Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 2, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 320

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

Tributes

Ian Donaldson

Hon. A. Kang

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ian Donaldson

J. Sims

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community social services workers

J. Routledge

Search organization for missing seniors

L. Throness

Search and rescue volunteers

J. Rice

Green Mini enterprise by Peter Chand

P. Milobar

Gardens on Anderton

R. Leonard

International Women’s Day and women’s achievements

S. Cadieux

Oral Questions

Coastal GasLink pipeline project and protests supporting

Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Funding for Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and sexual assault clinics

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. James

Coastal GasLink pipeline project and protests supporting

Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs

M. Polak

Hon. S. Fraser

P. Milobar

Agreement on Wet’suwet’en rights and title

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Fraser

M. de Jong

Petitions

N. Simons

Hon. C. Trevena

Reports from Committees

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Appointment Committee,

March 2020

G. Begg

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

Hon. L. Beare

M. Stilwell

D. Clovechok

J. Thornthwaite

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure today to welcome some guests from Powell River. In the

House with us are Pieta Woolley and her kids, Dave Woolley and Abi Woolley.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Chouhan: I have the pleasure of introducing 11 Washington state legislative

interns, who are visiting from Olympia today. They’re here as part of an

annual exchange between our two internship programs in Washington state and

British Columbia. As part of the Washington state internship program, the

interns work for members of the House of Representatives or Senate while

earning academic credit from colleges and universities around the

state.

This morning they met with several MLAs and B.C. public service staff

to learn about our system of government and current issues of importance in

British Columbia. They are accompanied by staff Colleen Rust, civic

education director for the Senate. Would the House please make them feel

very welcome.

B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased to introduce Jamie Hayes and her two sons, Marshall

and Cooper. I met Jamie when she was working at the Mission downtown BIA.

Now she’s working in a different role at the Mission City Record .

I’d love the House to make them all feel very welcome.

Tributes

IAN DONALDSON

Hon. A. Kang: I rise in the House today with sad news from the Ministry of

Citizens’ Services. Over the weekend, we lost a highly valued member of

our executive team. Ian Donaldson, our ADM for enterprise services in

the office of the chief information officer, passed away suddenly and

unexpectedly.

He leaves behind his wife, Lise, their two sons, Adam and Isaac,

and many close friends and family. Lise is a member of our real property

division, and we extend our deepest condolences, love and support to her

and her family at this very difficult time.

Ian was dedicated to being in service to others and always willing

to step in and to help his colleagues. He was well known and liked

throughout the public service and had broad impact, both within

government and across the broader public sector. He will be missed by

all who had the pleasure to know and work with him.

I’d like the House to take a moment of silence to honour Ian at

this time.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please rise.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Simpson: I do want to acknowledge that earlier today the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of

organizations from the social service sector who do essential and critical

work here in the Victoria area: Shelley Morris from the Cridge Centre;

Wendy-Sue Andrew, Carlene Thompson, Nicole Baker and Barbara Power from

Lifetime Networks, Victoria; Ron Rice from the Victoria Native Friendship

Centre; Ellen Tarshis from Community Living Victoria, along with Joanna May,

Mike Chadwick and Joanne Finnegan, also from Community Living Victoria; and

Eleanor Calder from Esquimalt Neighbourhood House.

All are critical organizations that deliver important services in the

Victoria area. It was a great opportunity to learn from them, and they’re

here joining us today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Tributes

IAN DONALDSON

J. Sims: I also want to add my condolences to Lise, Adam and

Isaac.

I met Ian three years ago and worked very closely with him. He was

part of the executive team in Citizens’ Services. I can tell you that

the passion he had for his work…. He was very quiet when I first met him

and didn’t say much, but whenever you started to talk about the changes

that were happening in the cybersecurity area or in data or in data

storage, he could get so excited. He loved the work that we were all

doing. Over the time, we became friends. He will be missed.

Lise, big hugs.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: She’s stylish, she’s strong, she’s powerful, she’s an excellent role

model, she’s my biggest support person, and she’s a recent grandmama to

Lu̓á. I would like the House to

please make my mother, who’s visiting from Ottawa, feel welcome.

Now, Kevin is also visiting. He’s her husband, and the biggest claim

to fame I’m going to give Kevin is that he is so tolerant of all the quirks

of my family — our foul language, Thanksgiving and Christmastime. But he’s

also a phenomenal photographer and the best support person my mom could ever

have. I’d like the House to please make Kevin feel welcome as

well.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’d like to introduce two people to the chamber today: Margo Wagner,

board chair of the Northern Development Initiative Trust — she is the

Cariboo regional district electoral area H director and board chair of the

Cariboo regional district; and Joel McKay, CEO of the Northern Development

Initiative Trust.

We had a great lunch together with many of the ministers and MLAs and

a great meeting this morning. I want to thank them for all the work the

trust does. It’s extremely important for northern B.C. in a catchment area —

what is it, Joel? — of 72 percent of the province or more.

Would the members here please make them very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to see the Washington state interns up in the gallery

today. I met with them earlier this morning and was most interested in the

questions that they had and absolutely delighted to be talking about

microcredit, something I’m very passionate about but don’t have much

opportunity to talk about in my role here.

Would the House make these interns feel very welcome, as well as our

pack of interns here. It’s wonderful to have the youthful energy and

vibrancy in the Legislature.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS

J. Routledge: March is Community Social Services Awareness Month. It’s an

opportunity to acknowledge the important and tireless work of community

social services workers throughout the province. It’s an opportunity to

build greater recognition and understanding of the critical roles these

services play.

Every day community social service workers provide important

supports. Many of us have turned to them at a vulnerable time in our

lives, often in moments of crisis. They make sure we are safe and cared

for in our time of need. They work in mental health and addictions,

one-on-one with people struggling with substance use. They work in

sexual assault centres and transition homes, helping women and children

fleeing violence. They work in community centres, supporting newcomers

to find services that will help them feel at home here. They work with

the next generation, providing essential supports to raise our children

up and help them succeed.

They provide advocacy, supports and services for children, youth

and families, Indigenous peoples and communities, and persons with

initiatives in B.C. They are involved in community projects, employment

training, rehabilitation programs, and so much more. They reach out with

dignity and empathy and a mission to equip people with the services and

resources that can help them most.

[1:45 p.m.]

Community social services are at the foundation of well-being in

our province, communities and families. Their hard work, while often

challenging, makes life better. Services and resources mean nothing if

they are not accessed efficiently by those who need them most. Social

service workers are the bridge that connects British Columbians to the

policies and services that government creates.

Please join me in recognizing March as Community Social Services

Awareness Month.

SEARCH ORGANIZATION FOR

MISSING

SENIORS

L. Throness: When Grace Baranyk went missing in Chilliwack last summer, quickly

followed by two other seniors, it became apparent that our searches

could be more effective. Many suggested a Silver Alert system, similar

to AMBER alerts, which would send a message to cell phones within a

given area. However, an AMBER alert is passive. No one is activated by

it to join a coordinated search.

I met with police to gather information. They explained that they

are the first tier of response, employing officers, dogs, drones,

helicopters and other equipment to look for a missing person. Because

time is of the essence, their intense activity is concentrated in the

first few days.

After that, I met with our local search and rescue group, as a

second tier of response. They are seasoned professionals who search via

grid patterns, also using equipment, but they’re more oriented to risky

searches over large areas of rough terrain rather than searches in dense

urban areas.

After meeting with volunteers as well, I think that what might

help is a third-tier response team of committed local volunteers who

would undertake low-risk searches in urban areas at little to no cost.

Volunteers could register on a local Silver Alert Facebook site, take an

existing online EMBC training course and be ready to respond on short

notice. Several members could become attached to local search and rescue

units as resource members and be specially trained to lead searches in

close coordination with police and SAR units.

A non-profit Silver Alert society was recently registered in B.C.

Community leaders could sit on the board of that society which could

then apply for funds to purchase any equipment local members need for

their task.

Finally, we would encourage the purchase of inexpensive GPS

tracking devices for those with dementia to wear, which would make

searches easy and save lives, time and money.

I know the government is considering a Silver Alert system, and I

hope they’ll think about a community-driven voluntary effort, low in

cost but high in effectiveness, to find and keep close those most

vulnerable in our communities.

SEARCH AND RESCUE VOLUNTEERS

J. Rice: Today is Search and Rescue Volunteer Memorial Day, a day to

remember the many ground search and rescue, Royal Canadian Marine Search

and Rescue and PEP Air members who were lost during a response or who

have made significant contributions to search and rescue in

B.C.

This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the tragic loss of

four provincial emergency program or PEP Air members — Reginald Hunt,

Alfred Hunt, Norman Wilson and Victor Hanuse — who died when their plane

crashed during a search mission near Alert Bay in March 1970.

Search and rescue volunteers selflessly leave their homes and

families to save others, no matter the weather, no matter the time. They

don’t hesitate to jump into action to save neighbours and strangers

alike. Whether there is an avalanche, a forest fire, a flood or a myriad

of other dangerous situations, our search and rescue volunteers are

always ready to answer the call.

It’s clear that search and rescue volunteers in British Columbia

are among the best in the world, and the province is committed to

supporting their invaluable work. I am proud of the investments we’ve

made in search and rescue operations, from administration and training

to funding equipment renewals.

In my work as the Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency

Preparedness, I have met countless search and rescue volunteers across

the province who climb mountains, swim lakes and take to the skies to

make sure that British Columbians are found safely.

Just two weeks ago a Scout group went missing in Sooke in dense

fog, heavy wind and strong rain. Thanks to the quick work of search and

rescue volunteers, all five Scouts and their leader were safely returned

home.

I’d ask members of the House to join me in recognizing the great

sacrifices that B.C. search and rescue volunteers and their families

make each and every day. We are so grateful.

[1:50 p.m.]

GREEN MINI ENTERPRISE

BY PETER

CHAND

P. Milobar: About a year ago, I had the good fortune of meeting with a

constituent named Peter Chand. Now, Peter was very frustrated when he

came in to meet with me. He had been spending about six to nine months

diligently searching for viable work in the community, and he was unable

to seek it out. That is because, after a very successful 20-year career

in commercial banking, Peter found himself suffering a

stroke.

Now, that turned into great many months of frustration and anguish

over what do with his remaining work life. He’s around my age, so he had

a lot of time left to give and wanted to still be a productive member of

society. About six months ago, though, Peter decided to take his

frustrations out and instead of focusing on frustration, he started to

focus on opportunity, and his entrepreneurial spirit kicked back

in.

Today Peter is about to launch his new enterprise, which is

designed specifically for persons with disabilities to be able to try to

maximize their earning potential, if they so choose. What Peter has done

is he’s created a company called Green Mini. Green Mini is his own green

Mini Austin that has an enhanced muffler, as he says, to get extra

attention as he’s driving down the road. He has sold sponsorship spots

advertising his car, where you can place your ad.

