and framework for the North Shore. It is a very

aggressive project with a lot to unpack and repack again into a

consensus report expected to be completed for June of this year. Powered

by the efforts of existing transportation and planning staff from all of

the participating agencies, the project only exists because of the

commitment of all of its partners.

Last Friday INSTPP had its first interagency workshop, which

included staff and political representatives from across the North

Shore, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations. It was

collaborative. It was cross-partisan. It was productive.

I’m very proud at the way all of these governments and public

transportation agencies have come together on INSTPP. It demonstrates

true commitment from all of us to bringing real and effective

transportation solutions for the people who live, work and play on the

North Shore.

SOUTH CARIBOO

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

AWARDS

D. Barnett: The Oscars were not the only important award ceremony held this

weekend. The South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce held its annual Business

Excellence Awards and Citizen of the Year ceremony on Saturday. The

South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce is the voice of business in the

community. Its membership consists of community leaders who promote and

support economic growth in a variety of ways.

This is a peer-based selection process, and there was a total of

48 nominees selected under 12 different categories ranging from

excellence in customer service, the recognition of home-based

enterprises and best community impact. Naturally, there can only be one

winner selected from each of the 12 categories, but to be nominated from

amongst your peers is an honour in itself.

That being said, here is a list of this year’s winners:

Save-On-Foods, Jackson’s Social Club and Brew House, the 108 Golf

Resort, Rustic Elements, Horton Ventures, Green Sisters, Blissed Out

Yoga, South Cariboo Search and Rescue, Iron Horse Pub and Grill, Big

Rock Ranch, Donex Pharmacy and Department Store, and last but not least,

Shane Gunn for Citizen of the Year.

[2:00 p.m.]

All of the nominees and the winners of the South Cariboo Chamber

of Commerce Business Excellence Awards should take a great deal of pride

for a job well done. Each contributes to a better community and a place

to live in the Cariboo.

I invite everyone to come to the South Cariboo and see what our

business community has to offer.

WORK OF B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR

ON GENDER EQUITY

AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION

M. Dean: Today I rise to express my appreciation for the exceptional

leadership of the B.C. Federation of Labour on women’s health and

safety, gender issues and the prevention of violence in our communities.

This includes their work advocating for strategies to prevent sexual

assault and bring attention to intimate-partner violence and

gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is perpetrated against

someone based on their gender expression, gender identity or perceived

gender.

Of course, all violence has a human cost, an economic cost and a

workplace cost. Our government is working to address and prevent all

forms of violence. I’m proud, as the first Parliamentary Secretary for

Gender Equity, to see individuals and organizations taking a stand

against violence and in support of policies and programs that can make a

difference in our communities. There are many challenges ahead, as we

all must work together to stamp out violence and prevent it

happening.

The B.C. Fed is also leading the way on gender pay equity and

spreading the word that low wages are a gender pay-equity issue that

must be addressed. As the B.C. Fair Wages Commission identified, for

example, 61 percent of all workers earning less than $15 an hour are

women.

Thank you to the B.C. Fed for its leadership on these issues. By

standing strong for their 500,000 members working in every corner of the

province and in every sector of the economy, they are part of the

solution and the way forward to eliminate barriers for gender

equity.

B.C. ROLE IN PRODUCTION OF

The Kindergarten

Teacher

J. Yap: It gives me great pleasure today to rise and draw attention to our

province’s vast artistic talent. Of the thousands of films submitted to

Sundance Film Festival last month, only 123 feature films made it into

the coveted competition. One film in particular has a Richmond-Steveston

connection.

The Kindergarten Teacher , starring Maggie Gyllenhaal,

tells the story of a New York teacher who becomes obsessed with a

student who she believes is a child prodigy. The Kindergarten

Teacher made its world premiere at Sundance and was one of only

16 films nominated for the U.S. dramatic competition. There the film’s

writer and director, Sara Colangelo, won the directing award in the U.S.

dramatic category.

The B.C. connection I mentioned. Steveston’s Gabriel Napora was

one of the winning film’s executive producers. His production company,

Imagination Park, was directly involved in the film. The

Kindergarten Teacher is hardly the first feather in Mr.

Napora’s cap. He has shot more than 600 short-form programs, including

music videos, commercials, feature films. He is one of the reasons why

the world is taking notice of Vancouver, British Columbia, as an

emerging creative centre. The team behind this film hopes to enter other

competitions, like the Oscars, this coming year.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating

Gabriel Napora on having a hand in this film’s success. Let’s encourage

all of the aspiring filmmakers, actors, producers in Steveston and all

around our province to continue to follow their passions to wherever

they may lead.

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

IN MAPLE RIDGE–MISSION

AREA

B. D’Eith: There are two chambers of commerce business excellence awards in

my community.

The Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows chamber was formed in 1909. The

chamber was established to help businesses grow, across all sizes, in

Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. On March 3, the Minister of Tourism, Arts

and Culture and I attended the annual Business Excellence

Awards.

[2:05 p.m.]

I just wanted to congratulate some of the winners. Small Business,

we had Essential Health Natural Wellness Clinic; Medium Business, the

Alouette Animal Hospital; Big Business, we had Canadian Tire. The

Non-Profit was Maple Ridge Community Foundation. Business Leader was

Josh Penner, Meridian Farm Market. Agribusiness was Golden Ears

Cheesecrafters. Community Spirit was Deddy Geese. That was one

awards.

Then the Mission Chamber of Commerce was created to foster

thriving businesses in the community. In fact, it’s one of the eldest

chambers in Canada. It just celebrated its 125th anniversary. In

January, they had the 17th annual Business Excellence Awards. The Big

Bang award went to Prospera Credit Union. The Power of Small award went

to HitchFlix Media. The Local Focus award went to Mission Towing.

Customer First award went to Chartwell Retirement Residence. Community

Builder went to the Mission Hospice Society. Education Leader went to

Bridgeview Dental. The President’s Award went to Gordon

Ruley.

I wanted to congratulate all of the winners of the two chambers’

business excellence awards, and I wanted to send out a special thank you

to the chambers, who work tirelessly to help build our communities and

our business in our community.

CAPILANO UNIVERSITY

J. Thornthwaite: Just last week a delegation of Capilano University students

visited the Legislature and met with MLAs. I’d like to recognize Cap U,

located in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, which is celebrating

its 50th anniversary this year.

Over the course of 50 years, Cap U, its instructors and alumni

have reached some remarkable achievements, including pioneering music

therapy education in Canada, introducing the first music therapy program

in 1976; receiving two Juno awards and nine nominations for alumni and

instructors in 2017 and alumni receiving three nominations this year;

creative writing director Ryan Knighton delivering a keynote address to

leaders at NASA in 2017; seeing three 2D animation alumni on the winning

team for the Academy Award for Best Animated Picture in 2014 for the

Disney movie Frozen ; seeing tourism management grad Jordan

Kallman named to Vancouver Magazine ’s Power 50 list in 2016 —

his company, Social Concierge, is behind some of Vancouver’s biggest

events, including Dîner en Blanc, and Kallman is a past president of

TEDx Vancouver; and signing an affiliation agreement with the Sechelt

Nation that formalizes and expands upon the existing collaboration

between the two parties in the spirit of truth and reconciliation and

mutual reconciliation last September.

Finally, teaching in the acting for stage and screen program at

Capilano University is none other than Jackson Davies, the constable on

The Beachcombers , Canada’s longest-running TV

series.

Capilano University students have rated their quality of

instruction at 97 percent, one of the top three ratings in the province.

Two out of three of my children either graduated from or are attending

Cap U. It’s a fabulous university. I look forward to celebrating with

them all at the their big party, Capfest, on Saturday, September

Oral Questions

ELECTRICITY RATES

T. Redies: Last spring the NDP promised to freeze hydro rates. In November,

the government announced it was “delivering on its promise to freeze

B.C. Hydro rates.”

To the Minister of Energy: will B.C. Hydro rates be

frozen?

Hon. M. Mungall: As you can imagine, on Thursday, when we got the report from the

B.C. Utilities Commission, myself and, I’m sure, everybody on this side

of the House were very disappointed to see that the B.C. Utilities

Commission decided to go with what is essentially the B.C. Liberal rate

hike rather than our proposed rate freeze. That being the case…. Of

course, they gave their rationale why. What it boils down to is that we

have a financial mess at B.C. Hydro. After 16 years of B.C. Liberal

government, it unfortunately wasn’t that surprising.

Nonetheless, we know that British Columbian households are

struggling, particularly the lowest income, and that’s why we’re going

to be implementing a lifeline rate. As well, this May we’re going to be

putting forward a crisis grant for people who find themselves in a

medical crisis or loss of job and it’s impacting their hydro bills.

They’ll be able to apply for that crisis grant.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’re also going to move forward with the review of B.C. Hydro,

because as I said, after 16 years of B.C. Liberal government, it’s time

we really took a strong look at B.C. Hydro so that we can fix the mess

that was left behind.

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

T. Redies: The government announced it was delivering on its promise to

freeze B.C. Hydro rates in November. According to the BCUC, the B.C.

Utilities Commission, the NDP had options to freeze rates, but they

chose not to.

