Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 235

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Vimy Ridge Day

S. Sullivan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Ticket Sales Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Graduation rates and Indigenous initiatives in Sea to Sky school district

J. Sturdy

Vimy Ridge Day and Canadian memorial in France

J. Routledge

Seycove Secondary School and gay-straight alliances in

schools

J. Thornthwaite

Cockrell House and veterans in transition

M. Dean

Surrey–White Rock Political Engagement Society and new immigrants to B.C.

T. Redies

Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities

convention in Powell River

S. Malcolmson

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

Hon. G. Heyman

Oral Questions

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

A. Wilkinson

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Polak

Opioid crisis and services in Cowichan Valley

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Darcy

Gender wage gap and equal pay legislation

S. Cadieux

Hon. H. Bains

Funding for community social services organizations and worker wages

S. Bond

Hon. S. Simpson

Petitions

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

Hon. C. Trevena

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. A. Dix

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Today we’re joined in the Legislature by members of the B.C.

Chiropractic Association. I’d like to introduce Clark Konczak, Debbie

Wright, Jen Forbes, Richard McIlmoyle, Philippa Carrie, Jaipaul Parmar, Mike

Berna, Moe Baloo, Angie Knott and Mike Hadbavny. I wish all members of the

House to give our guests a welcome to the Legislature.

J. Yap: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House three good friends and

constituents. With us today to observe proceedings and to have a tour of the

Legislature are Michael Chiu, Brenda Ngo and Earl Villarosa. Would the House

please give them a warm welcome.

I. Paton: I actually have three introductions that I’d like to make this

morning.

First of all, in the House is a constituent of mine, a well-known

notary public from Tsawwassen. His name is Daniel Boisvert. Daniel was also

just recently elected, last November — his first term — as a Delta school

trustee in Delta, and he’s very involved in community activities, including

the Tsawwassen curling club.

I’d like to also introduce two members that are here representing the

Vancouver Giants. I think the Giants are going to throw a bit of a whooping

tonight on Victoria, this evening at seven o’clock.

First, I’d like to introduce — no stranger to people in this House —

Mr. Dale Saip. Dale has been around for many, many years. He’s the senior

vice-president of the Vancouver Giants hockey club. He’s a longtime Delta

school trustee. Dale is involved in so many different functions and

societies, including the Delta Police Foundation, KidSport, Vancouver Food

Bank and the Delta prayer breakfast. Dale is involved in so many things in

our community.

With Dale is the community relations director for the Vancouver

Giants, Mr. Rich Gorman. Rich is a longtime friend and a big supporter of

this side of the House. Thanks, Rich.

Please make all three of these gentlemen welcome this

morning.

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

city of Castlegar. With us here today is His Worship Mayor Bruno Tassone and

Couns. Dan Rye and Florio Vassilakakis. With them is the CAO, Chris Barlow.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today we’re joined by a number of technology leaders.

We have guests from the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of

B.C. As you may or may not know, April is Technology Skills Appreciation

Month. It’s a chance to acknowledge the work of the 10,000 members, who are

ensuring that we have a greater quality of life, environment and

economy.

I’d like to welcome a number of guests in our chambers: CEO Theresa

McCurry; the manager of strategic partnerships, M.J. Whitemarsh;

vice-president Sarah Campden; and secretary-treasurer David Sparanese. Will

the House please join me in welcoming all of these guests.

M. Morris: Today I’m honoured to have two of my constituents down here in the

great city of Victoria. Jerry and Martha Vanegmond are down here from Prince

George, probably because of the transition period we have with the snow

that’s melting right now. We’ve got cherry blossoms, and we’ve got this

great weather.

Thanks for coming down to see what we have down here.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

VIMY RIDGE DAY

S. Sullivan: Today is Vimy Ridge Day. My grandfather, Sam Sullivan, was one of

55,000 British Columbians who went to fight in the First World War and

was in Vimy Ridge. It had a catastrophic effect on so many British

Columbians. About 10 percent of the province was fighting in that war,

and 6,000 British Columbians died. So we might take a moment to reflect

today about the effect that that had on British Columbia and on

Canada.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined, as the member across the way noted, by a number of

notaries from the notary association today. We have the president, Daniel

Boisvert; Morrie Baillie, VP; and Jacqui Mendes, the CEO.

They are here at a particularly good time. April 7 to 13 is Make a

Will Week in British Columbia. I remind all the members in the House of the

importance of having a will to let people know what you’d like done in the….

You know, it’s possible that we may depart this world at some point and good

to keep in mind a little mortality from time to time and to make a will. Let

people know what your plans are in advance of that.

Notaries are there to help you, and they’re here today to join us.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

T. Redies: I know Dale Saip and Rich Gorman have already been introduced, but I

also wanted to acknowledge them. Dale and I go back a long way. We went to

high school together at South Delta Senior a long, long time ago.

Rich Gorman I just want to acknowledge for a couple of things. First

off, as a new politician or aspiring politician, Rich was very, very helpful

to me in my campaign. I also want to acknowledge his work with the Semiahmoo

House Society, which he is a director of. He has done many, many good things

with that society.

Welcome, gentlemen, to the House.

Hon. L. Beare: British Columbia is home to a thriving creative sector, with amazing

musicians and crew. Today in the gallery is Nick Blasko. Nick is the person

behind the popular Rifflandia Music Festival here in Victoria and has

managed Tegan and Sara. He runs his own company, Atomique Productions, and

is also involved with Amelia Artists, a cornerstone of the performing arts

industry. Will the House please make Nick feel very welcome.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, Richie

Sharpe, who’s all the way down here from Fort St. John, Originally from

England, though — he took a little stayover in Fort St. John. It’s his first

visit to the Legislature. Would the House please make him feel

welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Mira Blakely. She’s in the gallery today.

She’ll be shadowing me. Mira’s a grade 9 Reynolds student in the flex

program. I’m sure that the Premier would like to know that a Reynolds

student is in the building.

In the fall, Mira emailed all of the leaders in order to get input for

her

article on lowering the voting age, which was published in the

Saanich News . She’s a competitive soccer player — she’s a

goalkeeper — and an entrepreneur. She makes her own art cards, and she is

currently selling them to save up money to go to Ecuador in order to be on a

project with ME to WE.

Could the House please make Mira feel most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — TICKET SALES ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ticket Sales Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 27, the Ticket Sales Act. This bill

proposes to establish a regulatory framework for the sale and resale of

tickets to live recreational, sporting and cultural events in British

Columbia.

Last year government heard from thousands of British Columbians

frustrated with the ticket-buying process. This bill introduces new

rules that level the playing field for people purchasing tickets to live

events in B.C.

The legislation proposes a number of measures that will require

greater transparency and accountability by ticket sellers, including

apply to the ticket. New rules will also require secondary sellers and

on-line platform operators to provide refund guarantees in certain

situations. These measures will allow consumers to make informed choices

about what they are buying and who they are buying from.

[10:15 a.m.]

The bill will impose a ban on mass-ticket-buying software,

otherwise known as bots, that is used to jump the line and quickly buy

up tickets when they go on sale.

In

summary, this bill aims to provide more protections and fairer

processes for people buying tickets to live events in British

Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Ticket Sales 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)

GRADUATION RATES AND

INDIGENOUS INITIATIVES IN

SEA

TO SKY SCHOOL DISTRICT

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise today to share with the House the tremendous

success story of high school graduation rates in the Sea to Sky school

district. Regionwide graduation rates have increased from 75 percent in

’14-15 to over 97 percent in ’17-18. But what is most significant is

that the Indigenous graduation rates have climbed from 35 percent in

2009 to over 86 percent in ’17-18.

While the implementation of the new education curriculum must be

credited with significantly contributing to these improvements, I

believe that the real game changer in the Sea to Sky is the way the new

curriculum has been applied. The dramatic improvements to Indigenous

graduation rates specifically is the result of a districtwide push to

restructure the whole approach to learning.

Incorporating an Indigenous lens has meant that district

officials, principals, teachers and community members have all

collaborated to develop a comprehensive learning strategy. The

Aboriginal youth council made up of 80 students from different high

schools across the Sea to Sky has also contributed to the new

approach.

Real-life problem-solving and the importance of subject relevance

is core to the new approach. Having attended several project showcase

events in our schools, it’s clear that students right from the primary

level are aware of and engaged in some of the most significant societal

challenges we face today, such as affordable housing, transit and

climate solutions. Culturally oriented activities such as the annual

24-hour drum event, powwow dance lessons and the reconciliation blankets

program are also engaging all students and specifically connecting those

with Indigenous heritage.

I’d also like to recognize the students across the Sea to Sky for

their obviously hard work. I also acknowledge the continuous commitment

to success that the educators and members of the community demonstrate

as they get Sea to Sky youth ready for the next

chapter of their

lives.

VIMY RIDGE DAY AND

CANADIAN MEMORIAL IN

FRANCE

J. Routledge: Today is Vimy Ridge Day, and I rise to honour my grandfather and

the other more than 10,000 Canadians who lost their lives or whose lives

were forever changed at Vimy Ridge.

Unlike the almost 4,000 Canadian soldiers, Granddad got to come

home from the battle to raise a family and to play with his

grandchildren. But as a result of his injuries, he was unable to work,

and his family lived in poverty. And as a result of his injuries, he

died before his time.