The simple and easy piece to all of this is that, of course, with

and most visible traffic spots anywhere as he’s going about his daily

business, so he has been very successful with this. Peter has designed

the whole system to work for other people and other communities that

would be wanting to venture out on their own as well.

Now, when Peter came into my office to tell me about this, I must

admit I was fully expecting that he was coming and trying to sell me a

logo spot as well. But in fact, that’s not what he was coming in to tell

me. He had completely sold out his car on the very first run at it. He

was coming in to tell me about the opportunities for others in British

Columbia. I hope Peter will have great success with his new company, and

I hope many others will take advantage of it as well and find their own

way to have their own self-employment.

GARDENS ON ANDERTON

R. Leonard: As you drive through the fertile farmlands of the Comox Valley, on

your way to the Little River ferry, you’ll pass a welcoming place called

the Gardens on Anderton. Turning in, you’re greeted by an oasis of calm

and beauty, as well as a place of quiet industry where contact with the

earth brings joy and fulfilment. It draws thousands of people every

year, and it’s operated by the Anderton Therapeutic Gardens Society. It

is 100 percent volunteer-run.

Their mission? To promote the health and wellness of their

volunteers, as well as visitors. Jackie Holt is the incoming president,

recently retired as a general manager of a local seniors home. There’s a

lot of talent there. She’s forward-looking and wants to make the most of

the gardens.

The 36 allotments of raised beds are only the beginning. There is

an enclosed walking loop that is safe for folks with dementia to commune

with the great outdoors, including checking out an eagle’s nest. There’s

a labyrinth to navigate and a meditation garden. You can also experience

a peaceful reflecting pond, a butterfly garden and a rose

garden.

With seniors in mind, the volunteers organize regular tea time on

Thursdays. Then there are annual events, starting Mother’s Day when the

gardens open, ten to four every day through September. You can enjoy

National Garden Day, Celtic Day, the Mama Bear’s Picnic for families,

even jazz concerts. You can pack your own picnic, stroll the gardens,

and there’s even a covered stage and meeting areas for weddings,

celebrations of life and other gatherings.

Volunteers are always welcome. There’s a contingent of 50

volunteers who keep the gardens beautiful and in working order, play

host and run this amazing place. The motto of the Gardens on Anderton?

“It’s where growth happens.”

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

AND WOMEN’S

ACHIEVEMENTS

S. Cadieux: Each year on March 8, International Women’s Day is celebrated to

recognize the social, economic, political and cultural achievements of

women across the globe. The campaign theme for this year’s International

Women’s Day is Each for Equal, which aims to achieve gender equality in

the corporate world, politics, sports and media.

For the past seven years, I’ve been hosting International Women’s

Day events to celebrate the successes of local women. This year’s event

will be held at the Oceana PARC in White Rock on Friday and will honour

three local women.

[1:55 p.m.]

Shelley Morris started her career as a firefighter during the late

1990s. As she progressed in her career, Shelley became a captain and

provided guidance to help meet strategic objectives in harrowing

circumstances. In 2017, Shelley was promoted to assistant fire chief in

a city serving over 500,000 residents, with 15 fire halls and 400

firefighters. Her responsibilities entail emergency planning for the

entire municipality, as well as community engagement and diversity

recruitment.

After arriving in Canada in 2005, Cici Liang realized that many

newcomers find it difficult to be understood and to understand and

contribute to the new community, due to a lack of knowledge and the lack

of confidence created by a language barrier. So she founded the

Surrey–White Rock Political Engagement Society, which is a non-profit

that assists newcomers, mostly of Chinese background, to integrate into

Canadian society.

Annie Christiaens is a Cloverdale-based, under-40 entrepreneur and

maker — and, formerly, constituency assistant — who is thriving,

following her dreams and taking the risk to launch her own retail shop,

The Heart, which retails clothing, decor and gifts. She has already

established herself as a Cloverdale business to watch and was awarded a

Clovie by the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce last year for New Business

of the Year.

Every year, we donate the proceeds of the event to a local women’s

charity. This year’s proceeds will support a bursary for women in trades

at Kwantlen Polytechnic.

World-renowned feminist, journalist and activist Gloria Steinem

said: “The story of women’s struggle for equality belongs to no single

feminist nor to any one organization but to the collective efforts of

all who care about human rights.”

Therefore, on this International Women’s Day, take a step to make

a positive difference by acknowledging and celebrating the successes and

achievements of the women in your lives. Together, we are

stronger.

Oral Questions

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT

AND PROTESTS

SUPPORTING

WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY CHIEFS

S. Bond: This morning the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

was asked repeatedly if the Coastal GasLink project will proceed. In

fact, she refused to answer the question, and she said that it was up to

B.C.’s Minister of Indigenous Relations to deal with any unresolved

issues related to the project proceeding.

Today can the minister explain to this House and to British

Columbians exactly what he has committed to do to ensure the project

moves forward and the blockades come to an end?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. I also want to commend the

minister for the work he was doing on behalf of all British Columbians

over the weekend in the territory of the Wet’suwet’en people, starting

in Smithers.

It was — I would believe, I would say without any doubt — a

historic discussion about rights and title that takes us back to the

1990s and the court ruling on the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa. We took that

forward to talk about rights and title specifically, because that was

the root of the challenge we have with respect to the Coastal GasLink

proposal through the territory. The project is being built. It’s fully

permitted, and it will proceed.

The issues around rights and title and the issues around

hereditary versus elected are issues that we all know need to be

addressed by the Wet’suwet’en people. We have initialled, with the

hereditary leaders, a document that will advance those issues. They are

taking that back to their clans and their houses to have a full dialogue

with all of the Wet’suwet’en people, as they should. I believe this is

an important step forward.

With respect to the project, as I said, it’s fully permitted, it’s

underway and it will be completed.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the Premier’s comments about rights and title,

I think it’s fair to say that British Columbians expected that any

agreement that came as a result of negotiations would result in an end

to the blockades and a clear path forward for the Coastal GasLink

project. But the fact of the matter is we simply do not know the details

of what the minister has agreed to.

Again, to the minister, what specific actions has he agreed to

that will ensure the blockades end and that the Coastal GasLink project

can move forward without delay?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: All parties found a pause opportunity so that discussions could

take place.

Again, I want to take the minister and members and the public back

to the beginning of the challenges with respect to rights and title,

with respect to court rulings over many, many decades. The

Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision was not a conclusion for the Wet’suwet’en

people. It was the beginning of a path forward.

We, as a government, working with the federal government, sat down

over the course of a number of days and put in place an agreement that

has been initialled by all parties and is out for ratification within

the Wet’suwet’en territory.

With respect to the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, the LNG Canada

completion plant in Kitimat — all of those issues are fully permitted

and fully underway. The injunction that was sought by Coastal GasLink

was upheld by the courts, and the process will run its

course.

I don’t believe it would have been appropriate for us to say that

we were going to go to Wet’suwet’en territory and tell some individuals

to have a different point of view. We have talked in this House about

dissent, lawful dissent, and that is an appropriate part of our

democratic institutions.

The project is permitted. The project is underway. It’s employing

thousands of British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and it’s

going to be a net benefit for all of B.C. when it’s

completed.

J. Johal: The past month has been incredibly disruptive to people just

trying to get on with their lives. People’s daily lives and our economy

need to get back to normal as well.

The question everyone wants answered is a simple one. To the

Premier of this province, is there anything in the agreement that will

bring the protests and blockades to an end?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, there are no obstructions to economic activity or to

citizens beyond the gathering on the front steps of the Legislature,

which, from my personal experience, have been going on for at least the

30 years I’ve been hanging around this place and long before

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s our view that the objective was to go forward. This project

is underway. It has been approved and ratified. It’s going to be

completed.

Where we want to be, when it comes to rights and title with

respect to the Wet’suwet’en, where we want to be, to have a better

understanding of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, is

forward-looking. How do we find a way forward so that we let Indigenous

people determine who represents them within that context and so that

investment has a clear path, so citizens have a clear path and political

parties have a clear path as well? That was the objective. Mission

accomplished with respect to rights and title.

There was not, at any time, any objective to go in and convince

people to have a different point of view. We had a frank discussion.

There was disagreement. The project will proceed. Dissent is

appropriate. Unlawful dissent is not.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: We’d all like to celebrate a solution, and I think we all feel

here that the public deserve an answer. Federal and provincial

representatives, including the Premier, said: “We have an agreement.

We’ve listened to First Nations leaders.” Some First Nations leaders say

that’s not the case.

Caught in the middle of this are, of course, taxpayers. Their

expectation of government is that government must maintain peace, order

and good government. At the end of the day, we are seeing the opposite

of that, in the last three to four weeks.

British Columbians have been stuck in traffic, while for one of

the major intersections here in Vancouver, they’ve been stranded at the

West Coast Express a couple of times, moms and dads having to rush home

to pick up their kids from daycare because the West Coast Express was

shut down. Our economy relies on railways to move people and goods at

the end of the day. We have seen temporary layoffs, and that impacts

people, who have rents and mortgages to pay.

The Premier has not answered the fundamental question. Did the

government receive any assurances that protests and blockades will

end?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, we had full and frank discussions between the two orders of

government and the Wet’suwet’en people, represented by the hereditary

leadership. That was a fulsome discussion on a whole range of issues,

including Coastal GasLink.

I appreciate that the member from the opposition wants to continue

to have tension and acrimony within the community. We disagree with

that. A better way forward would be to allow the Wet’suwet’en to use

their traditional Wiggus, their respectful discussions, which is what

took place over the past four days, within their own territory, to come

to a conclusion on the important issues of rights and title and how they

look outward at the world going forward, with respect to investment,

with respect to how they deal with their neighbours, with respect to how

they deal with all British Columbians.

[2:05 p.m.]

That’s where we’re at. That’s the progress that was made. The

project is permitted. The project is underway. The project will be

completed.

Is dissent part and parcel of our democratic institutions? Yes, it

is. Is it sometimes an irritant for citizens? Absolutely. Is that

appropriate? I don’t think so. We’ll take it up from there, day by

day.

FUNDING FOR VICTORIA SEXUAL ASSAULT

CENTRE AND SEXUAL

ASSAULT CLINICS

S. Furstenau: The Victoria Sexual Assault Clinic is an integrated medical and

police facility built by VSAC in collaboration with the forensic nurse

examiners, Island Health, local police and RCMP. It was designed by the

people who respond to those crimes for efficiency and effectiveness, and

it allows survivors to access both departments at once.

Since opening, their team has diverted hundreds of people from the

ER and double the number of people accessing preventative medication,

medical care, counselling services and victim service support, and it

has increased rates of police reporting. In the process of providing

better care, they are saving the government approximately $1,370 each

time they treat someone at the clinic instead of that person going to

the hospital. It has proven both medically and fiscally to be the best

model for responding to sexualized violence. What they are lacking, also

because of their integrated model, is stable funding.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. The clinic submitted a

funding model proposal for Budget 2020 so that their work can continue

and so that other communities in B.C. can open clinics on their own.