Again to the minister: will hydro rates be frozen, or has the

government made an error and broken another promise?

Hon. M. Mungall: What we committed to do and what we were clear about is that we

would make our application to the B.C. Utilities Commission, and that’s

exactly what we did.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals have problems with the B.C.

Utilities Commission, and that’s why they just utterly failed to use it

for 16 years. We on this side of the House respect the independence of

the BCUC, and that’s why we followed the appropriate process that needed

to be taken for this. Unfortunately, because of the Liberal mess at B.C.

Hydro, they were not able to approve our rate freeze.

That being said, we have a plan to move forward with it. We plan

to ensure that we’re making life more affordable for British Columbians,

and we’re going to fix that mess that they left behind.

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

supplemental.

T. Redies: It’s interesting to me that the Minister of Energy

keeps referring to a financial mess at B.C. Hydro,

because the minister actually praised B.C. Hydro last fall, saying their

finances were beating expectations and that they were on track to beat

2019 targets. The minister said: “B.C. Hydro is performing on plan.

Their revenues are higher than the previous year, and they’re higher

than what was originally expected.” What she couldn’t answer was how the

NDP would pay for its $140 million promise of a rate freeze.

Will the minister now admit that she made a mistake — overpromised

and underdelivered?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, the reality of what’s going on at B.C. Hydro should be well

known to that particular member. On CKNW, she tried to take absolutely

no responsibility for what has been going on at B.C. Hydro, saying: “I

was not a part of government at that time.”

She wasn’t. Rather, she was the chair of the finance and audit

committee at B.C. Hydro. She was on the board at B.C. Hydro. So if

anybody needs to explain what’s been going on at B.C. Hydro and the

financial mess that the BCUC has now uncovered, it’s that member right

there.

M. Bernier: British Columbians were told by this NDP government that rates

were frozen, and people planned accordingly. I have in front of me just

one of the many advertisements from last fall that reads: “We are

freezing hydro rates until April 2019.” No mention anywhere, in any of

those, of the Utilities Commission.

Will the minister admit that this was wrong and just advertise a

correction?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m so delighted to see, finally, after 16 years, that the B.C.

Liberals are once again interested in what’s going on at the B.C.

Utilities Commission. I have here an

article that was written in 2001

when Gordon Campbell, who was then Leader of the Opposition, actually

said: “We will strengthen the B.C. Utilities Commission and put B.C.

Hydro back on track, under BCUC control.”

They utterly failed to do that. In fact, what they did, over and

over again, is direct BCUC on everything that it should do, rather than

let BCUC be that independent regulator that works in the public

interest. That’s what we did on this side of House. That’s what we

committed to do for British Columbians, and we will continue to respect

the independence at the BCUC.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, what’s failing is the minister to answer a basic question.

The hydro freeze was in the NDP platform. It was in, and is in, the

minister’s mandate letter. A government news release boasted that they

had actually delivered on their promise. They even advertised this as

done. It was even in a newsletter last fall from the minister to

residents in Nelson-Creston, under the headline: “Freezing B.C. Hydro

Rates.” Again, no mention in any of these documents of the Utilities

Commission.

Will the minister at least admit that she misled the people in her

own riding and that her next newsletter will issue the

correction?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that the members opposite are struggling with the

whole concept of the BCUC and the appropriate process to undertake and

why they’re perplexed why we would do such a thing because they never

did it themselves. But we did. We did the right process. We did exactly

what we committed to doing.

What we found out from the BCUC is that they’re not able to go

with our request for a rate freeze. Rather they had to go with the B.C.

Liberal request for a rate hike because the B.C. Liberals committed

billions of dollars in high-priced, independent power producer

contracts. They increased the deferral accounts from just $116 million

to what is now close to $6 billion.

That’s the financial mess that the B.C. Liberals left behind at

B.C. Hydro. We’re the ones who are going to have to clean it up. We will

do that, and we will also make sure that life is affordable for British

Columbians with solutions like a lifeline rate and the crisis grant,

because on this side of the House, we actually care about British

Columbians, and we actually care about helping them.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AND

ROLE OF MSP TASK

FORCE

A. Weaver: Let’s be clear. Government misled British Columbians on the B.C.

Hydro rate. There’s no two ways of saying it. I find it remarkable that

they’re trying to claim otherwise.

Government established an MSP Task Force in November to advise it

on how best to eliminate the MSP premium and make up the revenue. The

task force comprised experts in both economics and public policy. The

team analyzed hundreds of submissions from individuals and stakeholders.

They consulted with labour and business groups. They undertook an

in-depth tax policy analysis. Their report advising on how best to

eliminate MSP premiums isn’t due until the end of March. Rather than

waiting for the report, government eliminated MSP premiums and

instituted an employers health tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Government

established the task force. Government selected the experts, the mandate

and the reporting timeline. Why would government forge ahead on this tax

change without waiting for the task force to submit their

recommendations?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. As

the member knows, part of my mandate as Finance Minister is to look at

how we can ensure a more fair tax system. The outstanding piece in

British Columbia, on an issue of a fair tax system in particular, was

the MSP, the fact that MSP was not eliminated. It was the most

regressive tax, and it needed to be addressed.

It became clear that this was something we could accomplish in the

budget. We looked at the interim report that came from the MSP panel.

We, in fact, agreed with a couple of the pieces they brought forward,

which was to eliminate the premiums all at once — not to do a further

phase out, as we had done with the first 50 percent — and to give some

advance notice. Again, that’s why we’ve given a year.

I look forward to their final report. We took into account their

interim report. And I’m very proud that we are going to save families

and individuals in this province by getting rid of MSP once and for

all.

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

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. She’ll get no argument

from us about MSP being a regressive form of taxation.

Since government announced the employers health tax, we’ve been

hearing concerns from businesses, school boards and local governments

regarding its potential negative impacts. We’re hearing concerns about

everything, from impact on businesses’ bottom line to the ability of the

public service to provide the services they are required to

provide.

[2:20 p.m.]

The MSP Task Force was going to issue a final report in just a few

weeks, advising government on the best path to eliminating MSP premiums.

When the Minister of Finance established the task force, she said this:

“Engaging a panel of respected experts in economics, law and public

policy, we will ensure the path we take is fiscally responsible, fair

and evidence-based.”

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. In light of the

desire to ensure that public policy is informed by evidence, did

government ask the task force to expedite their work in order to provide

final recommendations before government made a decision on establishing

the employers health tax?

Hon. C. James: We received an interim report from the committee. We made the

decision, as government, to move ahead on getting rid of a regressive

tax. We felt that was important. We were able to do it in this budget,

and we thought this was the right time. We ensured that we gave a year’s

notice so that we would be able to work through the

challenges.

The member has raised some of the issues that we are hearing and

discussing. We are going to continue those discussions to ensure we can

cover those bases, but we will be eliminating MSP by 2020. People are

saving money — $1.3 billion this year — by the reduction of MSP by 50

percent, and we look forward, as I said, to savings for families and

individuals in this province, making life more affordable for the people

of B.C.

ELECTRICITY RATES

M. Lee: As the Leader of the Third Party just said, this government has

misled British Columbians. The Minister of Energy made a firm and simple

commitment to British Columbians that hydro rates would be frozen, but

rates are in fact going up. When did the minister learn that she would

not be able to deliver on her mandate letter?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member ought to know, after the first few questions, after

reading the news, why rates are having to go up. These are the B.C.

Liberal rate hikes. These are the rate hikes that they asked for. After

16 years of not asking for rate hikes, just directing BCUC to approve

rate hikes…. They hiked rates by 70 percent over the last 16 years.

That’s their legacy, and the reason why this one has to go forward now

is because of the mess that they left behind.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: With respect, I think we need to focus on the present. This is how

the government does what they do. Let me say this. In January, long

before the BCUC decision, the Premier said this: “I am now more

convinced than ever that the better course of action on affordability is

to not blanket reductions or freezes.”

Did the Minister of Energy abandon the promised rate freeze even

before the BCUC decision?

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, I don’t think it comes as any surprise to any British

Columbian that today we hear from a B.C. Liberal member that they would

like everybody to forget about what they did for the last 16 years that

they were in government.

Let me take this opportunity to again remind British Columbians

what we’re seeing at B.C. Hydro as a result of what BCUC has been

uncovering in terms of this process we were in that included a lot of

different things, including our application to have a rate freeze. What

they found was billions — billions — in high-priced contracts to IPPs.

Many of those IPPs are their rich friends who personally benefited from

those types of contracts.

We raised the alarm years ago, and nevertheless, they pushed

forward with that and gave direction to BCUC rather than allowing them

to do their job in the public interest. They increased deferral accounts

from what was just $116 million when they first took office to what is

now close to $6 billion. British Columbians are not going to forget

that. So sorry for you, hon. Member.

[2:25 p.m.]

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

M. Stilwell: LIFESUPPORT Patient Transport is an important local employer that

provides good, family-supporting jobs in Parksville. They’re now faced

with the new NDP tax that will cost them over $70,000 annually in this

unexpected tax grab.

Does the Finance Minister think that LIFESUPPORT should risk

losing business through increased prices or lay off hard-working

staff?