Vimy Ridge looms large in my family history, so I went to see it

for myself. Driving from Arras, you know you’re getting close when you

the former battleground is now a Canadian national historic site run by

Veterans Affairs Canada. Then you start seeing roped-off areas with big

“Keep out” signs. That’s because more than 100 years later, unexploded

mines still lurk in the woods. Many of the tunnels and trenches have

been preserved. The enemy lines were so close to each other, a lot

closer than the opposition benches are to me right now.

Of course, it’s the memorial itself that takes one’s breath away.

There are a lot of World War I monuments in that part of northern

France, but none compare to the Canadian one for its size, its location

and its sad, haunting beauty.

[10:20 a.m.]

The Canadian memorial stands on the ridge itself, at the point

where some of the fiercest fighting took place, a ridge from which you

can see for miles and miles in every direction. No wonder the Canadian

victory at Vimy Ridge represented a turning point in the war.

Inscribed on the memorial are the names of more than 11,000

Canadian soldiers who were missing and presumed dead in

France.

The Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge does not glorify war. Rather,

it comes to symbolize Canada’s commitment to peace and the international

rule of law.

SEYCOVE SECONDARY SCHOOL AND

GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES IN

SCHOOLS

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to talk about an event happening in my riding tomorrow at

a Seycove Secondary School. Seycove has been a leader for all schools in

their advocacy for LGBTQ students, and tomorrow they will be celebrating

the International Day of Pink. This is a day when millions of people

wear pink to celebrate diversity and raise awareness in order to stop

bullying, discrimination, homophobia and transphobia.

In fact, this past Saturday I joined several others wearing pink

at the International Day of Pink celebration at Out in Schools. As part

of this year, the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity and

the International Day of Pink are launching a new resource called Our

History Initiative, bringing museum exhibitions into schools and

communities.

During my time as Parliamentary Secretary for Child Mental Health

and Anti-Bullying, our government introduced legislation that included

gender identity and expression in the human rights code and to

explicitly protect trans individuals. We also mandated that all public

and private schools implement SOGI policies.

We know that gay-straight alliances help contribute to a safer

school climate. This research from the Stigma and Resilience Among

Vulnerable Youth Centre at UBC School of Nursing determined that not

only do gay-straight alliances make schools safer for LGBTQ students but

also among straight students. These programs are beneficial to all

students. Discrimination comes in many forms, and students should feel

safe in their environment so that they can have the best possible

experience inside and outside of the classroom.

The reputation of Seycove’s inclusive environment is so prevalent

that international students come to Seycove specifically for that.

Another student from Germany started an alliance club when they returned

home after attending Seycove.

Seycove is a great example of how much the students can benefit

from having access to these types of programs. The pioneering spirit of

the students and teachers at Seycove is truly inspiring and a great

example of how inclusivity in the classroom, on the field and in

everyday life can benefit us.

I’d like to congratulate Seycove for their leadership in making

all students feel safe and welcome and ensuring all students feel that

they belong, and in taking a stand against bullying and

discrimination.

COCKRELL HOUSE AND

VETERANS IN

TRANSITION

M. Dean: As you drive down Sooke Road in Colwood, you pass a

pleasant-looking house that blends into the neighbourhood, yet it is a

life-saving home to many veterans who have served Canada on the front

lines. Cockrell House is an 11-bed multiplex that has been providing

disadvantaged veterans with housing, counselling, life skills, health

and social services and transportation since 2010.

Returning soldiers can struggle to adapt to civilian life, coming

back from war zones, witnessing ethnic cleansing and devastation. All

too often this can result in military personnel who face post-traumatic

stress disorder, family breakdown and poverty. As one vet said, “I spent

eight years in the woods. I lived in a tent in summer and winter” —

until he safely transitioned to Cockrell House.

It’s funded through a range of veteran organizations, particularly

the Royal Canadian Legion, also with support from the city of Colwood,

and is 100 percent supported by a team of volunteers offering

professional support. When veterans are successful and can move out on

their own, they are fully outfitted with everything they need to live

independently — furniture, linen, utensils, etc. — and most of this is

donated.

I want to thank all of the staff, the volunteers and the

supporters of Cockrell House, who have made such a wonderful transition

home a reality in our community. As a new generation of veterans return

home, we thank you for your housing support, counselling and trauma

relief for them in our community.

[10:25 a.m.]

SURREY–WHITE ROCK

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT SOCIETY

AND

NEW IMMIGRANTS TO B.C.

T. Redies: Imagine immigrating to a country where the culture, language,

social norms and political system were completely differently from your

own. That is what thousands of immigrants do every year, coming to

Canada and our great province of B.C. For many, it is a daunting

experience that often results in isolation and an inability to

experience the best of their new home — but not for my constituent, Cici

Liang.

Cici, together with a number of other Chinese immigrants to South

Surrey and White Rock, have founded the Surrey–White Rock Political

Engagement Society. Other founding members include Edward Su, Christine

Ma, Matthew Zhao, Wen Zhou, Michael Mei, Banderaz Cheng, May Huang and

longtime resident Marc Burchell.

The mandate of this society is to broaden the understanding of new

immigrants to our community with respect to the political and social

systems of British Columbia and Canada. Since its inception, South

Surrey–White Rock MP Gordon Hogg, White Rock mayor Darryl Walker and I

have all spoken at the society’s monthly Cornerstone Community Forums.

As word has gotten out, these forums have seen increasingly larger

crowds, with over 150 people attending the first three sessions. The

society is non-partisan and seeks a variety of perspectives, with the

Minister of Citizens’ Services, the member for Surrey-Panorama, speaking

on May 10.

Furthermore, while created with the Chinese community in mind, the

sessions are open to all members of the community and have increasingly

attracted Canadian-born citizens who are also interested in becoming

more politically engaged. As such, the society is serving a very

important role.

A well-known actor and television presenter in her native China,

Cici describes her motivation for helping to establish the society

saying: “We need to think as Canadians and learn how government works….

The only way we can do it is learn and spread the information. We’re

going to live here now. This is our second home. This is where our

offspring are going to live, and we do it for them.”

At a time, unfortunately, when there’s increasing vitriol and

concern about immigrants to our country, I’m glad that Canada and

British Columbia are attracting people like Cici and her friends.

They’re not speculating in real estate. They’re people who love this

country, who want to contribute to our society and who are making great

effort to understand our customs, values and even politics.

Thank you to Cici and all the members of this engagement society

for your admiral efforts to increase understanding.

ASSOCIATION OF VANCOUVER ISLAND

AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES

CONVENTION IN POWELL RIVER

S. Malcolmson: Some say the best thing about Powell River is its view of Nanaimo.

But I say no, there is much to commend Powell River. I’m thinking of

that town as my colleagues from local government go to this weekend’s

Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities convention. It’s

our branch of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and it has a big impact

on provincial government policy.

Powell River regional district former chair Colin Palmer led all

the regional district chairs and me as Islands Trust Council chair all

up and down the coast, ringing the alarm on the catastrophic impact of

ferry fare increases under the old government. This directly affected

the new government’s policies of ferry fare rollbacks and freezes,

restoring the seniors-free travel and, just last week, legislation to

reassert public interest into the ferry system.

Now, the last time that AVICC met in Powell River…. You know how

these local government conventions go. All of the great hometown talent

comes out. But actually, the people just want to talk to each other.

Sometimes it’s hard to pay attention.

The first thing was kind of a brave — call it brave — burlesque

show. But things really picked up. When the choir started to sing, you

could have heard a pin drop. The quality of the orchestra was

fantastic.

We also heard really inspiring words from Powell River’s mayor

about the Sliammon First Nation and the accord it has with the city of

Powell River. It’s one of the beacons of reconciliation and friendship

working together.

Now, let it not be said I’m making this speech because I lost a

hockey bet with the Powell River–Sunshine Coast MLA. That’s not why I’m

giving this speech, because clearly, the Nanaimo Clippers are the

superior team, despite how the playoffs turned out.

It is with genuine respect that I salute Powell River and wish my

local government colleagues the very best at this weekend’s

convention.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

Hon. G. Heyman: I wish to retract the comment that I made to the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson in question period yesterday. I unreservedly

apologize to anyone who found the comment disrespectful or

offensive.

[10:30 a.m.]

That was not my intent, but I completely accept that it was a

comment I should not have made, and I’m sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

A. Wilkinson: Each year in April, Equal Pay Day is noted in Canada. It’s hardly

celebrated. It’s a measure of how far into the year women have to wait

before their pay will catch up with that of men. This government, sadly,

is making that problem even worse with its approach to compensation in

the social services sector. This is how the B.C. CEO Network made note

of it to the Premier: “To compensate one group and not the other is a

huge injustice.”

This is about pay for women doing work for people who are our most

vulnerable citizens, and this government has decided to endorse wage

discrimination. Fifty percent of B.C.’s social service providers are

non-union. That means 17,000 workers, almost all women, are being paid

less than their union counterparts on Equal Pay Day.

The question goes to the Finance Minister. When will this

discrimination against underpaid women stop?