Despite the overwhelming demand for their services, they were on the

verge of closing this year. They cannot continue to rely on donations to

provide services that should be the government’s fundamental

responsibility. Why did the minister choose not to fund this

proposal?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think all of us in

this House will stand united to deal with the issue of violence against

women in our communities.

I have to say the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre has done

extraordinary work in their integrated model that they hope will not

only provide a model for Victoria but will, in fact, provide a model for

the rest of the province.

Last year they were provided with a grant for two years — $200,000

over two years. They’re now in the second year of that grant. That helps

cover the operating costs for the clinic while they continue to

undertake the work to ensure its long-term sustainability. I expect that

a proposal will come forward in this coming year.

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

S. Furstenau: Well, I recognize that the minister identifies that we stand

united. However, standing united is not the same as providing stable

funding, which is what this clinic needs in order to be able to be a

model for clinics across this province.

The costs of sexual assault are astronomical. For B.C., short- and

long-term medical care is $14.1 million. Lost productivity and

opportunities for survivors — $27.1 million. Costs to employers and

social services — $8.94 million. We are paying more to provide worse

care. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

wrote that sexual assault rates in our province continue to rise, and

“proper care immediately following an assault can substantially reduce

the long-term costs.”

I want to start with what are the basics of responsibility. My

question is to either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor General. Given the overlap of interaction between

Health and Justice in cases of sexualized violence, which one of these

ministers is taking responsibility for this file?

Hon. C. James: The funding is distributed through the community safety and crime

prevention branch, which is in the Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General. That’s where the funding comes from.

I appreciate the comments that the member has made about the

extraordinary work done by the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. There’s

also prevention funding that comes through that ministry. We provide

annual funding to support 400 programs and services to support victims

of sexual violence. We increased funding for violence-against-women

programs by an additional $5 million a year. In this year’s throne

speech, as the member will know, our government also announced plans to

provide five days of paid leave for people fleeing domestic

violence.

[2:10 p.m.]

We certainly are going to continue to look, because we know there

is more to do. As I said, I certainly expect that we’ll see a proposal

come forward from Victoria clinic as well.

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT

AND PROTESTS

SUPPORTING

WET’SUWET’EN HEREDITARY CHIEFS

M. Polak: The public has watched as blockades and protests have

significantly damaged the Canadian economy and, of course, had impacts

on the daily lives of commuters and others, including the employment of

individuals around this country — in particular in British Columbia

though. They awoke to hear that there was a deal that had been reached

with the Wet’suwet’en. I’m sure that they felt, as we did, that they

would like to believe that this agreement would resolve the matter of

blockades and those impacts on our economy and on people’s daily lives.

But nevertheless, questions arise.

In the release that was put out between the federal, provincial

and Wet’suwet’en spokespeople: “All parties at the table recognize that

the differences relating to the CGL project remain.” And then today,

Molly Wickham, a governance director with the Office of the

Wet’suwet’en, said: “We’re not standing down. We are not asking other

people to stand down. They’re willing to talk about title, but they

don’t understand that this is not over. We’re still in the middle of a

crisis.”

The public wants certainty. People whose jobs are on the line want

certainty. Does this agreement provide that certainty?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. As the Premier has stated

repeatedly, the project itself is permitted. It’s approved. It’s

underway. It has always been our expectation that Coastal GasLink will

work closely with Hereditary Chiefs to ensure that they explore all

possible ways to address concerns.

Everyone at the table recognizes that the differences relating to

the CGL project remain. The lack of progress on rights and title is the

key issue that led us to this place. The members opposite should well

know that. They were in government for 16 years. There was no work done

— and I’m not placing the blame there — on addressing rights and title

issues since the 1997 Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision.

We have made historic movement in a very cooperative way. The work

that we did do was done in camera. It was confidential. With respect to

the Wet’suwet’en people, this will be brought back to the Wet’suwet’en

people. Their protocols in their clan system must be respected. We can’t

talk about the details of what we discussed until that happens — again,

with respect to the Wet’suwet’en people.

But I would note that Chief Woos…. In yesterday’s press

conference, yesterday morning, he called for respect from everyone. And

I call for space, room, to actually let this good work proceed. I would

hope that is the desire of everyone in this House. Let’s let this

process proceed with respect. Those that have been raising issues around

Wet’suwet’en rights, title…. They know now that we are addressing those

issues that have been outstanding for 23 years. We should all be

supportive of that work.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: With respect to the work on rights and title, of course, that is

something that has been going on across Canada for many generations and,

I assume, will continue to go on. And we’ve heard, in the announcement,

that there are ongoing discussions, an ongoing process that will be

engaged in with the Wet’suwet’en people around rights and

title.

[2:15 p.m.]

But with respect to Coastal GasLink, the Premier and the minister

can repeat that the project is approved and is permitted. It was

approved and permitted when all the protests and blockades first

erupted. In spite of an injunction, they still were not able to proceed.

It didn’t resolve the matter, and certainly, they were not able to

proceed.

There was hope, I believe, that when a deal was announced, it

would, in fact, pave the way for Coastal GasLink to be able to proceed

unhindered and for blockades and protests to stop. But we are hearing

different messages from the Wet’suwet’en leadership and the leadership

of the Hereditary Chiefs, in any case.

One of the quotes today reads as follows: “The Wet’suwet’en are

waiting to get updates from the B.C. government and their talks with

Coastal GasLink. What happens in those talks impacts everything. We

should have a report on their progress in the next two days, for

sure.”

It’s clear from quotes like this — and there are others out in the

media — that government has committed to some kind of a process with

Coastal GasLink. It’s unclear why they would do that if there isn’t some

kind of change proposed, yet we are left in the dark as to what those

talks may contain.

Again, to the minister: can you please describe for us what kind

of a process the government is engaged in with Coastal GasLink? Will it,

in fact, allow them the certainty that they will proceed unhindered and

that the public will not be subjected to more blockades and protests as

a result?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question.

We had three days and three nights of very intense discussions,

very respectful discussions. As part of that, there were several

questions that were raised regarding the project. I did commit to

providing the information — they had requested information about the

project — for them in a timely manner. I’m in the process of getting the

answers to some informational questions for them.

P. Milobar: We, so far, seem to be getting more answers around the rights and

title.

I’m just going to read from the joint statement on the discussions

that was released by the government on Sunday, March 1, yesterday.

“These talks focused on two separate topics: the recognition of the

Wet’suwet’en rights and title throughout the yintah , the

territory, and the issues arising out of the Coastal GasLink project.

The topics were discussed separately.”

We understand that on this side. Our questions are primarily

around Coastal GasLink and the protests and the blockades that have been

happening. It was permitted. It was approved. It was underway on

Wednesday. It was on Thursday, as well, when the minister went up. It

still is today.

I think public expectation, throughout this whole process, has

been that the reason the minister and the federal minister went up on

Thursday to have these discussions was around the blockades and the

impacts they were having to the local, the provincial and the federal

economies out there. That’s the expectation I think the general public

had around this. I think we can even understand, to some degree, that,

perhaps, the rights and title agreement that’s been struck — which, by

their own release, is separate — may stay in camera for the next week or

two.

Again, what was put into any agreements, if any, or any changes,

if any, around the Coastal GasLink project? What assurances did the

government get, if any, around the Coastal GasLink blockades and

disruptions that we’re seeing in our economy as a result?

That seemed to be the driver for government to go up in the first

place. As the minister has said, this has been an outstanding rights and

title issue for 23 years. He didn’t just wake up Thursday morning and

decide that was the day to go up there. It was the blockades

interrupting the economy that drove him up there.

Hon. S. Fraser: I want to thank the member for the question.

Everyone at the table where we met in Smithers recognized that the

differences relating to the Coastal GasLink project remain. Those

differences remain. When we concluded our discussions, at least for the

time being, yesterday, we stated publicly…. Chief Woos stated that it’s

important that we proceed with respect. I also added to that that it’s

important that we, both levels of government and the Wet’suwet’en

people, are given the space to do the work that needs to

continue.

[2:20 p.m.]

I think that message is loud and clear. The right to peaceful

protest is something that we all should respect and, more than that,

defend in this House. The right to illegal activities is not condoned, I

would think again, by everyone in this House. I think that was made

clear as a result of our discussions.

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

supplemental.

AGREEMENT ON

WET’SUWET’EN RIGHTS AND

TITLE

P. Milobar: I guess we’ll try this tack, then. We know there’s an agreement

that needs to be ratified, and it will be ratified through the Houses

and traditional processes. We have our own ratification processes down

in this House as well.

When will we know what the government has pledged to do, will it

be brought to the Legislature, and what exactly, within the agreement,

is the ratification process the government has committed to for the

government to make it official?

Hon. S. Fraser: The process that stands: Chief Woos estimated that it may be up to

two weeks to bring the clan protocols together. The work will be done in

the communities, bringing together — as my expectation is — all the five

clans within the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The work that they will do will

inform whether, I believe…. My hope is that they will endorse the work

forward on the arrangement that we’ve made.

Our hope is also that that will stay confidential until the

Wet’suwet’en people have a chance to do that good work. My expectation

is that following that, Minister Bennett and myself will return to the

territory to sign the agreement. It will be made public at that point in

time.

M. de Jong: To the minister, who did the government negotiate this agreement

with, and is it the government’s view today that that group with whom

this agreement was negotiated is definitively representative of the

Wet’suwet’en people?

Hon. S. Fraser: I thank the member for the question. We met with the Office of the

Wet’suwet’en. That’s the Hereditary Chiefs that are covered in that

organization. The agreement, however, was initialled by the Chiefs, as

it was by Minister Bennett and myself. With respect to the processes and

the protocols of the Wet’suwet’en people, that will be brought back to

the Wet’suwet’en people.

This agreement will go through the system of representation

through the clan system, under their governance protocols, for the

discussion and endorsement. That is to be organized by the Office of the

Wet’suwet’en. The process within the nation itself — I expect that will

include everyone in the community. That’s the expectation.

The five elected chiefs and council, as you know, have benefit

agreements on the project that we’ve been discussing, but everybody will

be involved — the Wet’suwet’en as per their protocols and processes. I

would ask that we all leave the time, with respect to the Wet’suwet’en

people, for that process to happen.

I look forward to…. My hope is that we will be able to endorse a

process and a framework forward helping government and the Wet’suwet’en

people move finally, after 23 years, to clarity on governance and issues

of rights and title that have been so long overdue. That will bring more

predictability and certainty, not just for the Wet’suwet’en people but

for the entire region and for the entire province — this great

province.

M. de Jong: I think perhaps the frustration, if that’s the correct term, stems

from the following. I’ve been listening and reading carefully what the

government has had to say about this agreement — words like “momentous,”

“historic” and “a path forward.”