Hon. C. James: I say again to the members on the other side: those employers that

were paying MSP and supporting their employees now will see a 50 percent

savings with the cut in MSP premiums.

The employers health tax has been put together to be able to

support small businesses. If your payroll is under $500,000, you will,

in fact, pay nothing when it comes to the employers health tax. If your

payroll is between $500,000 and $1.5 million, you will pay a portion of

the health tax. And if it’s over $1.5 million, you will pay the health

tax. That’s about 5 percent of businesses that will pay the full amount.

And 85 percent of businesses in British Columbia will not pay any

employers health tax.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Well, the Finance Minister can say it again and again. It’s not

actually the reality. I’m going to read what Graham with LIFESUPPORT

wrote to me: “This regressive anti-business budget has killed growth and

expansion plans.”

This is a company that competes for contracts with companies from

the U.S. and Mexico. So will the minister admit that her new tax will

hurt B.C. competitiveness and B.C. workers?

Hon. C. James: I’d like to remind the member that what is regressive is the fact

that the former government, on the other side, refused to get rid of

MSP, as every other province had done in this country.

Hon. Speaker, if you made an income of $60,000 or you made an

income of $600,000, you paid the same amount in MSP premiums. That’s

what the other side did to the people in British Columbia. We are

eliminating that regressive tax. We are putting in place, as other

provinces have done, an employers health tax.

It is the lowest tax rate in the country when it comes to

employers health taxes. And when it comes to small businesses, the

individuals and families who will be saving money — $900 a year and

$1,800 a year — will be spending those dollars in small businesses in

their communities, supporting our economy and this province.

T. Stone: iTel Networks, which is based in Kamloops, is a growing tech

company. They provide extended health and dental benefits to their

employees. However, the new employer health tax represents an additional

cost of $95,000 for iTel Networks.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: what option does

she suggest iTel pursue? Should they increase their prices and risk

losing business, or should they scale back their plans to hire more

employees?

Hon. C. James: Well, I would suggest that the member and the members on the other

side could probably talk to business about the money they could have

saved the entire province and the taxpayers of British Columbia if they

hadn’t blown a hole in ICBC’s budget of over $1 billion that had to be

dealt with in this budget. That would have been over $1 billion that

would have been in the budget this year — and more next year and the

year after — if we hadn’t had to sit and clean up the mess that was left

by the other side.

We are being fiscally responsible. We are ensuring we can support

health care, quality health care, improve care for seniors in this

budget and in this province and ensure that families save by getting rid

of a regressive tax.

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

T. Stone: What the government doesn’t seem to understand is that small

business typically finances their growth with cash flow. You raise

taxes, you have less cash flow, which means you cannot grow. The

minister doesn’t seem to understand that this new tax is going to result

in fewer jobs for small businesses in every community across this

province.

[2:30 p.m.]

This is what Darcy Johnson of iTel wrote. He wrote to me the other

day, and he said: “This new tax will definitely hurt any growing company

that’s investing capital into expanding its workforce. Simply put, this

will reduce our hiring numbers.”

Will the minister admit that she’s made a mistake? Will she scrap

this new tax that will hurt tech businesses and tech workers across

British Columbia?

Hon. C. James: In September’s budget, we lowered the small business tax rate from

2.5 percent to 2 percent. We have the second-lowest small business tax

in the country right here in British Columbia. We are eliminating PST on

electricity for businesses — again, supporting competitiveness in

British Columbia. And the employer health tax is arranged so that

businesses that are small and that have payrolls under $500,000 do not

pay the employer health tax.

S. Gibson: Dave Van Belle, owner of Van Belle Nursery in my riding, tells me

that the new NDP employer health tax will have a drastic effect on his

business and his employees. Margins are tight, and this new tax will

cost Van Belle Nursery an additional $100,000 annually.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. What does she recommend

Dave do in response to this unforeseen tax increase — raise prices or

lay off employees?

Hon. C. James: I’d ask the member if he was talking to his small businesses over

the last number of years while that side of the House was doubling MSP

premiums, making it less affordable for families and for businesses. I’d

like to know whether the member and all members on that side were

talking to businesses while they were increasing hydro rates, making it

more difficult for businesses in British Columbia.

I am very proud that we are eliminating the MSP, the most

regressive tax left in this country, because we’re the only province

left with it. We are taking action, and I’m very proud of

that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford-Mission on a supplemental.

S. Gibson: Ray Van Empel owns Pioneer Chrysler Jeep in Mission. It’s the only

dealership in my riding, so I know it well. This employer paid $23,000

in MSP premiums in 2017. The new NDP tax will be $76,000.

Will the Minister of Finance please show small business owners

like Dave and Ray — my constituents — some respect and answer the

question: should they raise prices or fire people?

Hon. C. James: With respect, I would say to the member and to members on the

other side that there is a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums this

year — 50 percent. So businesses like the member raised that have been

paying MSP to their employees will, in fact, save 50 percent this year.

That’s going to be a savings. When we eliminate MSP, there will be no

premiums for employers to have to pay, supporting individuals and

supporting employers.

We will continue to support business. We will continue to support

families, and we will continue to have a balanced approach, as we did in

this budget.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON NON-PROFIT

AGENCIES

T. Wat: The Thompson Community Association in my riding is very concerned

about the new NDP employer health tax. Julie writes: “The MSP tax,

totalling close to $12,000, will impact us, and as a not-for-profit that

adheres to the net-zero bottom line, that means it will impact our

patrons.”

As the Minister of Finance, do you really think that this

non-profit in my riding should reduce services in order to balance its

budget?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Once again I say to the member: many not-for-profits are paying

MSP premiums for their employees, and many of them — well, all of them —

will save the 50 percent. If they’re paying MSP, they will save the 50

percent this year.

We will continue discussions. It’s why we’ve given a year of

implementation for school districts and others — to have a conversation

about how we make sure the implementation is as smooth as possible. But

the fact that they are saving the dollars this year and the fact that

MSP will be gone in 2020 provides that opportunity to businesses and

supports families as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: I hope the minister listens. I’d like to quote Julie further. She

says: “The only way for our association to pay for this $12,000 will be

a rise in fitness fees and in pricing for children’s and seniors’

programs.” Does the Minister of Finance think charging my constituents

more for children’s and seniors’ programs to pay for her tax is

fair?

Hon. C. James: Well, I would like to remind the member that if she had read the

budget, she would have seen that this is the largest investment in

support for children, in fact, in this province, with child care in our

budgets. If the member on the other side wants to look at who is

supporting children and families in this province, she only needs to

look at the new government and the budget that we brought forward and

the incentives we have put in there.

I would also remind the member and members on the other side that

when they look at support for businesses, in fact, businesses have asked

for us to address the housing crisis in this province as an opportunity

for them when it comes to recruitment and retention. Our investments in

housing not only help affordability for families and individuals; they

help with affordability for businesses as well — another investment

supporting businesses in our province.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

L. Throness: Next year the employer health tax is going to hit the Chilliwack

school district hard. The tax grab is going to cost $950,000. That’s a

big hit for Chilliwack, and it’s going to impact students.

My question, since we’re not getting answers from the Finance

Minister, is to the Education Minister. Will he put $950,000 back in the

budget for Chilliwack schools?

Hon. C. James: I find it incredible, as we’ve said in this House before, that

now, all of a sudden, the other side cares about education after 16

years. Sixteen years of picking a fight with teachers, 16 years of

spending money on legal costs instead of in the classroom and instead of

supporting children in British Columbia — that’s what we saw from the

other side.

We are continuing our conversations with school districts. Let’s

remember, Member, that school districts, as businesses will do, save the

50 percent this year, for the calendar year, of the MSP. They will save

it all in 2020 when MSP premiums are eliminated. And we will continue

the largest investment in education in this province, from this

government.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

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

to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

Motion approved.

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

report.

Leave granted.

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

to make some brief comments.

[2:40 p.m.]

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation

for the appointment of B.C.’s fourth Information and Privacy

Commissioner. The committee undertook a new, comprehensive recruitment

process, beginning last November, and received many qualified

applications. The committee is very pleased to recommend Michael McEvoy

to the House.

The special committee was impressed by Mr. McEvoy’s leadership and

management experience and knowledge of information and privacy issues,

including his service as deputy commissioner for the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia and his recent

work in the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s office. The

committee is confident that his experience, skills and knowledge will

provide effective leadership for the position of Information and Privacy

Commissioner and able stewardship of this important office.

Our information and privacy office is renowned throughout the

world as a leader, and we want to see that continuity continued and that

excellence achieved again. We are happy to recommend the appointment of

some homegrown talent from B.C. It’s sort of a buy-B.C. program by our

little committee. In fact, continuity is an important asset to the

office, and so is excellence. In this candidate, we are recommending a

person who achieves both of those things.

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

appreciation to Acting Commissioner Drew McArthur for his

professionalism, dedication and leadership during this time of

transition. Mr. McArthur has served as acting commissioner since June

29, 2016, and on behalf of all members, I would like to thank him for

his remarkable public service to this province.

In closing, I would like to extend my sincere thanks and

appreciation to Kate Ryan-Lloyd and the Office of the Clerk of

Committees. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and respect

for the Deputy Chair, the member for Langley, and her important

contribution to this committee, and all of the special committee members

for their work on this appointment process.