Hon. S. Simpson: As I said previously last week and I said earlier this week, we’re

working closely with people in the sector. We’re working with people in

the sector to deliver services to those people who essentially need

them, whether it be persons with developmental disabilities, whether it

be kids aging out, whether it be women escaping violence or a whole

array of other services.

Many of those services are delivered directly by those contracted

service agencies. We’re supporting them. We’re working in cooperation

with them. We’re moving forward, and we will continue to work with them

to ensure that we have effective, efficient and sustainable

service.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, this goes on day after day, where the minister responsible

for social services stands up and gives a vague, theoretical, vacuous

answer, leaving 17,000 underpaid women saying: “What’s wrong with me?

Why do I get this treatment from the NDP? Where did that come

from?”

The community living society says: “Our employees and the families

of those we support want action to achieve a fair and equal result. This

is a straightforward issue that can be quickly resolved.”

This is not complicated. This government prides itself…. It

espouses the glory of social justice, and this is what they do:

consign….

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: Across the way, they stare into their laps. They play with their

gadgets on the table. They’re not sure what to say, because this is a

flagrant example of discrimination.

When is this government going to rise to the occasion…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: …and even acknowledge there’s a problem on Equal Pay

Day?

Hon. S. Simpson: What this side and this government is doing is addressing the

issues that are in front of hundreds of thousands of people that were

ignored by the previous government.

What this side of the House and this government is doing is

supporting friendship centres when they provide services to Indigenous

people. What this side of the House is doing is bringing in a child care

program, universal child care across this province, a program that is

the first new social program that we’ve seen in this province in

decades.

[10:35 a.m.]

What this side of the House has done….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: What this side of the House has done….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please listen to the response.

Hon. S. Simpson: What this side of the House has done is brought in an innovative

program around housing for homelessness, the modular program — 2,000

modular units with wraparound services to meet people’s needs where they

are and where they need them.

When you talk about the needs of vulnerable citizens, I would

suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that when he wants to use the

word “vacuous,” he should look in the mirror.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Let’s envisage the proud minister walking down the streets of

Vancouver-Hastings, where many of these people live, and meeting

Patricia, one of the thousands of workers that this government is

discriminating against. Here’s what Patricia has to say: “This is

outrageous. We do the same work. We deserve the same wages.”

This minister is now going to write himself a little note of what

he would say to Patricia, because he’s got to figure out what to do

other than hang his head in shame.

Will the minister answer exactly what he’s got to say to Patricia

when she looks him in the eye and says: “Aren’t I as good as those other

people?”

Hon. S. Simpson: We have continued to provide supports and worked with this sector.

Whether it was the close collaboration…. Many of those organizations

worked on TogetherBC, the development of the poverty reduction strategy.

Their input was integral to that. Whether it was reimagining community

inclusion with the developmental disabilities sector…. Their role in

that is and continues to be integral to that.

What I would say to the people who deliver services in the

community, in a whole array of areas, is that you have a partner in this

government. You have a partner who’s working with you to meet the needs

of the people, many of them those people on Hastings Street.

I’d be happy to take a stroll with the Leader of the Opposition

down there, and then he can take me to the West Vancouver Yacht Club for

tea afterwards.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Polak: Well, workers like Patricia, unfortunately, over the last number

of days, have been enduring the insulting and disrespectful responses

from the other side. Yet they continue to speak out.

Why do they do that? They do that because they know that what’s

happening here is wrong. It’s wrong on so many levels. Not only is this

government denying equal pay to workers like Patricia, but to add insult

to injury, they can find enough money in the kitty to give a 46 percent

raise to someone in the Premier’s office.

What they want to know is: why is the cupboard bare for them and

their fellow non-union colleagues when there’s plenty of money around to

give out a raise, and a high one, to their friends and

insiders?

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re proud of the work that we’ve done increasing the minimum

wage. That side may recall how long it’s been.

[10:40 a.m.]

The minimum wage is going to $15.20 an hour. That will lift tens

of thousands of working poor out of poverty.

This side is proud of, for the first time, creating a stand-alone

Mental Health and Addictions Ministry that begins to meet the needs of

some of the most vulnerable and exposed people in this province who need

help. That’s what you call responding to need.

It’s about creating opportunities for people who want to build a

language learning. It’s about working with and sitting down with those

service providers who deliver critical services every day and working

with them to build a future that has people at the forefront. We’re

doing that work. It will continue over the coming months and

years.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, 17,000 workers, most of them women but all of them deserving

of equal treatment for doing equal work. Side by side they work, in many

agencies. Maybe two of them are helping an elderly gentleman into the

bath. They’re looking at each other, recognizing they’re doing exactly

the same job, but one of them is held in less regard by this government

than the other one. By any measure, that is discrimination.

The hypocrisy from that side while this minister stands day after

day refusing to answer the question can only mean one thing, and that’s

that he can’t answer it. There is no good answer.

I want to know when the minister, when this government is going to

end this shameful and discriminatory policy.

Hon. S. Simpson: When this member talks about discrimination and talks about the

treatment of low-paid workers, maybe the member would like to recall

when that side, as government, rolled back the wages by 12 to 15 percent

of over 75,000 workers. Maybe that side, maybe that member would like to

recall…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: …when they ripped up contracts for workers, because they wouldn’t

respect those contracts. And I know the member understands that the vast

majority of those workers were women.

OPIOID CRISIS AND

SERVICES IN COWICHAN

VALLEY

S. Furstenau: When we speak of the opioid epidemic, often people think of big

cities like Metro Vancouver, greater Victoria. But smaller communities

are feeling the impacts as well and often lack the necessary

infrastructure to address the growing crisis. And it is a crisis in

Duncan.

Two weeks ago the Cowichan theatre was filled with people who came

to watch a documentary film and hear a panel discussion on how the

opioid crisis is affecting our town. The next day the elected officials

of Cowichan, the mayor, CVRD chair, MLA, MP, Chief of the Cowichan

Tribes and the inspector of the RCMP met to discuss how the political

leadership can support the ongoing community-coordinated

response.

What is urgently needed in Cowichan is stable, ongoing funding for

sharps cleanup, low-barrier supervised shelter, local and easily

accessible addictions treatment and transitional and long-term

housing.

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, our small

community is struggling. What is your ministry doing to ensure that

vulnerable people in Cowichan have access to the infrastructure they

need to keep the community safe?

Hon. J. Darcy: I certainly recall very well when the member and I toured her

constituency last year and met with people who are living with the

addiction crisis and also people who are on the front lines of that

crisis.

[10:45 a.m.]

We also met with Cowichan Tribes to learn about their experience

with mental health and addictions and the support they need. As the

member knows very well, as people across British Columbia who are living

this crisis every single day know well, we have inherited a system for

mental health and addictions that has enormous gaps and that is a very

fragmented system. We have been escalating our response to the overdose

crisis every month, every week, every single day.

On Vancouver Island in particular, the member will know that last

year we opened the Our Place therapeutic recovery community, a 40-bed

innovative recovery community that will serve people on Vancouver

Island.

Also, in the Cowichan Valley in particular, I know that Island

Health has established a new intensive case management team to provide

outreach and support for people who are struggling with addiction.

They’re saving lives through significantly expanded access to naloxone

as well as the overdose prevention site in Duncan.

They’re funding a nurse practitioner to receive addictions

training, specialized addictions training in order to provide better

support in the future to people living with addiction. They’re planning

for another nurse practitioner to proactively link people at high risk

with medication-assisted treatment.

We are working overtime. I’m happy to meet with the member to talk

about her community in more detail. We have a lot of work to do. Every

single life that’s lost is preventable. It takes all of us working

together as a province, all hands on deck, to solve this unprecedented

public health emergency that’s affecting every community across British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate what the minister highlights. I also want to point

out that the Cowichan community itself has responded.

The community action team has, among other things, established a

six-bed sobering centre, worked tirelessly on educating the public on

the reasons for addiction, trauma and stigma. In 2016, Island Health did

indeed open an overdose prevention site, where more than 22,000

individual clients have visited since it opened. Early every morning,

rain or shine, a group of business owners and volunteers show up to

clean storefronts and sidewalks, removing drug paraphernalia, garbage

and human waste from the street.

Cowichan is great at rallying together to help those in need, but

we are growing impatient for long-term solutions. What is desperately

needed is an accessible, local addictions treatment centre.

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will the minister

commit to looking at funding an addictions treatment centre in

Duncan?

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m certainly happy to sit down with the member and discuss the

specific needs in her community. We have, as the member has mentioned,

significantly expanded access to overdose prevention sites, and I would

note that the overdose prevention site, as the member said, has had

thousands of visits. Hundreds of overdoses have been reversed, and not

one single life has been lost. That’s very, very important.

We also are training more doctors and nurse practitioners in order

to be able to prescribe medication-assisted treatment for people who are

living with opioid disorder. According to all of the addictions

specialists in the province, the first line of treatment for opioid

addiction is Suboxone, and we have significantly increased the number of

prescribers and the number of patients who are on medication-assisted

treatment. But every single day we are looking for new solutions. We

need new tools in our toolbox. We recognize that.

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control estimates that as a result of

our efforts, 4,700 lives have been saved in the last year and a half.