[2:25 p.m.]

I’ve been trying to reconcile that with some of the statements

we’ve heard from others. We heard earlier about how this doesn’t in any

way, shape or form address the question of blockades and disruption that

have taken place across the country. The minister and the government

seem to be saying that this historic, momentous agreement, which

apparently has been committed to paper in some way, shape or form, is

not available for British Columbians and Canadians to

scrutinize.

There is a long-standing tradition in this chamber that agreements

of the magnitude that the government is assigning to this one, would be

viewed, seen and scrutinized by British Columbians via this chamber. It

seems to be the minister’s and the government’s view that, in this

instance, that will not take place. An agreement that apparently does

everything but resolve the issues of blockades and disruptions will

remain secret.

Can the minister provide certainty, if it is the government’s

position that British Columbians will not see this agreement while

others engage in separate processes, or is he prepared to say to British

Columbians: “We believe in this agreement, we think it is momentous, we

think it’s historic, and we will release it so that British Columbians

can scrutinize it”?

Hon. S. Fraser: I’m not sure how to respond to that. The long-standing practice, I

would suggest, is 16 years of failing to address the rights and title

issues of the Wet’suwet’en people. Everyone should know, in this House,

that failure to address those issues of rights and title following the

Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision is the root cause for the situation we

find ourselves in right now. So I would hope that the opposition would

be pleased that a government is finally addressing the issues that took

us to this place.

I would ask them again to have respect for the Wet’suwet’en

people’s process. They have the right to bring an arrangement that we’ve

been working on — in coordination with the federal government, our

partners and Minister Bennett — and to be allowed the time and the space

to be brought to the Wet’suwet’en people. It’s so that they can come

together in a united way — not a divisive way, which seems to be the

process the other side want us to go into. This is about trying to bring

together the Wet’suwet’en people in an agreement that can help address

the root causes that got us to this place.

Please, I ask everyone who is watching today, everyone who cares

about rights and title for Wet’suwet’en people…. We have a process

that’s been agreed to by the Office of Wet’suwet’en, and they’re taking

it to their people. Let’s let that happen and not try to divide

everybody throughout this process. Let’s bring calm and space for the

good work to happen.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

N. Simons: I’m presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Powell River,

where they have experienced the highest gas prices in the province for a

couple of years now. The petitioners are calling on the BCUC to use the

provisions under Bill 42 to examine how the prices are set in Powell River

and to report back to the community.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents, who want to

look at renewable energy and economic strategies for rural and northern

B.C.

Reports from Committees

CLERK OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

G. Begg: I have the honour to present the report of the special committee

to appoint a Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion approved.

[2:30 p.m.]

G. Begg: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

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

to make some brief comments.

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation

that Kate Ryan-Lloyd be appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

G. Begg: Over the past several months, the committee carried out a

thoughtful and comprehensive recruitment process. We conducted a

national open competition with an application window that spanned nearly

2½ months. The details of the committee’s recruitment and selection

process are outlined in our report.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank those who applied for

their interest in serving this institution as the next Clerk of the

Legislative Assembly. I know that all members are aware of how

hard-working and dedicated Kate Ryan-Lloyd is to this

institution.

I would like to speak a bit to how the committee came to its

unanimous recommendation.

It was evident to us in the committee that Ms. Ryan-Lloyd takes

great pride in being in the service of the Legislative Assembly and of

her professional contributions that have supported the Legislative

Assembly and its members in fulfilling their constitutional and

representative duties. It was clear to the committee that Ms.

Ryan-Lloyd’s procedural knowledge is unparalleled.

Committee members also noted her leadership and commitment to the

institution during her tenure as Acting Clerk of the Legislature since

November 2018 and how she has demonstrated exceptional initiative to

lead the Legislative Assembly’s administrative support structure through

a turbulent period of change.

The committee is confident that Ms. Ryan-Lloyd’s leadership style

and administrative management capabilities; her abilities to effectively

build relationships and communicate with elected officials, staff and

stakeholders; and her personal values make her an ideal candidate for

appointment as Clerk.

I hope that all members will join me in supporting the appointment

of Kate Ryan-Lloyd as the next Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly.

I would also note that Kate’s husband, Ken, and their three

children — Seamus, Megan and Molly — are in the gallery

today.

Lastly, I would like to extend my appreciation to the Deputy

Chair, the member for Abbotsford West, and all committee members for

their work on this committee. It was a very collaborative and positive

experience, and we worked diligently on behalf of all members on this

recruitment.

I know that I also speak for all committee members in stating that

it has been a privilege to be a part of this appointment.

M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker and to the member for Surrey-Guildford, for

ably chairing the committee; and the other members — the House Leader

for the Third Party, the House Leader for the opposition and the member

for Esquimalt, as efficient a working group as I have seen around here,

Mr. Chair; and for the very able assistance we received from Clerk

Artour Sogomonian.

A little bit about the Acting Clerk, now Clerk-designate, and in a

few moments, I trust, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly — unhyphenated,

unqualified and the first woman Clerk in B.C.’s history.

[2:35 p.m.]

Not many people can say this, but when I arrived here 26-plus

years ago, the Clerk-designate had already been here for a year and a

half. She had just taken up her post in the library, where she worked

for another seven years until moving to the Clerk’s office.

I mention it because although she has done so much to distinguish

herself in the various roles that she has occupied within the Clerk’s

office, many of the qualities that have brought her to this day and this

appointment reveal themselves in the young woman seated behind the

reference desk in the library. In those days, research was much more

hands-on. For some of us, it still is.

I spent a fair bit of time in the library. There I was, assisted

by a reference librarian who was professional, competent, diligent,

discreet, generous and humble. In the 26-plus years that have passed

since then, those qualities are undiminished. In fact, if anything, they

have been further amplified.

Who in this chamber has not been the recipient of support and sage

counsel from the Clerk-designate? Who amongst us has not been on a

committee that has travelled the province and has not witnessed the

patient and dignified interaction between the Clerk-designate and

presenters and members of the public? Who amongst us has not taken note

of the expert manner in which the Clerk-designate has navigated the

churning waters that frequently separate the ship of government from the

ship of opposition, cannons loaded, ready to fire at one another across

the aisle?

For all of this, like the Chair, I want to assure members of the

House that the result of the search undertaken by the committee was

anything but a foregone conclusion. Perhaps because we were aware of the

affection with which the Clerk-designate is held after nearly three

decades of faithful service to this institution, we purposely extended

the net wide and took our search as widely as possible. We advertised

nationally via 18 publications and media platforms. We secured some

applications from some talented individuals worthy of consideration, but

after interviews and discussion, it was clear to the committee that one

applicant stood head and shoulders above the rest. The choice was

self-evident.

The people who staff the table and separate government from

opposition take great pride in being seen and not heard, so it will

displease the Clerk-designate to hear me say the following, and I

promise to never do it again.

Well done, Kate. Congratulations, Madam Clerk. With this

appointment, I am confident. I think you can tell that members are

confident, and members of the public will be confident that this

institution is in good hands. Congratulations.

S. Furstenau: I, of course, want to echo all the complimentary words of my

colleagues from the committee and to add a little bit from the Third

Party canoe here that’s trying to get us all going in the same

direction.

It is self-evident in the chamber how delighted the members of all

caucuses are with this announcement that Kate Ryan-Lloyd will be our

next Clerk. I am pleased to be part of a new process for finding a

clerk, and I’m glad that that process has been developed also during

times of change that have been overseen for the last many, many months

by Kate as Acting Clerk in a very capable, very steady, very

hard-working way.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’m so pleased to see absolute unanimous agreement in this chamber

that Kate is very much the right person to be moving us forward into the

next decades of this institution with the care and seriousness and

kindness that should embody all governments at their core and the

institutions that we come here to be a part of for our short times, as

that may be.

On behalf of the Third Party caucus, congratulations to the

Clerk-designate, to Kate. I’m happy to have been part of this

process.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CLERK OF THE LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Langley and the

member for Cowichan Valley:

[That effective immediately, Kate Ryan-Lloyd be appointed Clerk of

the Legislative Assembly and hold the status of a permanent officer in

accordance with

section 39(1) of the Constitution Act (R.S.B.C.

1996, c. 66).]

Mr. Speaker: First, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: You have heard the motion.

Motion approved.

[Applause.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I call, in this chamber, Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, MAH

Statutes Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to introduce…. I have a number of staff who will be

helping me through this bill. I have right before me, from the community

and legislative services division, David Curtis, who is the assistant

deputy minister. I have Blair Schumacher from the property assessment

services. And right behind me is the capable Jason Sowinski, director of

assessment and legal appeals from B.C. Assessment, joining us to help

walk through this bill.

T. Stone: I’ll start off also by acknowledging the work of the staff. We

certainly also appreciated the offer of a briefing ahead of time. We did

have some staff there. That helped clarify a few questions.

With respect to this section,

section 1, which pertains to an

amendment to the Assessment Authority Act, I’m just wondering if the

minister could comment on whether or not this in any way impacts the

assessment cycle. I understand this is just moving the year-end of the

assessment corporation into line with all other Crown corporations and

government generally, which is a good idea, I think. Just wondering if

there are any implications whatsoever for the assessment cycle in doing

so.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member’s question is a good one. It does not have any impact

on the assessment cycle. It is about aligning the Crown’s financial

reporting, and that’s all this

section is about.

T. Stone: We’re off to a good start. Good question. Good answer. We’re

almost there.

I’m just wondering, again, on this section, how will B.C.

Assessment’s budget reflect this actual change?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s a 15-month transition year beginning January 1, 2021, and

ending March 31, 2022, in order to facilitate this transition. Of

course, again, it will allow B.C. Assessment to align its operations and

reporting with those of the province and other Crown corps. For the

record, this is the last Crown corp. to be on a different cycle. We will

be working together with Treasury Board and the office of the

comptroller general on the transition, and we don’t expect any

additional incremental costs.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

T. Stone: Understanding that we’re now into an amendment to the Community

Charter, just wondering if the minister could outline….

Do we need a little bit more time? Okay. I’ll just pause for a

moment then.

The question that I have, now that we’re talking about an

amendment to the Community Charter, would be this: in what cases was the

previous bylaw amount deemed to be insufficient?

We’re moving from a $10,000 maximum to a $50,000 maximum insofar

as the fines. So I’m just wondering if the minister could outline why it

was deemed to be insufficient. And, what types of situations does she

envision the application of a much higher fine level to be applicable

for?

Hon. S. Robinson: Before we proceed with my answer, I have two new staff. It’s a

different

section of the bill. I’d like to introduce to the House Tara

Faganello. She’s the assistant deputy minister here on my left. On my

right is Kara Woodward from policy, research and legislation branch.

They know a lot of these details really well.