M. Polak: As Deputy Chair of the committee, I will rise also to briefly add

my congratulations to Mr. McEvoy, my thanks to Mr. McArthur and also my

thanks to those committee members and to Kate Ryan-Lloyd.

It was an awful lot of work to get through the applications, but

everybody really worked very hard. I believe we’ve come to a decision

that is going to serve this chamber and the people of British Columbia

very well for years to come.

Thank you to all who participated, and again, congratulations to

Mr. McEvoy.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

M. Bernier: I just wish to reserve my right on a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

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

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

COMMISSIONER

D. Routley: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly recommend to Her Honour the

Lieutenant Governor the appointment of Michael McEvoy as an Officer of

the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, for a term of six years commencing

April 1, 2018, pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996,

Chapter 165).]

Leave granted.

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

Motion approved.

Ministerial Statements

U.S. TARIFFS ON ALUMINUM AND STEEL

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Several days ago our trading partner to the south signalled its

intentions to impose unfair tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum.

It’s not yet clear whether Canada will be affected by these tariffs and

what the final costs might be. But here’s what we do know: these tariffs

would do tremendous damage and have significant impact on B.C. jobs,

B.C. workers and B.C. communities.

[2:45 p.m.]

B.C. exports $600 million worth of aluminum to the United States

each year. Certainly, in 2017, that was the number. We’re the

second-largest exporter of aluminum to the United States from Canada,

second only to the province of Quebec. Our steel exports are not as

significant but also worthy of note — $78 million worth of steel exports

last year.

Any trade tariffs would put thousands of jobs here in British

Columbia at risk, creating uncertainty for people, uncertainty for

communities and uncertainty for jobs.

Back in October, I travelled to Kitimat. I met the member for

Skeena there with others to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the

rebuild of the Rio Tinto aluminum smelter there, a smelter that has made

life better for its workers, better for the environment, better for the

bottom line. It has created local jobs, and Rio Tinto is now operating a

more energy-efficient, more environmentally friendly smelter, the

lowest-carbon aluminum production in the world.

It’s abundantly clear that the work that we are doing here in

British Columbia with respect to meeting our climate change objectives,

continuing to be a world-class manufacturer of aluminum products is now

put at risk because of a few tweets from the President of the United

States and potentially dire consequences for the 1,000 people that work

in Kitimat.

These proposed tariffs will have an impact on workers. They will

cost business, and they will make our industry less competitive. It will

hurt consumers as well. These are significant inputs to car

manufacturing — autos generally, but trucks as well — and those are

going to have a direct impact on jobs in the United States. Overall,

it’s anticipated that 160,000 Americans will be affected by a 10 percent

input tariff on aluminum coming from Canada.

As we watch events unfold in the United States, when it comes to

renegotiation of the NAFTA trade agreement, when it comes to unfair

countervailing duties on our softwood lumber products and now, out of

the clear blue sky, a 10 percent tariff on our aluminum production, it’s

abundantly clear that we in this House and British Columbians and

Canadians, in fact, must stand together, united, supporting our federal

government, supporting our industry and supporting our jobs.

Certainly, if the United States does follow through on their

commitment to impose a tariff on steel and aluminum coming from Canada,

I know this side of the House will stand firm and resolute with

industry, with the federal government and do everything we can to use

what trade measures are at our disposal to ensure that the World Trade

Organization, the NAFTA agreement and others understand that Canada will

not be pushed around. We will not be bullied. We are free and fair

traders. We do the best we can to ensure that everyone benefits from

robust free trade across — certainly, the 49th parallel and, in fact,

around the world.

We on this side of the House…. I encourage those on the other side

to stand with us to work with the federal government to protect our

aluminum industry, to protect jobs in Kitimat and to protect the B.C.

economy.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier makes many valid points in that the American

administration, in recent days, has decided to invoke an obscure

national security provision that provides for short-term and urgent

tariffs to be placed on steel and aluminum. It has been pointed out by a

number of American senators that it is absurd to suggest that Canada is

a source of national security risk that would lead to any kind of valid

tariff against Canada. Of course, this requires push-back on a number of

levels.

British Columbia has been a free-trading jurisdiction for many,

many years. The free trade movement got going in the 1850s, when British

Columbia was formed as a pair of British colonies, and of course

accelerated until World War I, when it ground to a complete halt. It

then took off again in the 1920s and was crushed by the Depression and

actually contributed significantly to the development of the Depression.

Again, World War II completely stopped free trade.

This is a continuous struggle for a free-trading jurisdiction like

Canada and British Columbia in particular to establish free trade

opportunities for British Columbians to benefit from. It’s a pleasure to

hear that the Premier has acknowledged that the 1,000 highly paid jobs

in Kitimat depend entirely upon free trade.

The NAFTA agreement was concluded in 1994 and came into effect and

led to a significant expansion of economic opportunities in Canada and

especially in British Columbia. It built on the 1989 Canada-U.S. free

trade agreement, which was resisted by many forces in Canada but,

nonetheless, proved to be a huge success and continues to be

so.

We now have an American administration that questions the value of

free trade, and this, of course, can lead to shrinking horizons, reduced

possibilities, a reduction in commerce and a dramatic reduction in

opportunities for British Columbians.

[2:50 p.m.]

We urge this government to stand firmly with the federal

government, which is the only body that can take any effective action

with the United States government on these issues. So it’s imperative

that this government maintain good relationships with Canada.

My own experience in this as a deputy minister was dealing with

tariffs from the American government on softwood lumber and tomatoes.

Both of those were dealt with exclusively through the federal

government, and both needed to be supported fully by the provincial

government.

The onus is on this government to make sure that the federal

government is fully on side with British Columbia’s interests in this

and also to make sure that relationships with the federal government

remain strong and intact and productive. There is no room for petty

squabbles with the federal government when jobs in this order and trade

at this level are at risk.

We encourage this government to adopt the view that

interprovincial and international trade barriers should be dismantled so

that British Columbians can benefit from continuing growth in trade.

That’s where the future of British Columbia lies. I support the

Premier’s statement today in this House so that we can join together in

supporting this government to go to Ottawa and push the federal

government to work hard to dismantle these tariffs.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 3 to be followed by second

reading on Bill 2. If that is completed, then we will get to second reading of

Bill 4. If that gets completed, then it will be the estimates of the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure. In Committee A, the little House, I call

continued estimates for the Ministry of Solicitor General.

[2:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. Does the minister wish to introduce

his staff?

Hon. S. Fraser: Yes, Madame Chair. We’re beginning proceedings now at committee

stage. I do not see the critic here. We may just be going through this….

This is not a controversial bill. There was clear support from all

members of the House at second reading, so I believe we can just proceed

through Bill 3.

The Chair: If you would like to just take a moment, Minister, to

introduce your staff, we will verify their presence.

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m sorry. My name is Scott Fraser. I’m the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation. To my left is Dave Pilling, the director.

To my right is my assistant deputy minister, Laurel Nash. To the right

of Laurel is Mark Timmis, of legal services.

section 1.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the bill affecting a First

Nation in Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Tla’amin Nation. I raise my

hands to all those who’ve worked hard on this issue, including Hegus

Williams and the elders who provide him the support and the

strength.

I’d like to ask the minister, first off, if he can explain the

nature of this bill and what it’s attempting to address.

Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member. He’s been a strong advocate for the

Tla’amin people and the progress made through treaty and before

treaty.

This is largely a housekeeping issue, I’ll say. I’ll equate it

with the Maa-nulth treaty amendment that was done on the foreshore. This

is an enabling piece of legislation, or amendment, that only has an

effect on

section 15 of the Tla’amin Final Agreement Act. It provides

for delegated authority in accordance with the foreshore agreement. The

delegated law-making authority is comparable to that of a local

government, in respect of identifying foreshore areas.

In accordance with the foreshore agreement, the proposed

amendments to

section 15 provide for the Provincial Court to make and

enforce orders upon application by the Tla’amin Nation. These amendments

are equivalent to those within the Community Charter, the Local

Government Act and the Maa-nulth treaty, as I’ve mentioned before — the

Maa-nulth Final Agreement Act.

[3:00 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Just a couple of questions, if I could, to the minister, through

yourself, if you don’t mind.

Minister, thank you. I do apologize for my tardiness in being

here.

On foreshore rights. I have the pleasure of living on the lake,

and there’s a question that always comes up about egress and access.

That’s a question that I’m sure may come up in the future in regards to

the process that we are going through about the possibilities of egress

along the foreshore by other than those involved with the

band.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member opposite. I just want to assure him that this

does not change access and egress. The current access and egress

provisions that are in place are exactly how it is dealt with within the

local government context, so access and egress are still

available.

This amendment is dealing with allowing the Provincial Court to be

able to make enforcement orders, upon application, should there be a

breach on the foreshore, illegal activity — you know, any range of those

things. But it has no effect on the current access and

egress.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you very much for that. Again, just to

reinforce this. I understand it allows the Provincial Court

jurisdiction, but is there going to be any impediment of individuals —

not band members, but individuals — having access along the foreshore

now or into the future?