But the number of deaths still remains unacceptably, horrifically high,

and we will not rest until we turn the tide on this terrible

crisis.

GENDER WAGE GAP AND

EQUAL PAY

LEGISLATION

S. Cadieux: On average, women earn 70 cents on the dollar when compared to

male colleagues. The Equal Pay Reporting Act would require employers to

publicly disclose the gap between their male and female

employees.

[10:50 a.m.]

It’s great that the Premier is alive to the issue, but women are

living this issue every day.

It’s Equal Pay Day today. Will the Minister of Labour call the

bill for debate?

Hon. H. Bains: It is always an honour to stand here and talk about workers and

workers’ rights, their health and safety.

Interjections.

Hon. H. Bains: Members on the other side are laughing at that

statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: It doesn’t surprise me, because every time they stood up in this

House…. When they were ripping up collective agreements of those

workers, that’s when they stood up in this House, in the last 16 years.

When they were gutting the employment standards, that’s the only time

they stood up to talk about workers.

We are doing things differently. We care. We care about workers’

health and safety.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: The members on the opposite side are heckling because they don’t

want to hear the reality of what went on in the last 16 years. They

ignored workers for 16 years. They show nothing but contempt towards the

working people in the province. We value workers. We value their

work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: That’s why we are making changes. Stay tuned. More is

coming.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, that action was completely out of

order.

I remind you that

section 47 of the standing orders would allow me

to disallow questions. So just be forewarned on this: we will not be

tolerating that action in response to a question.

The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Despite the strong public support for equal pay legislation, the

Premier told the media last week that he hadn’t read the bill, but he

was ready to call it a political stunt.

Now, there’s a lot of public support for this type of legislation,

specifically today. On Twitter today, Governor Inslee gets it, Unifor

gets it, Pearl Jam gets it, U.S. presidential candidates get it, and the

United Steelworkers get the need for legislation that would prevent this

kind of unequal practice.

The Premier and the minister aren’t prepared to call the bill, so

what exactly do they plan to do to address the gender wage gap in

British Columbia?

Hon. H. Bains: It is amazing that the group that sat on this side of the House

for 16 years never did anything to talk about pay equity. Nothing. The

member talked about every other group that gets it, but the only group

that never got it was that group when they were sitting on this

side.

When they ripped up collective agreements, 75,000 workers, most of

them women, were thrown on the street. They were rehired at half the

wage they were making.

We need no lessons from that group of people over there when we

talk about workers, workers’ rights, their health and safety and pay

equity. We know that we’re on the side of the workers. Workers know they

are relieved that you’re not sitting and that they have to talk to you,

on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, you are out of

order.

The member for Prince George–Valemount.

[10:55 a.m.]

FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS

AND WORKER WAGES

S. Bond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is blatantly denying

17,000 workers equal pay for equal work. Now, the Minister of Social

Development can stand up and he can dodge and he can deflect, but there

isn’t a single British Columbian who wouldn’t see this wage increase

policy as anything but straight-up discrimination.

Karyn Santiago with Communitas listened to this minister’s answers

yesterday in the House, and she listened to him dismiss her concerns.

This was her reaction to his disrespectful response: “Fairness is a

simple fix. Equal pay for equal work means paying the lowest-paid public

sector employees doing the same work, the same wage.”

The minister needs to end his bluster, admit this policy is wrong

and stand up and end the discrimination today.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’ll say to the member again that we are working with the sector.

We have been working with the sector for 20 months. We’ve been working

to develop services that are substantive and meaningful for vulnerable

British Columbians across this province. That work is going well. It’s

moving forward, it’s collaborative, and it’s involving those

organizations in a way that they were never involved for the 16 years of

the previous government.

Critical to that work is continuing to work with them to ensure

that they can deliver their services in effective and efficient ways,

that they can be sustainable and that they can be nimble to do the work

that they need to do. We’re committed to that. We’re working with them,

and we will continue to work with them as we have for 20 months. We’ll

continue to work with them for the next 2½ years to get that

right.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: It’s a pretty strange way of working with an organization

collaboratively when this government decides that only half of them are

worthy of a wage increase that the other half aren’t for exactly the

same work — strange partnership, strange way of calling it

collaboration.

The minister is wrong. This ultimately rests with the Premier. It

is time that someone on that side of the House stood up and took

responsibility for a decision they made, a discriminatory wage increase

policy.

Let’s hear what else Karyn had to say, responding directly to this

minister’s dismissive response. “Asking to continue the last 12 years of

equitable wage lifts is not political opportunism. It is simply about

equal pay for equal work and treating all social service workers with

fairness.”

These organizations and workers are tired of this minister’s

non-answers and all of the excuses. It’s time to end the discrimination

today and ensure that all workers in this sector get an equitable wage

increase for the same work that they do.

Hon. S. Simpson: This side has worked with those organizations. We continue to work

with them. We respect the work that they do, and we’re able to work with

them in ways that they never saw for 16 years. For 16 years, it was by

dictate and ultimatum, everything that they faced.

[11:00 a.m.]

This is about the services to the people who require those

services. It’s about those organizations and ensuring they can deliver

those services. It’s about ensuring those organizations are sustained

and are able to do that.

We’re working with them, we’re building a partnership, and we will

continue to build and evolve, over the next 2½ years, a partnership that

will be good for the millions of British Columbians who need their

support. We’re proud of that. We’re happy at that. We’re happy to

finally have a government here that puts people first.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

M. Polak: I rise simply to ask this. It does appear that the Speaker wishes to

establish a new practice in the House, with respect, in particular to

interjections and how they occur. We are operating at somewhat of a

disadvantage at this stage, given there are not new, clear guidelines

expressed.

I would simply ask if the Speaker could provide, in writing, to the

opposition — to the House, generally speaking — some fresh guidelines so

that we were clear as to the expectations of the Speaker with regard to

interjections in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Well, a good start would be to read the standing orders, but I will

provide a statement this afternoon on that.

Petitions

A. Olsen: I’ll try to do this as politely as possible. I have a petition with

356 signatures from residents of Mayne Island asking for it to be returned

to a no-hunting or -shooting area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate of second reading on Bill 20, Medicare Protection

Act. In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates debate for the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena: It is with great pride and with great pleasure that I stand here

to take my place in the debate on the Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

This is fulfilling a promise made by our government to end an

extraordinarily regressive tax and, in doing so, to make one of the

largest tax cuts for people in British Columbia’s history. It is a move

that we’ve been working on since we formed government, and it is

something that we are now — we did it in two stages — fulfilling through

this piece of legislation.

[11:05 a.m.]

Like a number of people in this Legislature, I came to Canada as

an immigrant. I was very grateful to have been brought up in that baby

boom generation under the National Health Service, where we had public

health care in the U.K. and, as such, never had to pay for anything.

There was a possibility of going to a private doctor, but for health

care, you didn’t have to pay to go to your doctor — or to go the dentist

or get your eyes tested. All were covered under the National Health

system during those bounty days.

When I moved to Canada, I moved to Ontario and became a resident

and had the Ontario health insurance plan, where, again, you got health

care coverage — no extra bill. So when I came to B.C., I was somewhat

surprised and bemused and asked many people about this: the fact that we

were getting a bill every so often for our medical services premiums. It

was, “Well, what is it this? It’s public health care. It’s public health

care across Canada. Why are we paying extra?” and to be told: “This is

the way things work in B.C., this is the way things have always worked

in B.C., and this is the way things continue to work in B.C. — that you

pay premiums to get your health care.”

I think most people are aware that a flat tax, as medical services

premiums are, is unfair. They are regressive. They mean that whether you

are earning $60,000 or $260,000, you are paying the same amount. It’s

definitely not good for families, nor is it good for local communities

and for local businesses, because every time you’re paying this money,

you’re not able to reinvest it into the community in which you live. You

have no discretionary spending. You are paying it on this flat tax,

where you, as a middle-income earner, are paying the same as a high

income earner.

It is regressive. The elimination of Medical Services Plan

premiums will mean that individuals who have been paying it will be

getting as much as $900 a year in savings, and families will be saving

about $1800 a year. I’m so proud that the Minister of Health has ended

that regression — has made sure that people will be able to afford those

little extra bonuses.

It’s a bit like our investment in child care. It’s investing into

families who need that extra break, because it gives money back in their

pockets. It ends the regression; it ends the unfairness. In doing this,

as I mentioned, it is the largest tax cut for people in B.C.’s history.

It is equivalent to $2.7 billion; it’s a significant tax cut. We have

already cut premiums in half, and by fully eliminating it, it will help

make life more affordable.

We’ve heard that there are concerns that it’s going to hurt

businesses. But we have not gone into this blindly. This has gone in

with a lot of thought. It has been gone into over two years. So 85

percent of businesses are going to be exempt from the replacement, the

employer health tax. There will be a replacement. People come and say:

“Well, what’s going to happen?” There is an employer health tax that

will come in, but 85 percent of businesses are going to be exempt from

that employer health tax.

At the same time, over the last two budget cycles that we have had

as our government, we’ve been very proud to cut the small business tax

rate and to eliminate PST on electricity. As I mentioned, we are

investing in child care, which has a direct impact on families — those

families who likely are the ones struggling with MSP premiums — and in

direct investment in housing.