We’ve had a number of requests over the years, the most recent one

from the city of Vancouver, to increase the maximum fine amount —

concerned about how the current fine amount does not sufficiently deter

serious bylaw infractions. UBCM also supports this direction.

In particular, Vancouver is concerned that the current maximum

fine amount is too low to allow for meaningful enforcement of bylaws

associated with SROs and their standard of maintenance bylaws — in

particular, entries where cutting down of trees would occur but the

fines were seen as sort of just the cost of doing business. By

increasing these maximum fine amounts for the most challenging and the

most egregious of contraventions, this would be a stronger

deterrent.

[2:55 p.m.]

T. Stone: Just to clarify, it was determined that the fine level was not

deemed to be sufficient enough to act as the intended deterrent. So to

respond to local government calls for a stronger fine level to deal with

more serious offences like cutting down trees, I think the member said,

and also SROs that aren’t doing the standard maintenance or are falling

behind on their standard maintenance…. Those are a couple of examples.

The minister can just say yes or no to that just to make sure that I’ve

got that correct.

Are there any other examples of serious offences that have been

communicated to local government, in addition to the two that she has

cited, that she could mention further, for the record, as

well?

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is correct. The member has an accurate understanding of

how this came about, and those are the two examples that have been

identified by staff that we heard from local governments.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are moving on to another

section of this bill, so I thought I

would just take this time to introduce staff who have worked very

diligently and very quickly. I want to just express my gratitude to them

for all of the work. It was a significant amount of work that they did

in order to help us to get here.

Again, I want to introduce: David Curtis, assistant deputy

minister; Marika Glickman; as well as Jason Sowinski, the director of

assessment and legal appeals from B.C. Assessment; and Shauna Sundher,

assistant director of the tax policy branch from the Ministry of

Finance. They’re all here support us through this part of the

bill.

T. Stone: This

section of the bill — those amendments which amend the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act…. I think we start on

section

12 and go through

section 24 of the act in question insofar as

amendments. So the vast majority, the lion’s share of the questions that

I’m going to pose are contained in this particular section.

I’m going to start off with some general questions, and then I’ll

ask some very specific questions that pertain directly to the

section of

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act that’s being amended,

just for the minister’s reference.

The first question I have at a very high level…. I think we don’t

need to rehash the spirited debate that took place in second reading. I

think it was spirited on both sides, insofar as the contrast between the

stated goals and objectives of the minister’s solution, as contained in

this bill, to essentially address this challenge of skyrocketing

property taxes impacting small businesses and other organizations via a

taxation solution, a permissive exemption solution, versus the benefits

of the solution that was proposed by a broad array of stakeholders — the

split assessment classification selection.

[3:00 p.m.]

The split assessment classification proposal was the priority

recommendation of the intergovernmental working group, which consisted

of a range of municipalities in the Lower Mainland — Vancouver, Burnaby,

North Van, Richmond, Surrey, West Van, Coquitlam — in addition to senior

officials from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of

Finance, B.C. Assessment, small business organizations like CFIB, arts

and culture groups, and so forth.

This concept of split assessment classification was also

recommended by…. It was also endorsed in a number of UBCM resolutions

over a number of years. It was supported by the business improvement

associations — a whole bunch of them in the Lower Mainland, many of

which I had the pleasure of meeting and doing sort of a walking tour of

their communities that are being impacted — the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, and so forth. So it was with a great deal of surprise — I

suppose it’s the best word to use — that the minister referenced in her

second reading comments, in speaking to the private member’s bill that

was introduced, which I introduced in this House twice, that really just

embodied the recommendation from this broad range of stakeholders, what

everybody was asking for — split assessment classification.

The minister responded by saying: “This is a poorly, poorly,

poorly thought-out idea.” I’m just wondering what aspect of this idea,

which, again, wasn’t something that I just dreamt up. I was just trying

to breathe some life into and provide a bright, shining light upon an

idea that the split assessment classification concept, which had been

recommended by a broad range of stakeholders…. I have listed them. It’s

not often, by the way — and the minister knows this well; she was in

municipal government for a number of years — that you get local

governments and small business organizations on the same page on matters

involving taxation. Usually that’s a very difficult exercise.

This was an unprecedented coming together of stakeholders. I’m

just wondering if the minister could comment on what specific aspects of

the split assessment classification concept, the proposal that’s been

recommended…. What specific components of that proposal were — again, in

her words — “poorly, poorly, poorly thought-out”? I think the

stakeholders that worked so hard on that concept would really like the

minister to explain her choice of words in describing a proposal they

had all worked very, very hard to provide to the province as a priority

recommendation, a priority solution to solving this issue of

skyrocketing property taxes on the unused air space above the heads of

small business owners.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I, too, don’t want to go back. We’ve already done our second

reading debate.

I want to assure the member and all members of the House that we

are still considering the intergovernmental working group idea of a

split assessment. It’s still under consideration. There’s a lot of work

still to be done in order to make it really clear and make it workable.

We’re committed to continuing to do that work with this group of

representative local governments.

There’s certainly still some more work to be done. We’ve spoken

with representatives of the business community who want to be consulted,

who want to be involved in finding a solution. We have that work to do.

We have to, certainly, engage with the UBCM. We have that work to do.

There’s still lots to do in order to find a permanent solution to this,

and we’re committed to continuing to do that work.

I also want to point out that given that that work still needs to

be done, we realized…. When we received the idea in May and took a look

at how we could proceed, it became really clear to us that we would not

be able to get this important work done in time for the 2020 tax

year.

The choice before us was to do nothing for 2020, which would leave

businesses and non-profits still really struggling, or we could do

something while we continue to do the important work of determining how

to best use a split assessment. We proposed this interim solution, while

we continue that important work with our various stakeholders. So we’re

going to keep doing that.

In terms of the quote, I was referring to the private member’s

bill, which is very different than what the intergovernmental working

group was proposing. It was referring to that particular bill. I was

expressing concern that it would not work at all, in terms of delivering

relief to those who need it most.

T. Stone: One of the major problems that I think we’re all united here in

wanting to address is that the small business, the arts and culture

group, the non-profit is suffering under the weight of a significant

increase in their property taxes related to the air above their heads.

That’s the issue that’s driving this concern.

The minister has mentioned, and I have mentioned, that it’s really

the coming together of increasing land values and the assessment process

that we have, which is an internationally accepted framework for

assessment — highest and best use — coupled with the triple-net lease

reality that we also have. Those three things have come together, and in

some areas, particularly in the Lower Mainland, it’s caused very

significant issues with property tax increases. Again, it’s on the

unused air space above the heads of the people in the buildings at the

properties in question.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could comment…. With that in mind

and knowing that this is an issue that has been increasing in severity….

It’s increasing in the locations where it’s becoming a problem. We’re

hearing about it now in places like Victoria and Kelowna, though it’s

still very, very focused in Metro Vancouver.

Why did the government not attempt to address this challenge with

legislation that actually focused on the problem that’s happening, the

cause of the problem? That is the skyrocketing property taxes on the

unused airspace above the heads of the properties that are

affected.

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s exactly the work that we are doing with the

Intergovernmental Working Group. We want to make sure that, of course,

we get it right and that we provide relief where we need to. So that

work continues.

We had debated this at second reading, and we put it to rest with

a vote. I look forward to going through this stage, step by step, on

this interim solution that will give relief to those who need it most

while we continue the important work of addressing the very thing that

the member raised.

T. Stone: The member knows full well that second reading is to debate the

merits of proposed legislation at a high level. The purpose of the

committee stage of this process is to delve into the specifics of the

changes that are being proposed. Part of that is understanding the

rationale, the thinking, the analysis, the processes that went into the

minister and the government arriving on the legislative proposal that is

before this House.

Again, I would like the minister to please outline for British

Columbians, particularly those who have been engaged with her and with

her ministry and with others impacted, for the entire time that she’s

been in government now, for almost 2½ years, by this issue of

skyrocketing property taxes on the unused airspace above their heads….

That’s the problem, yet we don’t see a solution to that problem

contained in this legislation.

I’m just wondering if the minister could explain to British

Columbians why she didn’t address the airspace and the rising property

tax implications on that unused airspace above the heads of small

business owners and others who are most impacted?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: One of the things that’s in that proposal that makes it very

difficult to act quickly on it…. Again, this is about being responsive

to what businesses have been saying, and certainly expressing concern,

for well over a decade. When the member opposite was sitting on this

side, they were hearing these concerns, and they didn’t take

action.

We have. We started in 2018, meeting with the Intergovernmental

Working Group. It was determined in May of 2019, when a number of

proposals were brought forward, looking at the very interplay that the

member opposite mentioned…. It’s the interplay between development

potential, land values that are going up and the structure of the

triple-net lease with the highest and best use international assessment

system. It’s the interactive effect of all of these that’s creating

pressure. We heard from small business and acted quickly.

The subclass proposal is an interesting idea and is one worthy of

continued work. When the member talks about empty airspace, what he’s

talking about is development potential. Development potential is not

currently measured and valued in the assessment system. Assigning a

value to the development potential, besides taking the time to ensure

it’s done correctly, could certainly lead to many appeals and create

uncertainty in the tax base.

The other thing that I think is really important…. If the subclass

applied to all properties with development potential, then it could have

very large tax shifts. In some municipalities, thousands of properties

have some sort of development potential. Applying a lower rate to the

development potential portion of a property means that the rates on

other classes would have to increase to raise the same amount of

revenue.

[3:20 p.m.]

In some areas, this could mean a very large tax shift would have

serious implications not just across business classes but on residential

as well. While it’s absolutely worthy of exploring and determining, it’s

really important that we get it right. It’s important that we take the

time to get it right.

While we do that important work, no one here is slowing down on

that work to get a permanent fix that works better, that looks at this

very interesting idea. It was brought forward by just a handful of local

governments, but it’s one that would roll out across the province. We

need to understand its impact.

Rather than just do that work — which would, for 2020, certainly

leave businesses, non-profits and culture groups hanging with a very

significant tax burden — we decided to take action and to do both. That

is to continue doing the long-term work that needs to be done to make

sure we get a really good outcome, which everybody in this House, I

think, wants for small businesses, and in the meantime, to deliver an

interim strategy, an interim tool for local governments that continue to

recognize the pressure that some of their businesses are continuing to

struggle under — a tool that can provide relief for this current 2020

tax year.

T. Stone: Well, I would offer that the minister is putting forth a pretty

broad definition of development potential there. Again, this is not a

concept…. This split assessment classification that would enable a local

government at their option to apply, via a new commercial subclass, a

lower mill rate on that unused development potential is not something

that the municipalities who are asking for it deem to be terribly

complicated.

The city of Vancouver doesn’t think this is complicated. Nor does

the city of Surrey, nor the city of Coquitlam, nor the city of North Van

or the district of West Van. Metro Vancouver itself has weighed in. This

concept has been signed off by a wide range of municipal tax and policy

experts.