I’m not talking about setting up an incursion from the waterfront.

I’m talking about people that may be in distress or something and have

boats come up or having an opportunity to egress through this property

that has traditionally not belonged to them.

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. The actual…. This is a very

narrow amendment. It’s not changing anything. All it does is allow…. At

this point, if there are breaches of local law or bylaws and such on the

foreshore within the jurisdiction of the Tla’amin Nation that they have

through treaty, currently, without this amendment, there is no remedy

for that. That’s all it is.

This is completing, really, the existing legislation to allow the

Provincial Court to actually be able to enforce the orders as they come

out. It doesn’t change any existing orders at all. It’s just allowing

that final stage so that a crime can be linked to a punishment, if you

will. Right now the court does not have the ability to do that, and this

amendment corrects that.

D. Ashton: So along with these changes for enforcement — and I’m thinking

outside of the box for a little, tiny bit. RCMP, etc. — are there are

any issues with additional enforcement on that particular land? There

are some questions — just a bit of a heads-up — that we might be talking

about a little bit later in another House. So is there any issue with

having individuals representing the Crown, and especially the criminal

sides of it, to have egress through to that property?

Hon. S. Fraser: I am informed that the answer is simple. It’s no.

D. Ashton: No further questions to the minister on this particular

bill.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Fraser: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 3, Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018

(continued)

T. Redies: I’d like to pick up from where we left off last week on Bill 2,

the budget implementation act.

Before I do, I would like to take note of the fact that during the

delivery of my comments last week, some members of this House took great

amusement in the fact that I was speaking about tax measures recently

introduced in the government’s budget but not necessarily contained in

this bill.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I was simply trying to make a very simple point by drawing

attention to two of the government’s most controversial tax measures —

the first being the highly contentious employer health tax that

blindsided the business community when it was announced in the budget

without warning or consultation with the private sector; and, two, the

punitive speculation tax the government is introducing to deliberately

drive down the equity that homeowners and British Columbians have worked

hard to achieve.

I brought attention to these items for a specific reason. It’s not

usually one policy that brings down an economy, maybe not even two, but

it’s a steady accumulation of restrictive policies that combine to

reduce the attractiveness of a business climate. This inevitably leads

to job loss. All of these tax measures have to be taken into account for

one simple reason: because this government is not done yet.

There are many more tax increases to come — more taxes to saddle

B.C. taxpayers, B.C. homeowners, B.C. entrepreneurs and B.C. businesses.

For example, just last week the Finance Minister appeared on the

Voice of B.C. , saying she is looking forward to a

discussion on how to extract more money out of existing homeowners in

British Columbia. This comes in addition to all the other taxes also

already announced by the government. A 67 percent increase in the carbon

tax. An increase in the corporate income tax, 12 percent. And the

increase in taxation on income earners over $150,000 that this

government introduced six months ago.

While it is the policy of this government to go after the highest

income earners, once you’ve exhausted that avenue of taxation, who’s

next? The answer to this is simple. The middle class in this

province.

[3:10 p.m.]

Average British Columbians will be told, not asked, to fork over

more money to government to pay for ambitious and unsustainable program

spending. This has the potential to send the economy into a tailspin by

dampening competitiveness, increasing costs and choking off private

sector investment.

I fear what this massive increase in taxation — $5½ billion in new

taxation — will do to our competitiveness, our economy and our families

in this province. It’s not just this side of the House that is raising

these concerns that the NDP are going back to their 1990 ways of taxing

and spending.

As stated by Gordon Clark of the Province : “So again, the

NDP has leaped to pass a slew of unprincipled new taxes to pilfer any

income or wealth they decide is excessive, regardless of the damage they

inflict on individuals or the economy.” Mr. Clark quite rightly points

out that the new tax measures contained in Bill 2, and coming with the

speculation tax, are taxes on capital and wealth. The NDP are now using

the same principles of progressive income taxation on assets.

He says: “Having taxed income, government should not take a second

run at people’s wealth by annually taxing their property, which they

have usually acquired through hard work and sacrifice. Unless they want

to help people pay their mortgages or cover their losses when there is a

downturn in the housing market, the NDP should not stake a claim to

homeowners’ equity.”

Mr. Clark goes on to say that the Minister of Finance’s actions

“will actually hurt many British Columbians by lowering the value of

their homes, especially those who recently bought into the market and

may find themselves owing more than their properties are worth. There

are words to describe people who would do that to others, but they are

unprintable.”

I say again: the problem we have now is a government with an

insatiable appetite to spend your tax dollars, whether it’s your income

or your assets. Now, some members in this House also laughed when I used

the word “insatiable” last week to describe government spending. Just so

people don’t misunderstand, I would like to be very clear on why I used

the term “insatiable.” For me, a government that manages to increase

spending in eight months from $47 billion to $57 billion — $10 billion

in 3½ years — demonstrates an insatiable appetite for spending. There’s

no measured thinking in this. There’s no consideration as to whether or

not this makes sense from a sustainability perspective. There’s

definitely no prudence.

We are talking about a spending spree which is leading to an

unprecedented amount of new taxation. It is a clear indication that this

government believes it can spend your money better than you can.

Essentially, they’re taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie in

terms of the tax revenues and wealth, rather than creating a climate

that continues to produce a bigger and bigger pie.

That makes me worry for the future of this province, for the

citizens of British Columbia, for my constituents in Surrey and White

Rock and for my family. Government spending should always be undertaken

with the mindset that this is the people’s money, not government’s

money. This is a government that has its hand in a cookie jar that, it

thinks, is a bottomless pit from which to draw money. This is a reckless

approach.

As I indicated last week, we could be at the top, perhaps near the

end, of an economic cycle. New housing starts in Vancouver are expected

to drop significantly next year. If we are indeed nearing the end of a

growth cycle in the province, then I really do worry about the prospects

for young people who are just starting out.

My youngest daughter is 16, going on 30. She asked me this weekend

how my workweek was. Now, we have a very honest relationship, and I had

to tell her how honestly saddened and concerned I was with respect to

what happened this week with the passing of the budget and what I think

it means to the future for her and her siblings in this

province.

Ultimately, what we have in this bill is a collection of measures

that will start the decline of the B.C. economy — not today, maybe not

six months from now. But with almost 100 percent assurance, it will

result in an economic downturn and declining private sector investment

and job growth. For those of my colleagues on the other side who were

laughing last week, I doubt you’ll be laughing when this happens. I

suspect you’ll be doing everything possible to distance yourself from

this budget.

We will have a lot more to say about this misguided bill, and the

budget behind it, in the coming weeks and months ahead. We, the official

opposition, will be standing up for families, businesses,

municipalities, school boards and non-profit organizations of this

province, even when this government will not.

I return to the closing paragraph in this government’s throne

speech, declaring: “Government can transform lives.” I don’t believe

that’s true. Only people have the power to transform lives.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yet this government really believes it has a role in telling them

what is best, that government knows how best to spend your money and

that, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what people want; it’s

only what the government wants that really matters.

That’s pure, unadulterated hogwash. Only people have the power to

transform lives. At election time, they have the power to transform

governments too. We’re talking about a minority government that believes

it has the majority on its side. You don’t. You are facing the strongest

official opposition in the history of this province, and it just got

stronger with the election of the hon. member for Kelowna West. It will

be the people of this province who transform the future of British

Columbia. One of them, God willing, will be my daughter.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. James: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to close debate. I

appreciate the input of the members across the way, but I have to say I

could not more strongly disagree — particularly with the last member who

spoke, about her references to the budget that has been tabled.

“Reckless,” and reckless for the future, was exactly what happened over

16 years. It’s exactly why there was a change in government in this

province.

Just the kinds of issues that we in fact are addressing in this

budget are there for the people of British Columbia, as they asked.

Things like the biggest investment in child care are coming forward

because the public has asked for that kind of support.

Not only that; it is in fact an initiative that will not only

support families and not only support our present and our future but

will also support the economy of British Columbia. If you talk to

employers, what the employers make very clear is that investments in

child care and housing are investments that they have requested, that

they have looked for and that they were interested in. They know how

tough it is, in a hot labour market and in a strong economy, to look at

recruitment and retention. Investing in housing and child care is a

smart economic investment, and Quebec has proven that over and

over.

This bill brings forward changes to 21 statutes to implement many

of the tax measures in Budget 2018. I just want to speak about a couple

of those, to correct the record.

The measures that we are bringing forward are balanced, and they

focus on fairness for British Columbians. They focus on support for

individuals, support for businesses and support for our growing economy.

To begin with, we’ve got a mining flow-through share tax credit —

extended. We have a farmers food donation credit — extended. Interactive

digital media tax credit — extended. Book publishing tax credit —

extended. An opportunity for the Film Incentive credit to expand to

include B.C. writers. These are all measures that in fact support

business and support a growing economy in British Columbia — completely

contrary to everything the member across the way said.

There is a range of measures, as well, to address tax avoidance —

a critical issue that I haven’t heard the members across the way talk

about. But the public is talking about it, because the public expects

that if you live in British Columbia, you will pay your fair share of

taxes. We are tightening up the collection of information so that we can

share it for audits and for enforcement to ensure that we have a fair

tax system in British Columbia. It’s extraordinary that when we listened

to the member across the way, we didn’t hear a lot of support for the

direction of addressing the issue of loopholes, tax avoidance or making

sure that people pay their fair share of taxes.