This piece of legislation truly is significant; it truly is the

right thing to do. It ends years of inequity. It ends years of just

allowing for that regressive tax system to be entrenched in place, to be

the assumption: “This is what people pay and this is how we pay for our

health care here in B.C.”

[11:10 a.m.]

It makes sure that when you need to acquire health care, you’re

not worried about: “I’m also going to have to pay for my MSP premiums.”

It truly puts the public into public health care. We’re still going to

be paying for it through different means. But individuals and families….

Individuals who will save about $900 a year, families who will save

$1,800 a year will benefit from this. And because of that, our economy

will benefit. There will be more disposable income. There will be more

certainty.

I think that when you’re getting rid of a regressive tax, you are

giving people more certainty. You’re showing them that they have that

ability — that extra money in their account, the extra money at the end

of the month — that they’re not having to worry about.

As I say, this is something that we promised in the election

campaign. As a group, I know, we have discussed for many years to get to

this point. We promised it in the election campaign. It’s the right

thing to do. It puts B.C. in line with the rest of Canada and many other

jurisdictions where they provide public health care.

The Minister of Health has very proudly introduced this. I’m

pleased to support it and pleased to support the Minister of Finance in

enabling this. I’m pleased to support the Premier who went out on the

hustings to say: “This is what we’re going to do.”

This is, as I say — and I can’t say it enough — a very important

piece of legislation. It will have a huge impact for people in my

constituency, in the North Island, who struggle regularly with trying to

ensure that they can pay their MSP. It’ll benefit families across this

province, and it will help the economy and businesses throughout the

province as well.

With that, I will take my place in this debate and will be very,

very proud to vote in favour of this bill when the vote

comes.

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 20, the Medicare Protection

Amendment Act, which has been put forward by the Minister of

Health.

I’m absolutely thrilled to be speaking in favour of this bill. I

think this is a very historic day for British Columbians. In fact, what

this bill does is it provides British Columbians with the biggest tax

cut they’ve seen in a generation. We’re saving B.C. families as much as

$1,800 per year — individuals, $900 a year — by eliminating the medical

services premium.

If nothing else happens for me today, I have to say that this,

being able to speak to this bill, makes today a wonderful day. I know

how much this is going to benefit the people I represent, how it’s going

to benefit all of British Columbia, and I know that we are making a

better British Columbia by instituting this type of legislation and

offering people what I said earlier, which is the biggest tax cut

they’ve seen in a generation.

For 16 years, what we saw under the previous government was

actually a doubling of the MSP premiums. What is critical in that is not

only was the previous government costing British Columbians more, out of

their own pockets, for basic health care services, but the type of

taxation that the MSP premiums were would be called a regressive tax

rather than a progressive tax.

I’m going to talk about that just really quickly, because I know

there’s people at home wondering, as they’re flipping through the

channels and they’ve stopped on the B.C. Legislature channel, and

they’ve heard regressive versus progressive tax and now they’re really

keen to watch and understand the difference between these two types of

taxes.

A flat tax, or a regressive tax, whether you’re earning $30,000 a

year or $300,000 a year, you’re paying the exact same amount. That’s

what the medical services premium was. Families, no matter what kind of

income, or what income, unless they were the lowest income earners, were

paying the exact same amount.

That’s unfair, hon. Speaker. Economists and experts all over the

world have identified regressive or flat taxation as a problem. What it

means is that people who are earning more are not paying according to

their ability to pay, and neither are people who are earning less.

Rather, everybody is paying the same, but not everybody can afford to do

so.

[11:15 a.m.]

Over time, society has identified a progressive taxation system as

more equitable and more fair to all citizens so that those who are at

the top end of income earners are paying more to their ability. We’ve

moved away from this regressive taxation system for MSP, and we’re

moving towards a more progressive system and one that’s going to benefit

British Columbians so much more. It’s not only through the savings that

I’ve already mentioned, but every time you put extra dollars into

peoples’ pockets, that has positive impacts in our local

economy.

For the small communities I represent, what you’ll see every year

over the holiday season are strong messages for buying local. Shop

local, do your Christmas shopping in your local community, because that

supports local jobs, that supports local businesses, and that supports a

thriving local economy. So when we, as a government, identify ways that

we can put money back into the pockets of my constituents so that they

can spend it locally, I know that that’s going to have a positive impact

for the communities that I represent.

Now, one of the things that I also want to mention in reference to

this is that we’ve already actually cut premiums in half. We’ve already

done that in the 20 months we’ve been in government. So now we are going

to fully eliminate MSP premiums with this bill, and we’ll be doing it

January 1, 2020. Within less than a year, we’ll be able to make sure

that every British Columbian has that tax cut back in their

pockets.

What does that mean? Well, that means $2.7 billion is going back

into British Columbians’ pockets. I already talked about how that’s

going to benefit the local businesses in my communities. But think about

that. It’s not just for Nelson and Creston and Kaslo and Salmo or

Balfour or Ymir, but that’s the story right across this

province.

When somebody in Vancouver decides to go to the Kaslo jazz fest

and they want to do a little bit of shopping in Kaslo, they’re going to

have extra dollars in their pocket to do that. When somebody hears about

ArtWalk in Nelson and they’re coming from Kelowna, they’re going to have

more money in their pocket to spend — not just Kelowna but also as

tourists in their own backyards, in their own province. So this is, to

me, very important in terms of how we can also support local businesses

throughout the province.

Now, one of the things that we’ve done…. I said that we’re

replacing this regressive tax with a progressive tax, and that’s the

payroll tax. A lot of people get upset about this on the other side.

What they fail to mention is that this is the lowest payroll tax

anywhere in Canada and that 85 percent of businesses are entirely exempt

from paying this payroll tax.

For small businesses in my community that are already receiving a

tax cut from this government, they’re seeing people who are able to shop

in their stores more, have more money in their pockets to do so. Most of

the businesses in my communities that I represent will not be paying the

payroll tax. They will be exempt. That’s true all across the

province.

One of the things that the other side has brought up and some

people in my community, as well, have asked me is…. “If we move from the

MSP premiums that every individual paid” — $1,800 a year for a family,

$900 a year for an individual — “and we move to a payroll tax, well,

municipalities will be paying that. Will they just turn around and

increase property taxes?”

Well, we have to keep in mind that municipalities have a variety

of methods to balance their budgets. Property taxes are not the only

source of revenue that they have. I was a city councillor, and we

received grants in lieu from a variety of sources. We received gas tax

grants as well. There is a variety of ways in which municipalities pay

for the services.

[11:20 a.m.]

Say they did turn around and decide to increase property taxes.

Let’s compare what that would cost the average household. The average

household would see their property tax increase by a few dollars, maybe

$20, maybe $30. Now compare that to the $1,800 a year that they’re going

to be saving.

No matter how you shake out that concern that the opposition had

brought up numerous times — and in a way that I wouldn’t say is entirely

accurate — at the end of the day, British Columbians are walking away

from the end of MSP premiums better off, considerably so.

This, to me, is a great, great thing that we are doing for British

Columbians. I remember during the election, we made this promise. Of

course, the mantra coming from the B.C. Liberal candidates at the time

was that we, the NDP, are just the party of tax-and-spend. But here we

are, the party delivering the largest tax cut in British Columbia in a

generation. I think that goes to show that this party, as a government,

always puts people first, and that’s fundamentally what we’re

about.

Fundamentally, what we’re doing here is putting more money back

into the pockets of British Columbians to help them make life more

affordable in this province. That’s going to be benefiting a total of

900,000…. Oh, sorry. Pardon me. I was reading the wrong number. So

920,000 people are on premium assistance right now. That’s the remaining

number of British Columbians, so about three million people are

benefiting from this right now.

I’m very proud — very proud — of the work that the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Finance have done on this item, very proud of

the work that our government has done. I know the benefits are going to

be seen every single day on the streets of Nelson, on the streets of

Creston, on the streets of Kaslo, Salmo and the other 25 unincorporated

commun­ities that I represent.

This is a very good thing for people in the Kootenays, and I thank

the ministers responsible for their hard work on this. I’m very, very

proud to stand up and not only speak to this bill but support it. With

that, I will sit down and let others speakers then take their

place.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health will close the

debate.

Hon. A. Dix: I want to thank all the members on both sides of the House for

participating in the debate. I just want to close with the basic facts

of this, because there was some debate about what the government’s doing

and what they’re not doing. I wanted us to be very clear.

Firstly, this is the largest middle-class tax cut in the history

of British Columbia. What does that mean? If you’re earning $50,000 a

year, you’re receiving, as an individual, a cut, with the full

elimination of MSP premiums, of up to $900. If you’re a family, up to

$1,800 if you’re earning $50,000 a year.

When you look at the provincial share of taxation, that is a very

significant tax cut, which reflects, I think, our concern with the

affordability of life in communities everywhere in B.C. It doesn’t

matter whether you’re in Prince George, you’re in Terrace, you’re in

Vancouver, or you’re in Victoria. That is coming to you, and that is

profoundly significant.

It’s something that was announced in the election campaign. After

all, MSP premiums represented about $2.7 billion in revenue to the

provincial government. That task was difficult, and the Minister of

Finance and the Premier delivered on that task. That means life will be

better, more affordable for people in every part of the

province.