Again, I’m not entirely sure, especially with a couple years to

have had to work with here, what the moving mountains and oceans

challenge is in coming up with a definition of unused air space in order

to facilitate this proposal.

Again, the proposal is broadly supported. It was developed from

the ground up within local government. On September 23, 2019, via an

open letter to the Premier on this issue that was signed by the

Vancouver Business Improvement Association, the B.C. Alliance for Arts

and Culture, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, Great Northern Way Scene Shop, The Arts Factory Society, the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Urban Development

Institute, the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks

Vancouver and the Building Owners and Managers of British Columbia. They

said, in

summary, on this issue:

“The policy on the table” — the split assessment classification

policy — “that has been endorsed by the municipalities, the business

community and the arts community is the creation of a new commercial

property subclass. This will allow municipalities to tax the unbuilt

development potential above businesses at a rate lower than the current

commercial rate.

“We urge the government of B.C. to take the immediate steps needed

to provide municipalities this tool, which can provide real, targeted

tax relief to those small businesses which are the most impacted, in

time for the upcoming tax year.”

I’d like the minister to shed a little bit more light for us on

exactly what the complications are, as she’s being advised in her

ministry on implementing a split assessment classification solution.

They’ve had over two years to do it. They’ve got the goodwill and the

support of a broad range of local governments who have all very clearly

stated publicly that they’re very hopeful that the government will work

with them on this and scrap what they’re doing with this bill, but work

with them on split assessment. There are loads of municipal and tax

experts that work with those local governments that have all stepped up,

many publicly, and have said they are prepared to work.

[3:25 p.m.]

What is so darned complicated about defining the unused air space

in the concept of split assessment classification? What does the

minister know that the CFOs in all of these major Metro Vancouver

municipalities and these business organizations…? What does the minister

know that these folks in all these other organizations don’t know,

insofar as why it is so darned complicated to move forward with split

assessment classification?

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate to the member that we are working on

this split assessment idea that’s put forward by, again, a handful of

Metro Vancouver local governments. I do want to remind the member that

there was certainly significant debate at the UBCM, and there are some

municipalities that aren’t interested in it. In a lot of municipalities,

it barely got support.

I also want to remind the member that this is a new concept. It’s

a brand-new concept. It needs to be defined in a legal way. It needs

systems and supports in order to make it work properly. I would hate to

introduce something that hadn’t been thought through. The unintended

consequences here are very significant. It’s important that we take the

time to get it right, and that’s what our government is certainly

committed to doing. Again, assigning a value to a development potential

just hasn’t been done. It just hasn’t been done before.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to remind the member that this bill before us, and the

whole intent of all of this discussion and debate, is about giving

relief to small businesses under a triple-net lease framework. It’s not

about giving relief to developers who are holding on to properties for

development potential. This is about making sure that we provide relief

where it needs to be given.

We’ve certainly heard from small businesses who are not going to

benefit at all when the property redevelops. They’re the ones who are

completely burdened with it. This tool before the House, this piece of

legislation before the House, is again about giving local governments

the ability to support those small businesses, those arts and culture

groups, that have been struggling for some time. We want to make sure

that they can do that for 2020.

Are we committed to looking at the split assessment idea and

notion that has come forward out of a working group? Absolutely. It’s

worthwhile exploring. It’s worthwhile paying attention to how we would

get there. But I want to let the member know that — he might not know —

there are 130,000 properties that need to be then considered under a new

framework. So that’s a lot of work that needs to be done. We need to

make sure that we get it right.

The risk of shifting a tax burden among the classes or within

class is very significant. So right now we have small businesses and

non-profits that are being unfairly burdened. We want to bring fairness

as soon as we can this year. This will help us do that, while we

continue the important, long-term work of addressing how to best deliver

for small businesses and that split assessment idea and make sure that

it works properly.

T. Stone: Any suggestion that the municipalities that have been part of this

intergovernmental working group that have brought forward resolutions on

this…. Any suggestion that the arts and culture groups and the small

business organizations believe that the split assessment classification

proposal, as an unintended consequence, would benefit, as the minister

put it, would provide relief, potentially, for developers, is patently

ridiculous.

The split assessment classification proposal, as it’s been

advanced by all of the stakeholders in question, certainly as it was

embodied in the private member’s bill that I brought forward, was that

this would be an optional tool that would be used by those local

governments that want to use it, much like the minister’s much-vaunted

rental-only zoning tool. It doesn’t force…. The fact that that tool

exists for municipalities in their toolkit of options when they’re

looking at housing in their community doesn’t mean that they have to use

it. It would be completely optional, just as the proposal that the

minister is bringing forward in this legislation.

There is nothing mandatory here. There would, therefore, not have

to be anything mandatory in a split assessment classification proposal,

insofar as requiring municipalities to actually use the tool.

Furthermore, the flexibility would be built into that split assessment

classification tool that would enable the local government, at their

option, to put it in place on a discrete property, on a neighbourhood,

on a street and to be able to apply whatever mill rate they want to that

area or to that new commercial property subclass.

Again, I’m not going to allow there to be a suggestion that there

was perhaps, as an unintended consequence, the possibility of developers

and builders out there to benefit with some big, big tax relief windfall

here through the split assessment classification proposal, because local

governments would never allow that to happen.

We’re not talking about undeveloped bare land here. We’re talking

about a piece of property on West 4th or, in her community in Coquitlam,

that might be a pizzeria that’s been there for three generations. It is

very good pizza, actually. The minister knows the place I’m referring

to.

[3:35 p.m.]

That has been in business for three generations and is suddenly,

because of the triple-net lease arrangement that they have and because

of the skyrocketing property tax burden, simply struggling to determine

whether they can make ends meet and keep their business in operation.

That’s not a developer. That’s not even a situation remotely similar to

what the minister suggested could have been one of the unintended

consequences.

Again, the concern that seems to be coming from the minister and,

through her, from the ministry that there are all these unintended

consequences from a proposal that has been very well thought-out and

well developed over several years just doesn’t seem to make much

sense.

Certainly what I’m hearing from local governments…. We read into

the record, in second reading, a number of the reactions from everyone —

from the mayor of Vancouver to the mayor of the city of North Van to all

kinds of other municipal leaders and small business leaders.

I want to ask the minister this question. Can the minister confirm

that today there are situations in some jurisdictions where some

municipal jurisdictions actually allow for a variation of split

assessment, wherein there are some jurisdictions that allow for

ground-floor commercial apartments to have their assessments split, thus

providing them with some relief on the taxes owing? That is a situation

that has been brought to my attention. I’m just wondering if the

minister can confirm that she is aware that there is a variation on this

split assessment solution that is in existence in some municipalities,

provided those municipalities in question have the appropriate bylaws in

place.

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe that the member is referring to the split classifying of

the Amacon properties. This, however, is based on very specific zoning

parameters, which is a completely different process.

In this process, B.C. Assessment does not value development

potential but rather splits the classification based on what the zoning

prescribes. So it’s a completely different framework, and this

methodology would not apply in the case of a subclass.

T. Stone: Well, it is in place. There is a variation of this in place. If

the minister says it’s through a different process, fine. Then why, if

that was doable, if that is not so complicated…?

[3:40 p.m.]

Why is implementing a solution that enables for a split assessment

related to undeveloped airspace…? Why is that so much more complicated

than the example of split assessment that’s in place today?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to be really clear that the Amacon

situation is extremely complicated. There was nothing simple about it.

It’s been going on for six or seven years. It created almost 1,000

appeals, something that we wouldn’t want to see again.

That’s exactly the reason why it’s important that we do the proper

work that needs to happen to move forward on a split assessment. That’s

exactly why we want to continue working with local governments. It’s

exactly why we want to work with small businesses. It’s exactly why we

want to work with cultural groups and arts groups. It’s exactly why we

need to keep working to make sure that we define everything

appropriately.

We also want to make sure…. I mean, we’re talking about 130,000

properties in the province, and we want to make sure that we don’t wind

up in a system with thousands and thousands and thousands of appeals.

It’s a lot of work, and it’s unnecessary stress. That’s exactly why we

want to keep working, keep doing the diligent work that needs to happen,

in order to come up with a permanent solution. And that’s why we have an

interim solution here for 2020 so that while we do that important work,

small businesses and arts and culture and non-profit groups can get the

relief that they need today.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, we’ll continue to move on here, but again, the

proposal that the stakeholders we’ve talked about have recommended,

which was embodied in a private member’s bill, is very, very simple and

straightforward. It would enable a local government, through a new

commercial property subclass, to apply a different mill rate to the

unused air space above the heads of an existing building. That would

address the situation immediately and elegantly and simply. That’s not

me saying that. That’s all of the mayors that are standing behind this

proposal. That’s all of the small business organizations standing behind

that proposal.

In contrast, the bill that we have no choice but to be debating

today, because it’s the solution that the minister has opted to bring

forward, is going to require local governments to literally go through

thousands and thousands of properties, determine whether or not they

have triple-net leases in place. Then, based on a percentage increase in

year-over-year property tax obligations, the local government will have

to offer those small businesses or those properties, through their

triple-net leases, some level of a discount on their property

taxes.

I am hearing from loads of municipalities that this is going to be

cumbersome and administratively challenging, very time-consuming, in

contrast to what they were asking for in the first place, which was

split assessment classification.

[3:45 p.m.]

But I want to ask the minister this question. She mentioned in her

remarks — a few times, actually, in this House — that sure, fine, the

intergovernmental working committee, which consists of Lower Mainland

municipalities, have had their say. But what about all the other

communities around British Columbia? She has referenced the Cariboo, and

she has referenced Fort St. John, and she has referenced Kamloops. She

has referenced communities around the province in the context of saying

that the Lower Mainland has had its say, but the rest of the province

hasn’t had its say.

So could the minister tell this House which local governments

outside of the Lower Mainland have come to her expressing the need for

an urgent solution to address skyrocketing property taxes on the unused

development potential or the unused airspace over the heads of small

businesses in their communities? Which local governments have actually

come forward and said to the minister that we need to address this

problem?

I’m not hearing about this, with the exception of Kelowna, where

there is a little bit of a rumbling happening, in terms of property

taxes on unused development potential, and a little bit here in

Victoria. I’m not hearing about this mass cross-province issue with

skyrocketing property taxes over the heads of small business

owners.

Could the minister please take the opportunity to clarify her

previous statements as to what she has meant when she said, actually in

her second reading speech: “No one took a look at what it would mean for

Kamloops, for Victoria, for Kelowna, for Penticton or, in fact, the

majority of the 189 local governments in the province.” In question

period last week, she referenced Fort St. John, that she had heard push

back on the concept from the Cariboo.

Could the minister clarify those remarks for this House and,

indeed, for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, whenever we change legislation significantly — like a

subclass, which is a whole new framework — it’s really important that we

consult with various stakeholders.