We are, in this bill and in this budget, asking those who can to

pay a little bit more towards a number of initiatives — which, if you

look at this budget, I don’t know how the member across the way could

talk about as reckless spending: disability bus passes, more support for

seniors, more support for child care, affordable housing for families.

If that’s reckless, then I really question the member’s direction around

support for British Columbians. British Columbians asked for action, and

we are taking action in this budget.

Yes, we are increasing the luxury surtax rate on passenger

vehicles that are worth more than $125,000. We believe that if people

can afford those kinds of luxury vehicles, they can afford to spend a

little bit more towards supporting the programs and services that

matter.

[3:20 p.m.]

Yes, we are increasing the school tax on the assessed value above

$3 million on a high-valued house. Again, we believe that people can

afford to provide a little bit more towards the programs and services

that matter.

There are some measures in there, as well, to simplify remittance

on provincial sales tax and services, to make things easier for

taxpayers, which we, again, believe is the right direction to go. Then,

when it comes to health, we are increasing the tax rate on cigarettes

and tobacco, again to give incentives for people to quit or, hopefully,

incentives not to start.

I believe this bill provides the balance for the measures that are

included in the budget. With that, I move second reading of Bill 2, the

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018.

[3:25 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 2, Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2018.

Second reading of Bill 2 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 40

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Larson

Foster

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 2 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 4.

[3:30 p.m.]

BILL 4 — BRITISH COLUMBIA

INNOVATION COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 4, the British Columbia Innovation Council

Amendment Act, now be read a second time.

I’m delighted to be introducing this important piece of

legislation that will provide broad support to the technology sector in

British Columbia. This bill fulfils a key commitment under the

confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. Green Party by

establishing a new innovation commission. This new agency will be named

Innovate B.C. Innovate B.C. is being created to further develop B.C.’s

thriving technology and innovation sector, create more life-sustaining

jobs and further strengthen economic opportunities for all

citizens.

The bill in the House today renames the existing B.C. Innovation

Council to Innovate B.C. and expands the Crown agency’s mandate to

enable the delivery of new programs and initiatives that reflect

government priorities. Our government and the B.C. Green caucus worked

together collaboratively to develop the name, mandate and structure of

Innovate B.C. By establishing Innovate B.C., this government will

promote the continued growth and competitiveness of B.C.’s tech

sector.

Technology and innovation supports in British Columbia are

delivered by multiple ministries and several agencies, which can make

navigating government programming challenging and administratively

burdensome for small businesses. Innovate B.C. will provide a single

point of contact for technology business support and help to streamline

services for developing tech entrepreneurs and businesses.

Innovate B.C. will be responsible for the administration,

operation and delivery of programs that support innovation,

entrepreneurship and business development in the technology sector.

Innovate B.C. will be B.C.’s primary agencies for initiatives that

promote company growth, resulting in new jobs, increased revenue and

economic development, ensuring that all regions of the province benefit

from the opportunities of the emerging economy.

Innovate B.C. will absorb all the programs and services currently

delivered by the B.C. Innovation Council and expand upon its mandate.

Innovate B.C. will offer tools and expert guidance to entrepreneurs

across all regions of the province. This will include providing support

for building the capacity of B.C. companies to access new markets and

attract investment. Innovate B.C. will also advise the government on the

development of science, technology and innovation policy.

These changes will ensure that B.C. is more competitive nationally

and globally and that we attract additional investment to scale up our

technology ecosystem.

Specifically, the bill before you amends the act to change all

instances of the word “council” to “agency” throughout, to align with

the new organization’s name; to change the scope of the advice the

agency provides to government from only “science” to “science,

technology and innovation,” to reflect the expanded organizational

mandate; to add a new objective for the agency, which is to offer tools,

resources and expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies across the

province, including support for building the capacity of B.C. companies

to access new markets and attract investment.

This last amendment emphasizes that promoting company growth is a

key element of Innovate B.C.’s mandate. The current agency’s objectives

do not include a role in providing resources and guidance to companies

from across B.C. or in helping them reach new markets or attract

investment.

It’s clear that British Columbia’s high-technology sector is a

vital part of our province’s economy, contributing significantly to

British Columbia’s gross domestic product and providing competitive

advantages to other industry sectors. Tech sector employment has grown

to over 106,000 jobs across more than 10,200 companies. In 2016, the

sector generated $28.9 billion in revenue and fully 7 percent of British

Columbia’s GDP, and it had one of the fastest GDP and revenue growth

rates in Canada.

[3:35 p.m.]

B.C.’s tech sector was the biggest it has ever been in 2016,

according to those statistics, on par with major provincial industries

such as manufacturing and health care. Nevertheless, it remains

comparatively small in relation to many other North American

jurisdictions, leaving ample room for growth.

Significant opportunities exist to continue expanding our tech

sector through improved provincial programs and by working with the

federal government to make sure B.C.’s interests are represented as the

federal government implements its national innovation agenda. The

I intend to ensure that our province is best positioned to lever those

opportunities so that British Columbia gets a maximum share of federal

funding.

The federal budget includes major investments for innovation

programming across the country. It emphasizes simplifying access to

innovation programs and focuses on growing high-potential firms. By

broadening the focus to support tech companies at all stages of growth,

Innovate B.C. will be better aligned with federal programming, helping

to amplify the successes of B.C.’s tech and innovation ecosystem. The

agency’s expanded mandate is also in line with that of counterparts in

other Canadian jurisdictions, such as Ontario, Quebec and

Alberta.

The full scope of Innovate B.C.’s responsibilities will now

include delivering programs to help technology start-ups grow and create

jobs across B.C., including a focus on helping these start-ups to access

capital; offering a wide spectrum of business development and

partnership opportunities that are responsive to industry needs;

supporting B.C. entrepreneurs and companies at all stages of growth by

offering tools, resources and expert guidance; building the capacity of

B.C. companies to access global markets and attract new investment;

facilitating strong relationships between the technology industry and

British Columbia’s public post-secondary institutions; providing policy

and program advice to government to foster innovation and

commercialization of B.C.’s technologies; and working with regional

partners to ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are

felt around the province.

The work of Innovate B.C. will be in close alignment with other

provincial priorities and activities as identified in ministers’ mandate

letters. As a result, Innovate B.C. will play a role in advising on the

provincial technology and innovation strategy as part of our

government’s overall economic development strategy; working with my

ministry’s trade and investment and venture capital teams to identify

and take advantages of opportunities to sell products and services

internationally and also attract new investment; establishing linkages

with provincial task forces, such as the emerging economy task force,

the small business task force and the B.C. Mining Jobs Task Force;

assisting the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and

creating a clear business focus for programming offered by the

forthcoming new regional innovation centres; supporting the Ministry of

Agriculture and industry representatives in establishing a new B.C. food

innovation centre; and supporting the Ministry of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in expanding B.C.’s

innovative wood products sector.

Innovate B.C. will also support Indigenous entrepreneurship by

continuing all BCIC programs and initiatives that support Indigenous

technology entrepreneurs, including the venture acceleration program and

tech works program, and working closely with the First Nations

Technology Council — for example, on its highly successful digital

skills development strategy, bridging to technology.

Innovate B.C. will be led by a new board of directors. Its

membership will be composed of worthy candidates from throughout the

province. All of the Innovate B.C. board candidates will be recognized

leaders from their sub-sectors in B.C., nominated due to their expertise

and their ability to represent a diverse range of innovation and

technology sub-sectors. The board will also have regional representation

and reflect gender diversity.

Once established, the incoming Innovate B.C. board will be charged

with examining current provincial technology and innovation programs and

making recommendations to me as the minister on future programs to be

delivered by Innovate B.C. These recommendations will ensure that

Innovate B.C. will be able to deliver upon its new and expanded mandate

and better serve the technology sector in British Columbia.

To achieve this, I’ll ask the board to engage in consultations

with regional tech sector leaders, organizations and industry

associations over the coming months to gain a deeper understanding of

the sector’s needs and help guide development of Innovate B.C.’s

programs and initiatives.

[3:40 p.m.]

These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the B.C.

Acceleration Network, post-secondary institutions, technology companies,

Indigenous organizations and communities, small businesses,

entrepreneurs, and tech and innovation industry groups, including the

new digital supercluster consortium.

If I might just digress slightly on the new digital supercluster

consortium, British Columbia’s bid in that process was successful. There

is, at present, a process underway to establish an executive and a

leadership team that will administer the funds that are provided by the

federal program, and that will be up and running very

shortly.

That’s a very good example of the need to align with a federal

government program. Certainly, that’s a major investment on the

innovation agenda by the federal government. That program was a $950

million program, and British Columbia’s bid, a very exciting bid that

offers huge potential for jobs and prosperity in British Columbia, was

successful. The digital supercluster executive will be formed shortly

and will being leading that effort.

These consultations…. They will be, obviously, definitely part of

the consultation, and in fact, this initiative will dovetail very

closely with the digital supercluster consortium. These consultations

will provide vital information to help our government better support

this important sector, which benefits all industry sectors as an enabler

of innovation and technological advances.