Secondly, it represents a significant change in tax policy. What

the dramatic increases in MSP premiums shifted was a move to flat taxes

in society, where it doesn’t matter what your income level is. You would

pay the same level of MSP premium. Whether you were at $50,000 or at

$500,000, it would be the same level.

This is a shift in taxation policy which reflects, I think, the

concern of the Premier, the concern of the Minister of Finance with the

affordability of life for middle-class people, but also the fact that

when people spend money in their communities, it’s good for small

business, it’s good for the economic life of the community, it’s good

for job creation, it’s good for everybody.

[11:25 a.m.]

Thirdly, it’s a significant shift, obviously, in government

policy. People will know that in 2001, MSP premiums were increased by 50

— that’s 50 — percent. For a family of two, that meant an increase

annually of $384, whether they earned $50,000 or $500,000. For a family

of three, it meant an increase — a one-time, immediate increase every

single year of $432, in that increase.

If you were doing that in constant dollars today, that would be an

increase, if you can imagine, of $600, one time, in MSP premiums

introduced by the previous government, that year and every year. And it

followed with increases well above the rate of inflation in 2010, 2012,

2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. That was the policy of the previous

government, which was to increase MSP pre­miums in order to

provide relief — largely, if you look at the policy, to hide income tax

cuts.

Fourthly, there was much talk about the employer health tax. But

the reduction in MSP premiums net of the employer health tax still

remains a tax cut, overall, of $800 million. You will recall…. This,

again, is the reverse of what happened in 2001, where a very significant

income tax cut took place which was mitigated by a dramatic increase in

MSP pre­miums — a tax cut that was targeted to the highest income

earners but paid for, in part, by significant increases in middle-class

taxes.

Finally, and this is at the core of the bill, there will be no

change in eligibility or enrolment requirements. MSP will continue to

provide access to public health care that — with respect to,

particularly, I would say, the north and rural communities, but

everywhere in B.C. — is improving right now. Access to diagnostic

services, to surgical services, to primary care and to seniors care —

all improving. But because we are eliminating MSP premiums, it means

that the MSP system will govern access to that public health care and

not be seen as a means of a poll tax of middle-class taxation. I think

that’s the fundamental change.

This change, this bill, this action by the Minister of Finance and

by the Premier makes life more affordable for people. But it is deeply

connected to the needs of people across British Columbia. People need

public health care today more than ever. This government is committed to

delivering on that.

We’re also committed to — and this bill has at its heart, as its

principle — the idea that people need to be able to afford to live in

British Columbia. Good public health care is part of that, but a fairer

taxation system is also part of it. That’s why I am proud that the

Minister of Finance has introduced this significant tax relief for

working families in her first budget by reducing MSP premiums by 50

percent as of January 1, 2018, and eliminating them fully on January 1,

2020. This piece of legislation helps make that happen.

I’m very proud to speak on it on behalf of the government in this

House, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

committee stage at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019, 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. A. Dix: I call committee stage of Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:30 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: I look forward to the questions. Just for those few people who

might be watching, many of these pieces have already been introduced as

part of the budget. This bill implements a number of the measures that

are within the budget. Many of them are technical in nature, as the

members will know, and don’t introduce new provisions — those have been

introduced in the budget — but implement the existing measures. I look

forward to the discussion.

S. Bond: Thank you to the Minister of Finance. We, in advance, thank the

members of her staff that are here as we work through the bill.

Obviously, my co-critic and I will be spending a fair bit of time

walking through this bill.

The minister made the most relevant point, which is: this is the

Budget Measures Implementation Act. It’s pretty self-explanatory. The

government has passed a budget, which, of course, our side of the House

had significant concerns about. But these are the measures that put in

place…. This is the mechanical part of bringing that budget to

life.

We’re going to start with some questions on

section 1. It’s

basically about a penalty. I’m wondering if the minister can give us an

example of where people may be selling natural gas without being

properly certified. Are there specific circumstances that led to the

inclusion of this clause in

section 1?

Hon. C. James: I mentioned a number of these pieces are technical or housekeeping

pieces. This is one of the housekeeping pieces. There’ve not been

examples that we would point to. This is basically housekeeping. So if

someone doesn’t register, there’s an opportunity, as you can see, to

have a penalty in place. But there have not been examples of people

coming forward.

S. Bond: Okay, thank you for that answer, Minister. So basically, we’re

doing it just in case someone isn’t certified and decides they’re going

to sell natural gas. I assume that’s the answer, which is a bit

surprising. But let’s talk about the penalty itself. Does this

essentially mean that the penalty would equate to the amount of tax

normally owed under the section?

Hon. C. James: That is correct. Just on the first point the member made, that is

right — if someone hasn’t registered. Almost every tax bill has a clause

to do with someone who may try and get around the rules. This is that

housekeeping nature, to make sure that people who are selling natural

gas are registered as dealers.

S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. Is there a chance that people might do

this unknowingly, that they don’t know they have to register, that they

have to be certified? What type of information is shared? Again, we’re

building in, in legislation…. We’re sort of covering all the bases just

in case someone decides they’re going to sell and are not certified. Are

people aware of the requirement?

[11:35 a.m.]

Obviously, there are no examples the minister can point to in

terms of this being a problem, but we’re going to legislate to fix a

problem that doesn’t exist, at this point at least. Is there a chance

people might not be aware of the need to be certified or to

register?

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important just to note…. I was mentioning that this

is consistent with other taxes and with other pieces that are in place,

but I think it’s also important to recognize that this also is

consistent with other fuels. It already exists. The penalty already

exists with other fuels. So it would be rare for someone who is selling

fuels — because they may sell a range of fuels — not to know that they

have to be registered, because that is in other acts.

Just as an additional piece, info bulletins go out to sellers, and

we also have an information team that’s available for people who may be

new sellers. Again, because this is consistent with other fuels, I think

it would be rare for someone not to know that they had to be registered

to sell.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

T. Redies: Minister, what is the purpose of this

section of the bill? Is it

because this clause is basically in the bill to prevent municipalities

from mitigating the tax shock of the school tax on their

residents?

Hon. C. James: The member probably knows that the Community Charter allows

municipalities to pass bylaws to be able to levy property taxes on an

average or a phased approach. That’s something that exists. The city of

Vancouver is currently the only municipality that utilizes that

averaging.

This amendment ensures that the additional school tax on the value

of houses more than $3 million will apply to the actual tax property —

the net tax values — not an average or a phased approach, so that we

ensure that it’s applied consistently across the province.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Again, just trying to

understand how this is working. Doesn’t this also prevent the

municipalities from not only mitigating the shock but also managing

their tax needs? Because, after all, with this tax, is the provincial

government not just muscling in on the revenues of the

municipalities?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This won’t affect the municipality. In fact, this is a request

that came from the city of Vancouver. I think it’s important to note,

again, that they’re the only municipality that uses this

averaging.

From a provincial perspective, to ensure that the tax is applied

fairly, we want to make sure, as I said, that you don’t see different

rates and different thresholds for the $3 million — that it applies, as

I said earlier, to the net value and not an averaging. It may be used by

the city of Vancouver, but it doesn’t affect the city of Vancouver’s

taxation, from their perspective. As I said, they came forward and

requested this.

T. Redies: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Again, I guess we’re just

trying to understand how this is working, because it’s clear that with

this additional school tax, the province is again kind of crowding out

the ability of municipalities to actually tax residents. After all,

property tax is the primary purview of municipalities to achieve their

tax revenues.

We have a number of people or a number of areas in the city of

Vancouver that are going to be disproportionately affected, are being

disproportionately affected, by this school tax. In fact, I think the

renowned property tax consultant Paul Sullivan has indicated that in the

affected areas, tax increases will be as much as 33 or 35

percent.

I guess what we’re trying to understand is why the city of

Vancouver and the province would not work together to try and mitigate

the impact of this substantial tax on people, many of whom are on fixed

incomes. The only, I guess, mistake they’ve made is buying a property on

the west side 30 or 40 years ago, and now they’re getting hammered with

the school tax.

Again, what we’re trying to understand is: why is the province not

working with the municipality to try and minimize the impact of this

very, very substantial tax?

Hon. C. James: I recognize that the opposition is opposed to this tax on

high-value homes above $3 million. I understand that. We are, in fact,

ensuring that the tax is applied equally across the province. As I said,

the city of Vancouver came forward to request that we take a look at

this so that the averaging — as the only municipality that uses

averaging — isn’t used, so it is applied consistently across the

province.

We will agree to disagree on the $3 million tax. I recognize, as I

said, that the members are opposed to it. We certainly feel that people

can provide support to the housing crisis here, but that’s not related

to this amendment that’s in front of us.

T. Redies: What we’re opposed to on this side of the House is, again, taxing

people who are on fixed incomes to the point where their property taxes

are rising by 33 percent. Again, while I appreciate the principle of

consistency, the reality is that in Vancouver, which is where the

majority of these people are impacted, and also in my constituency and

South Surrey and White Rock as well, they already paid the highest

property taxes before these new taxes that this government brought in.

They already paid the highest taxes in the country.