We certainly heard opposition to the resolution that was proposed

at the last UBCM, with delegates from Victoria, Cariboo regional

district, Whistler and Lantzville arguing that implementing a new

commercial subclass would create challenges around fairness in who’s in

and out of the subclass.

The delegate from Grand Forks argued that local governments could

adjust tax rate ratios in order to solve the issue. Others expressed our

concern that landlords would just increase rents, with the perception

that tenants would have more liquidity, and that the assessment regime

is not the appropriate way to address the problem.

There were certainly diverse opinions in the room, diverse

understandings of the problem, whether it was a problem or wasn’t a

problem. Different communities described it differently. So again, we

are committed to continuing to work on this notion of the split

assessment and what that looks like and making sure that we get it

right. And I’m sure that the members opposite want to make sure that we

get it right. I can’t imagine anyone in this House suggesting that it

would be irresponsible to not get it right.

[3:50 p.m.]

But again, there is still some work that needs to be done. I’m

committed to doing that work. We’re committed to working with all of our

partners. We’re committed to working with, certainly, small businesses

and those representing small businesses, continuing to work with the

UBCM, continuing to work with the various communities that are starting

to see this percolate in their communities. We recognize how important

it is and that we continue do the work. Again, I want to make sure that

we get it right and that it works in the right way.

Again, I’m not denying the value that that has, the value that it

has to small businesses, because it’s really about them. But I have to

also point out that the window that we had in order to get all that work

done…. We knew we were not going to be able to get it done. What that

meant was that businesses would continue to suffer through 2020. That

wasn’t acceptable to me. It’s not acceptable to our

government.

So rather than say, “Just wait; we still have work to do….” That

is the responsible thing to do in government. Make sure that you get it

right, that you’ve consulted with all the right people, that it’s going

to work in the diversity of communities we have across this province. We

brought together some really great thinkers in various ministries

around: is there a way that we can move quickly to provide relief, to

provide a tool, where local governments can work with us to give relief

to those who need it most while we continue on the split classification

idea?

We still have lots of work to do, and I’m really eager to keep my

sleeves rolled up and keep making progress on that idea.

T. Stone: Certainly, I think that the statement that the minister has made —

that all members of the House would want to get it right in new

legislation — is an accurate one, for certain. Certainly, whether you’re

in a government or opposition, we’re all here to put our best foot

forward and, in the case of being an opposition member, to critically

scrutinize legislation. The member has been on this side of the

Legislature before as well.

We may have differences of perspective on what is the most viable

solution to a problem, but I think we all have the same intent to arrive

at solutions to address the challenges that are facing British

Columbians.

This particular one, though, the split assessment classification

idea — it’s not like it just came off the shelf a year ago or six months

ago. It’s been a concept that’s been worked on for a number of years

now.

The minister has, several times now, said that it barely squeaked

by. It actually was a strong majority of the UBCM. So 56 percent is a

strong majority, and 56 percent of the delegates at the UBCM endorsed

this concept. It was a resolution, I believe, that was brought forward

by Port Moody. It followed on the heels of two resolutions at the UBCM

in 2018, which were a little bit different but also were attempts by

those communities in question to bring forward solutions to address this

issue of skyrocketing property taxes impacting businesses.

The last question I asked was in relation to which communities she

has heard from outside of the Lower Mainland that have expressed

concerns. The ones that I was able to catch, as she read them off, were

Lantzville, the Cariboo regional district and Grand Forks. There may

have been a few others — Whistler.

Surely to goodness, the minister doesn’t believe that there’s a

challenge of skyrocketing property tax issues and unused development

potential in the Cariboo regional district — Williams Lake or Quesnel,

in particular. Surely, she doesn’t believe that there’s an issue of

skyrocketing property taxes in the undeveloped airspace over the heads

of small business owners in Lantzville or in Grand Forks, for that

matter.

While I understand the minister is suggesting that there are these

municipalities that she has cited that have expressed some concerns….

They’re totally permitted and welcome to push back on ideas.

[3:55 p.m.]

I guess my question for the minister is: does she actually believe

that the issue of skyrocketing property taxes impacting small businesses

is an issue in Lantzville or an issue in the Cariboo regional district

or an issue in Grand Forks? That’s certainly not what we’re hearing from

small businesses in those communities and from local governments in

those communities.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The member for Vancouver-Langara would like to make

some introductions.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, I’d like to seek leave to make an

introduction.

Deputy Speaker: What is the pleasure of the House?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Lee: I would like to invite all the grade 5 students here from École

Rose-des-vents in my riding of Vancouver-Langara.

I met all you guys on the back steps. Hope you’re having a great tour.

Welcome to the House. As you can see, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson

and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing are debating a very

important bill. This is democracy in action. As I talked to you about on the

stairs of the House, in the back, this is what you have when you have

different points of view. Hopefully, you’ll enjoy this riveting discussion

here at the committee stage.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to correct, for the record, that the UBCM was a….

Fifty-four percent voted for, which means that 46 percent voted against.

Victoria voted against it, and Victoria is experiencing some pressure.

So I want to make sure to correct the record.

I also want to point out, again…. I know the member knows this.

It’s a varied province. There are various communities — some that have

significant growth pressures and some that don’t.

I think about, as the member was asking his question around: did I

think these communities were under considerable pressure? What I went to

were places like Terrace and Kitimat, which are under considerable

pressure right now, and other communities that may not have a problem

around this particular assessment challenge. But if we were to make a

wholesale change to the Assessment Act in any way, it might create a

problem that, perhaps, didn’t exist. That’s an example of why it’s

really important that we do the due diligence, that we do the work, that

we do the proper consultation.

I just want to say to the young people that I know this is

absolutely fascinating. We’re talking about how properties are assessed

and their values so that they can be taxed appropriately. You’ll know

all about that at some point later in your life, but I don’t want you to

worry about it right now.

T. Stone: I think it goes without saying, or it should be said again, that

the…. Just as this proposal, which is contained in this legislation that

we’re here discussing today, the split assessment classification

proposal…. It would be optional. It would not….

If Terrace and Kitimat, in their infinite wisdom…. They know how

to run their communities. If they had this tool at their disposal and

they opted not to use it, that’s their choice. There would be nothing

mandatory about requiring municipalities to use the split assessment

classification. However, Terrace or Kitimat might decide that in light

of an issue of the skyrocketing property tax obligations on the unused

development potential above existing small businesses in their

communities, this tool makes sense for them. Then they would embrace it

and use it.

[4:00 p.m.]

What has been proposed by the opposition and these stakeholders is

as optional as what the minister is proposing in this legislation here

today.

The mayor of Vancouver had this to say, in reaction to the

introduction of the legislation that we’re here discussing today: “This

law fails to provide tax relief for small business and non-profits, and

it could wind up costing them even more. We need to be able to target

development potential and air space, and this does not allow us to

tackle skyrocketing property values. These changes won’t do that. What

we’d really like is for the province to drop these proposals and work

with us on what we’ve proposed. Small businesses and arts organizations

are so stressed.” That’s Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart.

My question to the minister is this. If the mayors, like Mayor

Stewart, for whom this bill was designed…. And in part, the split

assessment classification concept was designed by folks within his city

hall. Why would the minister expect that the split assessment

classification proposal would fail and wouldn’t work?

Whereas, the

proposal that she has on the table here today, which Mayor Stewart is

saying will not work — what makes her think it will?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to again reiterate that we are continuing to

work with Vancouver and other communities on the split assessment,

because it’s a good idea worthy of exploring. I also want to get on the

record that the private member’s bill…. The way it’s written is not

enabling; it’s actually directive. And it’s broad-based and would make

significant changes to the tax system and, as a result, would not be a

good direction.

It’s also not up for debate. We’re debating Bill 10 in front of

us. But I also want to point out to the member, pointing out his

question, a number of us…. Municipal staff have reached out. They’ve

been hearing from staff at several local governments, and they’ve also

heard from some elected officials who are very interested in learning

more about how they could raise this in their council. All the way

along, in terms of developing Bill 10, they were fully well aware of

what we were doing. We’ve been listening to local

governments.

We do understand that it’s a lot of work for their staff. We get

it. This will require a fair bit of work. But we’ve also been working

with them since mid-January to help them prepare for implementation, and

we have a number of supports that are ready to help local governments to

get these bylaws in place. When we were drafting this and we talked

about a March 31 deadline, they were really clear that that would be too

fast. It would be very, very difficult for them to get things in place.

So we listened, and we pushed the deadline to April 22 to give them a

few more weeks.

Remember, this is about small businesses, who are really, really

challenged. I know that local governments want to roll up their sleeves

and get to work and help address the businesses and the non-profits that

are struggling in their communities. While we fully appreciate the good

work that has gone into looking at a split assessment, trying to

identify how to best move forward on that, I know that local governments

recognize that there is still more work to be done in order to make that

work.

We’re committed to continue doing that work. No one here has let

up on that. But again, we know that the struggling businesses need

something sooner than we’re able to deliver on a permanent fix. So it’s

for that reason that we have Bill 10 here before us. It’s to give relief

to those who need it most so that they can get relief this year and not

have to wait until the important work is done on a permanent

fix.

T. Stone: Well, the minister didn’t answer the question. I asked

specifically about what her response was to the concerns that have been

expressed by the mayor of the city of Vancouver. He has said

unequivocally…. And he hasn’t changed his tune since this legislation

was first introduced at all. Presumably, there are back channel

conversations happening and so forth. He’s not changing his public tune

in terms of his concerns with this legislation.

Again, he and mayors across the Lower Mainland, as part of this

intergovernmental working group, were looking for a solution that would

provide local governments with a tool that they can use to target this

issue of skyrocketing property taxes on the undeveloped potential in the

air space above small businesses’ heads. That is not in this

bill.

In fact, the mayor of Vancouver went on to say: “There’s a huge

gap between what we were asking for and what this is. At the core of our

ask was for the province to give us the tools to deal with development

potential, and that’s not here.” “We’re not happy at all. We

straightforwardly asked for something more workable with ample time to

get it passed, and they didn’t do it.”

Again, to the minister, how would she like to respond? How is she

responding to the concerns that have been expressed by the mayor of

Vancouver and that have been echoed by a whole bunch of other mayors and

councillors across the Lower Mainland in particular, with respect to

what the minister has actually tabled to address this issue?

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the bit of a break.

The member asked a question around the status of the mayors

vis-à-vis their request to continue doing the good work that we’ve been

doing around the split assessment suggestion, recommendation and the

work that we’re doing. Certainly, I have heard from them, and we’ve been

engaged in ongoing dialogue and are continuing to work with their staff

to make sure that they are well supported to take a look at what they

can do in the interim while we continue to do that work.