The government is committed to building a strong, sustainable and

innovative economy that works for all British Columbians by creating

good jobs in every corner of the province.

The creation of this agency, Innovate B.C., will help to expand

opportunities for technology businesses and promote company growth,

resulting in more jobs, increased revenue and economic development

provincewide. It supports entrepreneurs, start-ups and innovative ways

of doing business, which creates a competitive advantage for British

Columbia.

This, in turn, will lead to more investment, attract skilled

talent and open up opportunities to new markets, reinforcing a virtual

circle of continuous economic development and prosperity for all

citizens. It will help make British Columbia a true technology hub and

ensure that the benefits of technology and innovation are felt

throughout the province.

I look forward to the support of all members in support of Bill 4,

which will positively impact our province’s technology and innovation

sector, helping to create more life-sustaining jobs and further

strengthen our diverse economy.

G. Kyllo: I would say that the changes that are being proposed through this

amendment are largely superficial in nature. I know that the previous

B.C. Liberal government did a lot to support the tech sector. As

parliamentary secretary, previously, to the B.C. jobs plan, I know that

technology was front and centre of the B.C. jobs plan — and

highlighted.

Technology exists in all areas of manufacturing and just about all

sectors of the economy, whether we’re talking about forestry, mining or

natural resource operations. When we look at even the agrifood sector,

technology is that driving force that really allows our businesses in

our province to innovate and increase productivity, introducing new

products and services. So I fully support any initiative that the

current government will undertake to continue to provide the support for

the technology sector.

I just want to highlight, if I may, some of the great focuses and

investments that have been made in support of the tech sector

previously, including helping to create jobs and drive new growth with

$87 million that was funnelled towards a B.C. tech strategy. As well,

there was a commitment to creating 2,000 new STEM spaces, bringing

coding into the school for grades 6 to 9 as well as introducing measures

to ensure that B.C. tech companies were first in line for government

contracts — and $10 million for new life sciences research

chairs.

Technology certainly is a cornerstone of a large majority of the

growth, and economic growth, in our province. As I’ve highlighted with

some of the examples, it’s certainly something that I know that this

side of the House is very supportive of.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, the minister mentioned something during his opening remarks

about improving the competitiveness of the tech sector. I think it goes

without saying that under the current government, there have been

significant efforts undertaken to actually decrease and reduce the

competitiveness of businesses in British Columbia, including the tech

sector.

We’ll all recall back to September of this past year, with the

mid-term budget update with a 1 percent increase in corporate taxation

and, as well, a 2 percent increase in personal taxes for what I would

like to call B.C.’s brightest and most productive workers. These types

of tax measures do not help to improve the competitiveness of B.C.

businesses.

In our current budget, we see again further focus on shifting

taxation. What the members opposite will characterize as elimination of

MSP actually is a transfer of MSP off of individuals and put squarely on

the backs of B.C. businesses.

As has been canvassed in this House, the new employer health tax —

it’s really a payroll tax — of 1.95 percent is adding significant

additional expenses right onto the backs of businesses all across our

province, including the tech sector. Tech sector wages are far in excess

of the provincial average, with average wages around $85,000

annually.

I think this is something that members from both sides of the

House are very happy to report on, in that the tech sector pays far in

excess of the average wage in our province. But it is also these same

employers paying these higher wages that are going to be negatively

impacted. A 1.95 percent payroll tax on a base salary of $45,000

basically equates to about $900 a year, which is what the current MSP

premium had been up until this year’s budget. Of course, for employees

that are getting paid roughly double the $45,000 base, the actual cost

of MSP premiums is double for these employers.

So although the minister speaks to competitiveness, what we have

seen both in the mid-term budget last year as well as the current budget

that has just been released and that we’re currently debating still

within the House puts significant disadvantages to B.C.

businesses.

The tech sector is very mobile. When we have a tech sector…. I had

the privilege a number of years ago of touring Electronic Arts — about

1,400 employees, paying a significant amount of local government taxes,

and an amazing employer. It’s one of the most amazing facilities I’ve

ever been to. When we have a look at some of these tax impacts that the

new government is proposing, it’s going to put significant pressure on

businesses that are already competing in a very competitive market — and

it is a global economy.

Largely, the changes proposed in this bill…. We have yet to

actually have the opportunity to canvass in estimates some of the full

details of where the programming dollars will be changing and

shifting.

For the most part, I’m in support of anything that the current

government will do to continue to support the thriving tech sector in

British Columbia — but, again, with the caveat that when we talk to

competitiveness, the members opposite and the current minister I think

need to really look deep and hard into some of the tax implications that

have been put onto the backs of businesses, again reducing the actual

competitiveness of businesses across this province, including the tech

sector.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 4,

the British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018. Much like

my colleague from Shuswap who spoke just before me here, I too am happy

to have an open mind and to support initiatives that are focused on

spurring further growth within British Columbia’s technology

sector.

[3:50 p.m.]

This is a sector that has been significantly punching above its

weight and has been growing dramatically in recent years. In fact, it’s

an industry that’s booming right across British Columbia. I think, at

latest count, there are about 106,000 direct jobs in the sector, with

many different industry projections that that could grow to 120,000 tech

jobs by 2020. There are over 10,000 companies now actively engaged in

the tech sector.

Tech is everywhere. It’s not this stand-alone silo that people

used to point to. “Oh, that’s the tech division. Go and talk to the tech

guys.” Often if you were the person in a company who — by accident, some

would say — set up a printer and somebody saw you do that, you were

anointed the tech guy or the tech gal in that company. So much

understanding of what technology really is has advanced over recent

years. The tech sector has an average wage that’s considerably higher

than many other sectors in British Columbia. There are actually more

tech jobs in the tech sector than there are in mining, forestry, and oil

and gas combined. As I said, technology really is everywhere.

I remember touring West Fraser Mills in Quesnel recently. When

you’re in the mill, you’re hard-pressed to actually see any human

beings. What used to be done by people touching and moving the lumber as

it was making its way through the mill has been replaced with

technology. The good news, though, is that the building next door is

full of people that are powering those machines, people that are experts

at the hardware and the software that actually go into ensuring that

that mill is one of the most efficient mills anywhere in the

world.

When you consider the technology that is in play now in the mining

sector, when you consider the technology that we see in the oil and gas

sector, in pipelines, when you see the technology that’s in play now in

British Columbia’s agriculture sector — when you tour a cherry farm in

Kelowna and you see just how much additional yield they are able to

achieve because of the technology that that farming operation or that

farming family has invested in — it’s quite remarkable. Technology makes

all of that possible.

My background is in technology as well. Prior to being elected in

2013, I was a proud CEO of a tech company that we had started and grown,

up in Kamloops. Back in the day when we started our business, about 20

years ago, there were only four tech companies in the tech space in

Kamloops.

Interjection.

T. Stone: That was actually in 1998, just because I know the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. There you go; there’s a trivia answer for

you.

It was 1998 when I started my business, up in Kamloops. We were

one of four companies back then. Today there are over 160 companies.

Actually, it’s over 200 companies in Kamloops if you take those that

have two or three or five…. Total employment now is somewhere around

1,500 tech employees in Kamloops. It’s a large part of the reason….

Kamloops used to be a community that often found itself in a

boom-and-bust cycle of commodity prices going up and down. If mining and

forestry were doing well, Kamloops would do well. If prices went down in

those commodities, you really felt it in Kamloops. You really felt it,

walking up and down the streets.

Kamloops’s economy is highly diversified now, in large part

because of these hundreds of tech companies and these thousands of tech

employees that are now in Kamloops. The same goes for Kelowna, Victoria,

obviously, and Vancouver, but also in rural British Columbia. I touched

on Quesnel a moment ago. There are incredibly innovative companies and

entrepreneurs doing amazing things, innovating in the smallest of

communities in British Columbia. Whether you’re in Sicamous or in

Cumberland or in a company I know that’s done some incredible automation

work in 100 Mile House, this is taking place in every corner of British

Columbia. That’s one of, I think, the most exciting realities of the

tech sector.

[3:55 p.m.]

In Kamloops, part of the success there — and we see this generally

being the model that has been employed successfully in other communities

around the province, whether it be Kelowna, Prince George or Victoria —

is really pulling together, in a number of ways, the universities that

exist in those communities with industry in those communities, with the

government programs and the government agencies.

The B.C. Innovation Council, to this point, has done some

exceptional work. There has been a lot of progress made in building

linkages between the universities and between innovation centres and

industry, which ends up being a win-win-win. In Kamloops, there are some

tremendous linkages that are largely driven by the Kamloops Innovation

Centre.

I would be remiss if I didn’t throw a shout-out to Lincoln Smith

and his team at KIC, who have done just a fabulous job of building

durable relationships with Thompson Rivers University, with industry,

with the B.C. Innovation Council. It’s KIC that’s responsible for the

entrepreneurs-in-residence that have come, through the Innovation

Council, to mentor and coach young students at TRU who are entrepreneurs

and who have an idea and want to pursue that idea, but they need just a

little bit of help.