Again, I guess, I recognize that the minister doesn’t seem to have

a problem with people on fixed incomes having their property taxes rise

by 33 percent, but on our side of the House, we think that that’s an

unfair tax burden and that the minister and the municipality should be

making it easier for people. But I understand that the minister has no

problem taxing people on fixed incomes.

[11:45 a.m.]

I guess where I’d like to go next with my questions, with this

particular section, is: is the minister prepared to revisit this if she

gets evidence from the mayors in her annual meeting that this tax is

affecting their communities in a negative way? Is she prepared to

revisit this, or is she just going to continue to tax people at such a

significant rate?

Hon. C. James: Again, I think it’s important to note that we are talking about

houses that are valued at more than $3 million. The additional tax does

not apply until you get to a value over $3 million. These are not people

with houses valued under $3 million. In fact, it’s people with houses

that are valued more than $3 million, and the additional tax applies on

the amount above $3 million.

When the member talks about individuals on fixed income, that

could take up most of the debate on this bill if we actually had a

thorough discussion around the support for people who are living on

fixed incomes. But I think that digresses away from the direction that

we’re taking here at committee stage around the legislation that’s in

front of us and the amendments that are in front of us, but again, as I

said, we will agree to disagree.

On the issue of reviewing taxes, as Finance Minister — the not

quite two years that I’ve been in place as Finance Minister — it’s

certainly my practice and intent to, as we do each year, review all of

the taxes that are in place, review whether changes need to

occur.

The member mentioned the meeting with the mayors. That will occur

around the speculation and vacancy tax, and we’ll have a thorough

discussion, I’m sure. But that occurs each budget-setting time period on

all taxes that exist in the province, all credits that exist in the

province and all programs and services that exist in the

province.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Bond:

Section 3 is related to the Financial Administration Act, and I’m

wondering if the minister can just explain the purpose for the changes

in this section.

Hon. C. James: This is, again, an administrative consistency section, where, in

fact, we took a look at other jurisdictions. We took a look at other

provinces. We wanted to ensure that there was consistency across acts

and across other provinces. Every other province has moved in this

direction to make sure that there aren’t any challenges around the

differences in treating these areas — the remissions, the taxes, the

royalties, the fees or the sums — in different ways.

Other provinces and the federal government have moved in this

direction. We will be consistent. Alberta is the only province that

hasn’t. Everybody else has gone in this direction to be consistent and,

as I said, for administrative purposes, to make sure that it was done.

So that’s the intent of this section.

[11:50 a.m.]

S. Bond: Can the minister provide an example, perhaps, of when these

changes would be applied? We understand their rationale is that they

provide consistency across jurisdictions. What is an example of an

instance where the actual application would take place?

Hon. C. James: I think the best example, the clearest example, would be that

currently there’s no allowance made for remissions of amounts after

they’ve been paid. If an injustice has occurred, there isn’t an ability,

with the existing act, to be able to deal with that, to be able to make

allowance for a remission. This amendment will fix that and will provide

that. That’s probably the clearest example of consistency and making

sure that it’s applied consistently across the acts.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

T. Redies: Can the minister outline how pension income is now calculated

under the new provisions and how it impacts the delivery of this tax

credit?

Hon. C. James: This, again, is harmonizing with the federal act. We want to make

sure that the types of income that are eligible for the pension credit

with certain types of income are eligible, as with the federal pension —

to coordinate them. Previously, retirement income security benefits paid

under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and

Compensation Act were not included. The federal government changed that

and included them. This makes a change to match our act with the federal

act, to ensure that those are covered under veterans’

benefits.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Does that mean that we’re

essentially just kind of cleaning up the language? Does the minister’s

answer also imply that veterans will see higher pensions as a result of

these changes?

Hon. C. James: Just to distinguish between pension income and pension credits,

this is referring to the credits. The income is the federal government’s

responsibility — the pension income. But the credit…. This will ensure

that those two pieces can be included in the credit that people may

apply for, which should be a benefit for veterans. It’s ensuring that

those two acts, which previously weren’t covered, will now be covered as

part of applying for the credit. This isn’t related to the

pension.

[11:55 a.m.]

T. Redies: Maybe just one more clarifying question to the

minister.

I meant to say the credit. Ultimately, I guess the alignment of

the two, the federal and the provincial, should result in veterans

possibly seeing additional income?

Hon. C. James: Yes, it’s correct that they could use these pieces for the credit.

I hate to say that it would necessarily mean an increase, given

taxation. But in theory, as the member points out, this gives the

ability for veterans to utilize these pieces to be able to claim the

credit.

Section 5 approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the committee on Bill 5 rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

STRATEGY

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $192,734,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to begin with an opening

statement?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you. I would.

First of all, thank you, everyone, for coming here and your

interest in the ministry activities. I want to introduce the staff that

are here with me today and that will be here over the course from

different parts of the ministry for the rest of estimates.

On my left is Mark Zacharias, deputy minister. On my right is Wes

Boyd, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, for the natural

resource ministries. Behind me is Jim Standen, the assistant deputy

minister for B.C. Parks and the conservation officer service.

[11:10 a.m.]

Joining us but not immediately behind me are Jeremy Hewitt, the

assistant deputy minister for the climate action secretariat; David

Morel, the assistant deputy minister for environmental protection;

Jennifer McGuire, the assistant deputy minister for environmental

sustainability and strategic policy; and, from the environmental

assessment office, Kevin Jardine, associate deputy minister.

The key ministry functions can be found in the service plan. This

ministry is responsible for the protection, management and conservation

of B.C.’s water, land, air and living resources. We’re responsible for

leading action on climate change and responding to climate risks and

impacts by setting clear targets and clear strategies; conserving B.C.’s

biodiversity, including ecosystems, native species and natural habitats;

managing the province’s parks and protected areas; developing

legislation, regulations and policies based on sound scientific

knowledge and expertise; reducing waste and expanding provincial

recycling programs; overseeing provincial environmental assessments,

environmental monitoring, data management and reporting; regulating

discharges to the environment; and monitoring and enforcing compliance

with environmental laws and regulations.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the progress we’ve made to the

mandate commitments that are contained within my mandate letter from the

Premier. We have legislated new carbon pollution reduction targets for

the years 2030 and 2040, and we developed CleanBC, which is a

comprehensive emissions reduction plan to meet targets while creating

economic growth in British Columbia.

We’ve worked with the Minister of Finance to implement carbon tax

increases of $5 per tonne per year — four of them, the second of which

was introduced on the first of this month.

We introduced into the House and passed the Professional

Governance Act to modernize and strengthen roles and oversight

expectations for qualified professionals in British Columbia to ensure

there’s a transparent process that meets the public interest.

We consulted, introduced and passed a new Environmental Assessment

Act which will revitalize the environmental assessment process to

enhance public confidence, increase transparency and community

participation, advance reconciliation with Indigenous nations and, of

course, protect the environment and ecosystems while, at the same time,

offering clear pathways to sustainable project approvals in an efficient

and timely manner.

We continue to defend B.C.’s interests with respect to the

proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline and the threats posed to our

environment, our economy and our coast from the sevenfold increase in

tanker traffic.

Still to come from my mandate letter is engagement on

species-at-risk legislation, including Indigenous stakeholder and

citizen engagement and expanding on our North American leading extended

producer responsibility programs to include more types of waste,

specifically plastic.

Our mandate aligns with broader government commitments to make

life more affordable for British Columbians; deliver the services that

people count on effectively and efficiently; build a strong,

sustainable, innovative economy that works for everyone; and work

towards fully adopting and implementing the United Nations declaration

on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission as part of our commitment for true,

lasting reconciliation with First Nations and British

Columbians.

Having said that, I look forward to hearing and answering the

questions from members of the opposition parties.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for those opening comments and to the

staff, in advance, and also for last year’s 45 hours of

estimates.

Although it was a brief 45 hours, it struck me that we did have

the two-week break in between, so it seemed like it went on much longer

than it probably really did. Perhaps the minister and the staff have a

different view of those 45 hours. As I was getting ready for this week,

it struck me that in three days, we’re on a two-week break again. So who

knows what may happen? Lightning may strike twice.

In all seriousness, I do want to thank the staff and the minister

in advance for making sure that the questions that we canvass are fully

explored and that the answers are out there in the public domain. At its

core, that’s what this process, to me, is really about. It’s getting

that greater detail out to the public so that people can truly

understand what is going on within the operations of the Ministry of

Environment and what to expect and what possible areas of improvement

could still happen.

[11:15 a.m.]

To that end, my plan…. I’ll just let the minister and the staff

know. I wasn’t sure when we would start. When I realized it was today….

It’s always this awkward 35 to 40 minutes between the end of question

period and lunch on a Tuesday.

We’re going to delve into a more localized B.C. Parks issue and a

couple of more localized issues. Then after lunch, I’ll probably start

delving more into CleanBC, which is obviously a large portion of the

focus over the last year and this coming year.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to kick things off

with a local issue.

J. Tegart: To the minister, thank you very much for your visit during the

break to my riding. People in my riding always appreciate seeing the

people who make decisions and know what it looks like on the

ground.