I thought I would just read into the record, for the benefit of

the member and for others, my response to the mayors. I’ll just read it,

because I think that it captures, quite well, what we’ve done. I thanked

them for their communication with me regarding our efforts on property

tax reform. Then I go on to say:

“I know that we share a similar concern regarding the risk to small

businesses, arts and culture, and non-profit organizations from rising

property assessments associated with development potential. While this

is an issue that dates back many years and has been raised by business

organizations for more than a decade, I know that we all have been

working extremely hard on this over the past year. I would like to thank

your members for their engagement and work through the Intergovernmental

Working Group, made up of government representatives from several Lower

Mainland communities.

“I’m also pleased that provincial staff were able to provide

assistance to the local government representatives working on the

Intergovernmental Working Group, as they sought to explore options to

mitigate the challenge of rising property assessment valuations and

taxation.

“My father was a small business owner, and I understand how tough

things can be for small businesses and other organizations in triple-net

lease situations, especially in the face of an out-of-control real

estate market. For too long, many business owners and arts and culture

groups have been struggling with the impact of rising property taxes on

their lease payments because of skyrocketing prices and speculation. My

priority in tackling this challenge has always been delivering relief

for these small businesses and other organizations as quickly as

possible.

“As soon as we received your split assessment proposal in May 2019,

specialists from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry

of Finance and B.C. Assessment undertook a comprehensive review to

determine the proposal’s viability and any opportunity to implement the

initiative on a timely basis. By early fall, they determined it was not

possible to bring the split assessment proposal in time for the 2020 tax

year.

“As we shared with you last fall, adoption of the proposal would

represent a fundamental change to our property assessment system,

requiring substantial legislative amendments. In addition, B.C.

Assessment would also have to develop entirely new valuation

methodologies and undertake property-specific assessment across many

thousands of individual properties in Metro Vancouver and other areas of

the province.

“Such a significant change would also require us to work with

representatives from UBCM and from communities across the province to be

sure that we have a full understanding of the potential implications for

communities that were not involved in the initial assessment of this

proposal. None of these steps could be rushed. Staff were also concerned

about the potential for the proposal to result in increased appeals and

litigation, all of which would present risks to both local government

revenues and property tax payers.

“Faced with this, we then had a choice: do nothing for the 2020 tax

year and leave businesses to suffer, or develop an interim solution, a

temporary measure to provide municipalities with a way to deliver some

relief to those hardest hit while we continue to work together urgently

on a permanent fix. Passing up the opportunity to deliver help for 2020

was not an option.

[4:20 p.m.]

“I will not suggest that the interim business property tax relief

program is a perfect long-term solution. That is why it’s an interim

measure. But it’s the only viable option to give small businesses the

relief they need for the 2020 tax year.

“Our government remains committed to implementing a permanent fix,

and a version of your split assessment proposal is one of the options

under consideration.

“My staff and I will continue to work with the intergovernmental

working group, other local governments across B.C., small businesses,

non-profits and arts and culture organizations to develop a permanent

solution to this challenge as quickly as possible.

“That said, I also want to highlight the many ways that your split

assessment proposal did inform the design of the interim business

property tax relief program under Bill 10. Elements of the legislation

have been structured to reflect to the greatest extent possible the

intended outcomes and processes advocated by the intergovernmental

working group. Notably, both approaches are enabling, not directive,

allowing local governments to choose whether to use the legislation and

implement it through an annual bylaw at the local government

level.

“Use B.C. Assessment’s existing market value property assessment

data to identify those properties most impacted by raising property

values, use B.C. Assessment’s market value data to select those specific

individual properties that would be eligible for relief, and allow local

governments to decide whether to forgo the municipal tax revenue or

shift the tax revenues to other ratepayers.

“I appreciate that there is significant work ahead for

municipalities to implement this for 2020, and I want to reassure you

that we will continue to offer support for implementation. Staff are

already in contact with a number of municipalities that are looking at

options for how to use this tool to provide relief for a number of

affected properties. I strongly encourage you to consider doing the same

for at least the hardest-hit properties for 2020. We all know the many

stories out there that provide clear evidence of how desperately small

businesses need relief.

“For those implementing it, my commitment is that we will be there

every step of the way. That is why we gave advance notice of the

legislation and started working early with your municipal staff to help

support implementation.

“It is also why we have a model bylaw, sample notice and user guide

available to you, along with the necessary B.C. Assessment data sets to

help you narrow your focus on those properties most in need of

relief.

“We also extended the deadline to adopt bylaws to April 22, based on

feedback from your municipal staff, and have made a number of procedural

changes to speed up adoption of the bylaws.

“While this issue has been raised by businesses for a decade, we now

have an opportunity to help small businesses and others who need relief

this year. I hope you will all work with us to deliver relief where

possible for small businesses and organizations in your communities for

2020, as we continue together on a permanent solution that will work for

communities throughout British Columbia.”

T. Stone: I certainly appreciate the minister reading into the record her

communication to local governments post-announcement of the legislation.

I don’t think anything that she has mentioned there provides much

comfort to those local governments in question, though, because they

aren’t changing their tune. They continue to express significant

dissatisfaction with the proposal that is in front of us here

today.

I just want, again, to say for the record that it sure seems like

this entire issue is being grossly overcomplicated by folks that are

advising the minister. The city of Vancouver, the city of Surrey,

Richmond and others that we’ve talked to have said that the elegance and

the simplicity of the split assessment classification proposal is that

you already have the assessed values on an existing building and the

unused air space. You’re simply putting in place a tool that can be

optionally used to split out the components of a property — the existing

building and its existing use — from the future highest and best use,

the future potential, that unused development.

The issue is…. It is actually very, very simple and

straightforward to put a fence around it. We have small businesses and

other organizations all over, particularly Metro Vancouver, who, because

they’re being classified at their existing use, which is typically class

6 or commercial….

[4:25 p.m.]

They’re put into class 6 because that’s their current use, but

they’re being taxed at a much higher residential — at the value of the

highest and best use, which is, in many cases, a future condo tower and

whatnot. The tool that they’re asking for is to be allowed to just split

those assessments from the existing use, which would continue to be the

class 6 commercial, at its current fair market value because it’s a

current going concern, and apply a different lower mill rate through

this property, a new commercial property subclass — a lower mill rate on

that unused development potential.

One individual in the middle of this issue in his community put it

to me this way. The assessed value doesn’t just mean that the business

is taxed on its value as a future condo tower; it’s also paying more

than three times the amount today that they would otherwise pay if they

were taxed on the current use. So, to the…. Well, I’ll just turn this

into a question.

The mayor of Vancouver had one final thing to say, which I think

we all can support. He said: “We’re not happy at all. What scares me is

how many businesses will go down before we get this fixed.” Time is of

the essence.

Does the minister have any sense of how many small businesses or

other organizations are going to be beneficiaries of the proposed

solution that’s on the table that’s contained in this legislation? How

many small businesses and organizations does she estimate, or has her

staff or her ministry estimated, are actually going to realize property

tax relief this current year as a result of the proposal that is in

front of the House here today?

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I think it’s important to put the current situation in

context. It has been growing over a decade. Nothing had been done. We’ve

certainly heard stories of the most challenging years, really starting

in 2015-2016, and still nothing had been done.

We have looked. Again, we’ve worked closely…. We worked for many

months with this working group to identify how to best address the

situation. They’ve come up with some reasonably good ideas that we are

continuing to work on. The sort of final recommendations came forward to

staff in May 2019.

They took a look at what the options were, what amount of work

would need to be done, the amount of consultation that would need to be

done, the amount of legislation that would need to be done, the amount

of changing how B.C. Assessment does their work and the implications

that would have, and the fact that there are 130,000 different

properties around the province that would need to be looked

at.

Taking all of that into consideration, staff’s advice to me as

minister was that while this is worthwhile exploring and worthwhile

continuing to pursue, they didn’t see a way to actually to get it in

place in time for the 2020 tax year. It’s within that framework that we

proceeded to say: “Okay, so we can do nothing for 2020, because the work

isn’t complete.”

We want to get it right. I know all members of this House want to

get legislation right. We’ve certainly learned from the Amacon situation

and the almost 1,000 appeals that have happened as a result of that.

That’s not the best way forward. So we need to get it right.

With the choice of doing nothing and not giving relief where it’s

needed most or doing something and creating a tool that local

governments can use to do something to help those most in need…. To me,

that is better than doing nothing, because I want to make sure that we

have the ability to provide relief where it’s needed most.

It’s within that context that we have tabled Bill 10, and I look

forward to getting into the nuts and bolts of that bill in short order.

But it’s also important to recognize that with the work that local

governments will do, knowing their communities best, they will be able

to give relief to at least some businesses and non-profits, which is

better than giving no relief to anybody.

T. Stone: Again, for those folks who are watching at home — I think all the

schoolchildren, very smartly, have left us — the issue here is trying to

come up with a solution that is simple and elegant and can be put in

place quickly to actually provide relief. It’s a tool that would

actually be used.

If local governments don’t opt to use the solution — many have

suggested they’re not going to even try to use what’s being proposed

here in this legislation — then what’s the point? The whole point here

is to provide relief to those small business owners or those arts and

culture groups that are practically being taxed out of existence in

their respective neighbourhoods because of this issue of skyrocketing

property taxes on unused air space.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now again, to put a fine point on it, we’re talking about

properties that are paying property taxes based on the highest and best

use, which is, in many cases, a future condo tower or some other large

residential development. So the assessed value that they’re paying taxes

on is based on that future fully developed use. But the tax rate, the

mill rate, that they have to pay on that highest and best use is the

mill rate that applies to the class that they are in today, based on

their current use. That’s class 6. That’s the commercial

rate.

So the dilemma, the quandary here for these small businesses is

they’re paying, in many cases, depending on the community…. It does vary

widely around the province. The city of Vancouver, the latest data that

I have…. So everyone knows, property taxes are applied for every $1,000

of a property’s highest and best use taxable value. Well, in Vancouver,

the tax rate for the residential property class, class 1, is just under

a buck thirty-four per $1,000 of value — a buck thirty-four. In

Vancouver, the rate for the class 6, the business commercial rate, is

$4.27 per $1,000 of value.

These small businesses are paying a tax rate, a mill rate, three

times higher than they otherwise would if the building that they were in

was actually that residential condo tower at some point in the future.

That’s what we’re trying to come up with here.

The minister keeps saying that there wasn’t enough time, that this

is a really challenging, complex issue and that hundreds of thousands of

properties would have to be looked at. The assessment rolls are already

in place. The values are already…. Presumably, that pizza shop that’s

paying that ridiculously high property tax on the air space over their

head…. There’s already an assessed value in place that’s driving the

property taxes that are being paid.

The solution that the local government is looking for is the

ability to apply a different tax rate, a different mill rate, to the

portion of that property tax bill that represents the air over their

head so they’re not being hit with a double whammy here of being taxed

on a multi-million-dollar value of some future condo tower at a tax rate

that’s three times higher than what the residential rate would be on

that future condo tower. It makes no sense.

This is why these stakeholders and organizations have come

together and ar