I find that all terribly, terribly exciting. Again, anything that

we can do as provincially elected officials to assist the technology

sector to expand even further I think warrants very serious

attention.

The changes provided in this bill are largely window dressing, in

my view. I do not mean to cast any aspersions on the intent here.

Changing the name, which this bill provides for, from the B.C.

Innovation Council to Innovate B.C. — I certainly don’t have any issue

with that. Perhaps that’s a nice modernization, an easier way to refer

to the B.C. Innovation Council.

There are some slight expansions in the mandate, from an initial

glance here, that are provided for through this bill — an expanded

mandate that will help guide entrepreneurs and companies to build

capacity to better access markets, not just here in British Columbia but

across the world. There’s a tremendous amount of effort I think already

being made, some good momentum, on that front.

The bill provides for some slight expansions in the mandate

insofar as adding technology and innovation policy to the council’s

mandate, which previously only referred to science — I think that is a

relatively minor expansion of the mandate, but I understand why it’s

included there — as well as making recommendations in a more formal and

structured way, I assume, to government on how to best create science,

technology and innovation policy that promotes the commercialization of

B.C. technologies.

I did see mention in the news release that went out when this bill

was first introduced that the important work that has been underway for

some time now with the First Nations Technology Council will continue. I

think that’s a good thing. I think we need to continue to work together

to support not just entrepreneurship, generally, in this province but

also to support Indigenous entrepreneurship as well.

I do want to flag for government that members of the opposition

will certainly be looking for representation from rural British Columbia

on the board of directors when the Innovate B.C. board of directors is

appointed, I understand, later this year. Again, back to my comments

earlier, a tremendous amount of innovation is taking place in

communities large and small all around this province, so we want to make

sure that that board has as broad a representation as it possibly

can.

That all being said, I do want to provide a few additional

comments just generally, in the context of this bill, on a number of

moves the government has made that I really believe will seriously

hinder the ability of technology entrepreneurs and technology businesses

to really thrive and compete in British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

In fact, I’m pretty sure that I can save the government and the

innovation commissioner and Innovate B.C. lots of time and effort on how

to promote B.C.’s tech sector by starting with one piece of advice, and

that is: don’t raise taxes. Don’t impose new taxes on the technology

sector.

Nothing will slow the growth of the technology sector and drive

tech jobs out of B.C. faster and devastate this sector more fully and

completely than adding tremendous additional burden to the bottom line

of tech companies. Again, I say that as someone who’s actually started a

tech company, who’s actually grown a tech company, who’s actually been

actively involved in the tech sector for almost two decades.

Tech companies are very mobile. To succeed in the tech sector, you

really just need power and high-speed Internet access and ideas. You

need to be able to tap into some talent as well. You don’t need to make

really significant capital investments. You don’t need to put up a

building, per se. You can take your ideas, your intellectual property….

They’re highly portable. You can move these ideas very quickly to other

jurisdictions. We certainly have seen that in the past when the cost of

doing business gets to a point where it just doesn’t make sense to add

those additional employees in British Columbia.

Now, tech companies are often some of the higher-growth companies

that you will find out there as well. For most tech businesses that are

focused on an end game, it’s usually a lot about rapid growth —

significantly growing that organization and either continuing to get

bigger through acquisitions of smaller and mid-sized players later in

life or, indeed, positioning your company for an exit at some

opportunity.

To facilitate that growth, as is the case with most businesses in

other sectors…. Certainly, in the tech sector, that growth is financed

through a combination of debt and equity and also cash flow. Cash flow

is very, very important in a growth-company situation. So when you

increase the costs on the bottom line for a tech company, with

additional taxes, you attack that company’s ability to grow. That’s

exactly what this government has done in the eight months that they have

been in office.

We’ve heard much about the $5½ billion of taxes that have been

provided for in this budget that will be implemented over the next three

years. We’ve heard about the total, the cumulative, tax increase under

the NDP’s watch of $8 billion in eight months, including all of the tax

increases up to this budget and then the tax increases that are provided

for in this budget that will take place over the next three

years.

We know that corporate taxes are up. We know that personal income

taxes are up. We know that the carbon tax is up and is no longer

revenue-neutral. There’s the speculation tax, or as I prefer to refer to

it, the personal capital tax. That’s being imposed.

Then there’s the employer health tax, which we have spent a great

deal of time canvassing here in the Legislature, and we will continue to

do so. This is, frankly…. I’ve said this a few times now. This, in my

mind, is the doozy of all the tax increases. It represents a massive

assault on job creators, including in the technology sector. It will

raise $4.2 billion over three years.

As we have tried to understand what the implications of this tax

are going to be on organizations, businesses in particular, we have

learned a number of things that we’ve found — I think British Columbians

and the opposition — quite disturbing.

First, while MSP is being cut by half this year — which was

provided for in our last budget, in February of 2017, and we’re happy

that the government’s proceeding with that — the government will

double-dip next year.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Finance Minister not once, in any question that she has been

asked in the three weeks of this session…. And we’ve asked many about

this tax. Not once has she acknowledged, and just looked into the camera

and into the eyes of British Columbians, and said: “Yes. For 2019,

British Columbia businesses, non-profits, public sector organizations,

tech companies….” On and on the list goes. “Yes, in 2019, you will pay

half of your MSP and you will pay this new employer health tax.” Not

once has she been willing to say that. She doesn’t want to acknowledge

the double-dipping that that represents in this budget.

Then, of course, yes, the other half of MSP comes off in 2020, but

the new employer health tax remains in place. For most of these

organizations — I would argue virtually all of them — their tax bill,

their overall burden, will continue to be higher at that point than it

is today.

We’ve highlighted a number of examples of this, lots of small

businesses. As a start, Interior Plumbing and Heating in Kamloops — 69

years in business, several hundred employees and $185,000 net new costs

to their bottom line. The NDP is taking an additional $185,000 from that

business.

Lots of family-run businesses — whether it be restaurants or

contractors, hair salons, you name it. Family farms won’t be beyond this

tax grab. They too will be forced to cough up this additional

tax.

The tech sector — we’ll come back to that now. As the member for

Shuswap mentioned moments ago, the average wage in the tech sector is

$85,000, which means that the new employer health tax will hit companies

with as few as six employees. Just six employees at $85,000 — you’re

over that half-million-dollar threshold. You’re subject to the employer

health tax. The average tech company, I would also point

out….

Interjection.

T. Stone: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, if you listen…. You might

learn something, if you listen for a moment.

The average tech company in British Columbia with 20 employees is

going to have a hit to their bottom line of over $62,000.

Again, these are rapid-growth companies that plow cash flow back

into the growth of their operations. I understand that the members

opposite don’t understand that, because none of them have ever started a

business. None of them have ever met a payroll. None of them have ever

had to sign the front side of a paycheque. None of them know what it

takes to be an entrepreneur and to take those kinds of risks.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s not have any personal comments on people. Stick with

the….

T. Stone: I’m not going to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has the

floor.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite don’t understand the risk that is taken by

entrepreneurs. They don’t understand what it takes to create and grow

businesses. They don’t understand this. That’s why there is such a

disconnect here with all of these new taxes that they’re

imposing.

As I’ve been trying to say here, the average tech company in

British Columbia employing 20 people is going to be hit to the tune of

$62,000 every single year. We spoke about one of those tech companies

here in the chamber today in question period, iTel Networks. It’s a

growing tech company. They have a couple hundred employees. That’s a big

deal in Kamloops, by the way. Those are really good-paying,

family-supporting jobs in Kamloops. It’s really helped to diversify the

Kamloops economy.

This company does provide extended health and dental benefits to

its employees. However, the new employer health tax will represent an

additional $95,000 hit to their bottom line — $95,000 of tax, additional

tax that the NDP are going to take from iTel Networks in

Kamloops.

Now iTel — like the thousands of other businesses, tech or

otherwise, around the province — has to figure out how they’re going to

make up this additional burden. What are they going to have to do to

absorb that cost? Are they going to scale back on some of their export

marketing activities? That certainly wouldn’t be conducive to staying on

the high-growth track that they’re on.

Are they going to scale back on the number of new hires that

they’re planning on bringing into their company over the next number of

years? That certainly wouldn’t be conducive to a high-growth company in

the tech sector.

[4:10 p.m.]

They’re scratching their heads trying to understand why the

government of British Columbia would impose such a significant added

cost to their bottom line. At the end of the day, it probably will mean

that they’re going to have to hire fewer new employees.

Now, what’s really sad about that is that most of the new hires

that they have in mind will come out of TRU’s programs in Kamloops.

These are millennials, young students, who are getting the training that

they need and who preferably want to stay in their community. They want

to stay in Kamloops.

To this point, there have been employers, like iTel, that have

been only too happy to scoop them up and hire them and bring them into

their company and provide them with that on-the-job work experience,

give them that first opportunity. It’s those kinds of jobs that are also

at stake here with this tax grab, this employer health tax of the

NDP.

Of course, we have confirmed that the tax will apply to charities,

to non-profits, to all kinds of arts organizations, to government-funded

agencies that provide critical services to people.

There’s an organization in Kamloops that partners, all with

government funding…. They deliver affordable housing projects for some

of the most vulnerable in society — thos