Today I want to explore the process of actually locating the Loon

Lake new fire department. As you’re aware, the Loon Lake area was

devastated by the fires of 2017, and one of the buildings that was lost

was the Loon Lake fire hall. In the process of trying to replace it, the

support throughout the province has been absolutely incredible —

fundraisers, other fire departments, everybody extremely supportive of a

small volunteer fire department — and they are very, very anxious to get

the building going.

I think I asked some questions last year. If I didn’t, I was

remiss. We were in the process of applying to have the new building

built on land that is currently owned by the province of B.C. In the

Loon Lake area, we used to have a provincial park there, which has been

closed for a number of years. They are in the application process of

trying to locate their new fire hall in that spot because of changes in

population and their experience during the fire.

I wonder if the minister could share with me: what is an average

timeline to have that process completed?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I want to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for

welcoming me and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

to your riding. It was a very productive visit on a lot of levels. I

think there was a lot of good news for the community, and it enabled us

to really see the community come together on issues of

reconciliation.

Similarly, though he’s not here, I would also say the same about

the member for Shuswap, because the next day, we travelled to his

riding. I want to appreciate the significant volunteer spirit and

activity of the citizens in the member’s riding with respect to their

concern about the fire hall, the community involvement and engagement of

the community, as well as the member for Fraser-Nicola, in the

consultations that took place around fire hall engagement.

I’m informed that as a result of that consultation and engagement,

there are recommendations that have been approved by the deputy minister

that have not yet come to me, although they’re imminent. I would say

that because it will involve a legislative amendment to the Protected

Areas of B.C. Act, it will have to go from me through cabinet.

Practically speaking, I don’t think that a legislative amendment could

take place before the fall session, but we understand that there is a

need in the community and an interest in the community. The area is

relatively small, about 1.2 hectares to be removed.

J. Tegart: To the minister: thank you for your comments.

On June 4, 2018, I sent a letter to you. In the last paragraph, I

respectfully requested that you take any possible steps at your disposal

to expedite the boundary adjustment and disposition of the 1.1 hectare

portion of lot 7547 for the purpose of the fire hall. Part of that

request was the fact that the volunteer fire department had been able to

secure storage for their equipment over the first winter, but it

indicated to me that while we were able to store our fire apparatus in

heated storage at private locations along the lake, this will no longer

be possible for the coming winter season. That was this winter that we

just went through. Therefore, we are respectfully asking…. They were

requesting my help in getting this site procured as quickly as

possible.

Now, I sent my letter to the ministry on June 4, 2018, and the

minister responded on November 20, 2018. In ministry world, that may be

very expeditious, but in Loon Lake world, that is a lifetime. As we

know, fire protection is so incredibly important, particularly when

you’ve gone through the experience that those people have gone

through.

On the letter of November 20 from yourself, you indicated that

there was a public review that needed to happen. Once the public review

period is over, all comments will be reviewed and the final

decision-making process initiated. So I assume we’re at that

stage.

[11:25 a.m.]

I guess my question is…. We have a building season that is quite

short in the north. If we don’t see the next step, which needs

legislation in order to complete that, done this fall…. There has been

an indication to staff or to the people of Loon Lake that it may not be

till next spring, and they have now gone since 2017 without a fire

hall.

I know that the ministry tabled Bill 16 this spring. I was a

little bit disappointed that we didn’t see Loon Lake included. I would

ask the minister: are there any other opportunities for this group to

expedite the protection of their community?

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

constituents.

What I would say is that certainly we’d be looking at making an

amendment no later than the fall session. We’re also looking at if we

have any tools available to us to expedite that decision. My staff would

be happy to sit down with the member and talk about what…. We have to

examine whether we actually can use those tools, but we’d be happy to

brief her.

J. Tegart: I just want to share and put on the record that for the public

consultation process that was undertaken, 109 responses were received,

107 in favour of park boundary adjustment for the construction of the

new fire hall. So there is a great deal of support in the area for this

location. Also, another comment that was shared is…. If this is not a

possibility, then the purchase of private land, rather than using Crown

land, will result in a significant impact to the tax base

there.

I guess what I’m asking for from the minister is…. I think you

said that you had not been briefed yet. I’m hoping that what we’re

looking at is a briefing that says this is a great idea and that we will

do everything we can to secure that site as early as possible. But if

that is not the case, then I think it would only be fair to the people

of Loon Lake to indicate to them, as they wait, that they may have to

look at other options.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: With the caveat that, obviously, any legislative change has to

proceed through cabinet. Certainly, from the perspective of my staff and

myself, the preferred option is deletion of the land from the park

necessary to rebuild the fire hall.

J. Tegart: Thank you very much. If you are up in our area and would like to

take a tour of the Loon Lake area, I know the community would be pleased

to host.

C. Oakes: In the same conversation about responding to wildfires,

specifically from 2017, I do have a couple of questions from several of

our stewardship groups in our community. The first one is around the

restoration of habitat, specifically out in the Nazko and Kluskus

areas.

My question to the minister is: what are the plans to coordinate

the landscape-level planning and project approval in consideration of

streams, lakes and watersheds, and their cause and effect on habitat and

fish?

[11:35 a.m.]

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

First of all, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development manages the land base and is the

steward of this area and others, but I recognize that estimates for that

ministry have completed. B.C. Parks works with FLNRO and contributes to

landscape level and ecosystem function management with FLNRO on issues

related to connectivity, to maintaining biodiversity, etc.

We have a couple of small projects that are in that area

specifically that have been funded through habitat restoration

activities that come from licence plate revenues, specifically fisher

and trail improvement. We would be happy to call on some of our

colleagues from FLNRO and staff from the ministry to give a more

detailed briefing to the member as well as to hear more specific

concerns that could be thrown into the mix.

C. Oakes: Minister, thank you very much. I think what we are seeing from the

stewardship groups — this is particularly around salmon and habitat

restoration where wildfires have been impacted — is that there are

significant funds that have been put forward, both federally and

provincially, towards improving the riparian areas for salmon habitat.

Funds from 2017 did get released, finally, in January of this year and

had to be used up by March.

It’s critically important, where the wildfires had impact, that we

are restoring the areas along the streams and the lakes, specifically in

context of protecting the fry and making sure that they have that

greenery necessary to protect the spawning salmon and the fry that come.

So it’s critically important for us to move forward.

The concern. Significant amounts of funds have been invested in

salmon habitat. We are just wanting to make sure that some of those

funds get allocated to areas that have been impacted by the wildfires.

So if you could advocate on the advocacy and ensuring that those funds

are able to move out, perhaps, a little quicker.

It is difficult and challenging in the Cariboo, as you can well

imagine, doing significant restoration work from the months of January

and having to be completed by March. It does put some barriers on us

trying to do the work when we are in the midst of minus 30 and

significant snowpack. So just some feedback from our stewardship groups

that we are hearing.

I have canvassed this in multiple ministries. Hopefully, my

question exists within this ministry. The fish passage group — this is a

group around ensuring that we are investing in culverts to make sure

that they’re not barriers to fish habitat. If the fish passage group

exists in the ministry — and there is, in some ministry, a list of all

of the culverts in the province of British Columbia that are impacting

fisheries — what is the budget for that? Is there is an uplift in that

budget due to the incredible impact from the wildfires?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Indeed, there is a fish passage group, and it resides in FLNRO. We

understand that a lot of work has been done. FLNRO is very aware of

sedimentation issues that resulted from the Elephant Hill fire, for

example.

There is a new salmon restoration and innovation fund.

Applications are due any day now, April 15. The FLNRO staff have been

working with groups. They’re prioritizing applications related to the

Elephant Hill fire impacts on fisheries. They’re assisting groups to

make applications that can be successful to that front.

C. Oakes: I have one question, and then I’m finished. I really do

appreciate, Minister, that information, and I’ll pass it on.

The minister mentioned Elephant Hill. We were affected by the

Plateau fire. One of the challenges we have found is that some of the

announcements and funding have been…. We do need to advocate more for

the effects of the communities affected by the Plateau fire. So I would

like to again advocate on behalf of that.

My final question. I would like to first to pay a compliment to

the Ministry of Environment staff. I’m going to have a question around

the Quesnel Lake water quality testing that has been ongoing since the

breach at Mount Polley. I think that the confidence the community has in

ensuring that there is that continued testing of water is critically

important. It was a commitment that was made by a previous government to

ensure water quality testing continues for the residents of

Likely.

[11:45 a.m.]

My question to the minister. There have been some questions raised

about whether, under the new government, water samples continue to be

collected by the Ministry of Environment staff as part of the minister’s

monitoring program in response to the compliance audit and quality

assurance program. I think it’s critically important, through the

province and through the Ministry of Environment, that water testing

does continue at Quesnel Lake. To the minister, what water quality

testing by the Ministry of Environment has happened in this past

year?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, with respect to the issue of the Plateau fire that

was raised by the member, ministry staff would be happy to sit down with

her and talk about how that’s being addressed as well, in a similar

manner as Elephant Hill.

The answer to the member’s question is somewhat long. Chair, would

you be amenable to putting the answer off till we resume

sitting?

The Chair: The member recognizes that it will all be written down, so if

the member can’t be back for continuation after lunch, we’ll just go

to adjournment.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you. It’s an important issue to the residents of the area,

and I want to be sure that we have all the information they

seek.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada