Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 140

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

J. Thornthwaite

J. Routledge

Kwantlen Polytechnic University

L. Reid

Tae kwon do tournament and festival

A. Kang

Shared business services initiative on Saltspring Island

A. Olsen

Child care providers

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Horgan

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and impact on fuel supply and prices

D. Clovechok

Hon. J. Horgan

Closing of Wavefront and support for technology businesses

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

Use of email by Advanced Education Minister and response to freedom-of-information

request

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

M. Hunt

G. Kyllo

Hon. J. Horgan

Government recordkeeping policies and use of email by

ministers and staff

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

Use of email by Premier’s office staff

L. Throness

Hon. J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Simpson

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

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

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Popham

M. Stilwell

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: This morning members on both sides of the House had the opportunity to

meet with members of the Health Sciences Association of British Columbia and

celebrate the extraordinary work that they do. My colleague the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions gave a very eloquent statement, and I spoke as

well.

It’s my pleasure today to welcome the president of the HSA, Val Avery,

and a number of members of the association who I’m going to list now. I’m

not going to list them by profession, but I am going to have a long list,

which is, if you know me very well, my favourite form of poetry, as

well.

Of course, the president, Val Avery, is here. I’m going to introduce

Nasim Ali Akbarli; Mandi Ayers; Marg Beddis; John Christopherson; Tammy

Cranston; Anne Davis, also a member of the Island Heath board, and I thank

her for her service; Jas Giddha; Cheryl Greenhalgh; Tonya Harford; Nancy

Hay; Derrick Hoyt, who has a very, very good business card; Edith MacHattie;

Alysone Martel; Janice Morrison; Jing Ng; Joe Sebastian; Brendan Shields;

Easter Tocol, who is from my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway; and Trevor

Whyte, who graces the front page, if you received it today, of the HSA

pamphlet.

I personally have an autographed copy. If members would like to get a

copy, they can either get it on eBay later today, or if they meet with

Trevor, I invite them to get a copy then.

I hope all members will wish all of our friends from the Health

Sciences Association welcome.

N. Letnick: I’d also like to echo the Minister of Health’s welcome to all the

members of HSA, in particular Tammy Cranston, who is a constituent from

Kelowna–Lake Country and a diagnostic neurophysiology technologist at

Kelowna General Hospital, where she’s been working since 1988.

Would the House please make all of them welcome, in particular

Tammy.

Hon. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to join the Minster of Health in welcoming

HSA today, in particular Cheryl Greenhalgh, who works as a medical radiation

technologist at Royal Columbian Hospital and who is secretary-treasurer of

the HSA.

I just want to be clear that the Minister of Health spoke in poetry,

and I spoke in prose.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have three co-op students who are here watching question period

today. Two of them are working in the residential tenancy branch. William

Eltherington is an undergraduate student in economics at the University of

Victoria. Kate Fairley is an undergraduate student in political science at

the University of Victoria as well. They are co-op students working with the

residential tenancy branch, and they are working on projects related to the

rental task force.

[10:10 a.m.]

I also have Breeanna Jantzen joining us here today. She’s a master’s

student in the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University, my alma

mater. She is working on youth homelessness for the housing policy

branch.

Would everyone please make them all welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have two guests from North Vancouver today. One is Alysone Martel,

who is a fellow dietitian and was here at the HSA breakfast today. John

Christopherson also works with the HSA, but his claim to fame, for me, is

that he’s married to a very good friend of mine, Tricia Andrew. Could we

please make them all welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Prominent among the HSA delegation is my wife, Miriam Sobrino. Very

nice to see her here in Victoria, and I hope that the House will welcome

her.

B. Stewart: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two people from Kelowna West that

have been very active, since relocating to British Columbia from Alberta

some 40-plus years ago, in investing and living and contributing to the

community. Jim and Anne Edgson have driven here because they got the bug of

watching QP on TV at home and they thought: “What better place to come and

experience the real thing?” I want to welcome Jim and Anne here for their

tour of the parliament today.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to join in welcoming a constituent of mine, Joe Sebastian,

who’s here with the Health Sciences Association delegation. He’s worked at

Vancouver General since 2000 and is a board member representing 2,600 HSA

members in Vancouver and Richmond.

It also gives me great pleasure to welcome 12 hard-working employees

of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy here in Victoria

— from the correspondence unit, Sara Nicoll, Siobhan Baird, Alicia Moreau,

Lindsay Kliska; and from the information and record management team,

Patricia Fortin, Jonathan Lokhorst, Vicki Desaulnier. The environmental

protection division is represented by Vickie Jackson, Ashley Buttman and

Jennifer Jonker; and from the deputy minister’s office, Karla Kennedy and

Deborah Carroll.

I hope that the House will make them very, very welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the precinct someone who is a

very good friend and a wonderful person. Her name is Tonya Harford. She’s a

nuclear medicine technologist at Burnaby Hospital.

I would ask the House to make her most very welcome.

T. Redies: I’d like to welcome the daughter of a former constituent of mine,

Michelle Di Tomaso, and her partner, Dr. Paula Gordon, who are with Dense

Breasts Canada. They’re here today to speak to women about the particular

challenges around dense breasts and breast cancer. Would the House please

make Michelle and Paula welcome.

J. Isaacs: I would also like to introduce a guest this morning from HSA. Nasim

Ali Akbarli is a constituent of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and is a member of

the multidisciplinary health care team at Royal Columbian Hospital, where

she has worked as a cytogenetic technologist since 2012. Please welcome

Nasim and all of her guests.

B. Ma: I, too, have the pleasure of introducing Alysone Martel and John

Christopherson from North Vancouver with the HSA. In particular, I’d like to

say a few words about John, because he is a constituent in North

Vancouver–Lonsdale and works as a social worker at the Vancouver cancer

centre.

John is the HSA regional director for several specialized health care

providers located in Metro Vancouver, including B.C. Cancer Agency

facilities, Canadian Blood Services and B.C. Children’s and Women’s

Hospital.

Would the House please join me in making them both feel very

welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: Today is a very special day. First of all, I would like to wish a very

young, talented and hard-working professional, my ministerial assistant

Jasleen Arora, a very happy birthday.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today is also Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. I would like to

also take this opportunity to thank all of the child care professionals and

providers in the sector, all of the dedicated staff from my office and all

of the ministry staff who have worked so hard to roll out our government’s

child care initiatives as we are committed to work together to build a

better, more affordable and quality universal child care system in B.C. I

would really like to thank all of them for their hard work and passion to

support families and children in B.C.

D. Routley: Yesterday there were some guests in the House. They were meant to be

introduced, but the introduction wasn’t made. I’d like to correct that today

and welcome to the House, belatedly — of some of the most spectacular

recreation boating — the protecting agency and servants of the

province.

The president of the Boating B.C. Association, Don Prittie, is a

lifetime recreational boating advocate and represents the recreational

boating sector, which employs over 17,000 people across B.C. and contributes

$2.2 billion to the provincial economy each year.

The government has proclaimed this week as B.C. Boating Week, and Don

had joined us to celebrate the occasion as we head into the Victoria Day

long weekend, the traditional kickoff of the B.C. boating season. This week

the association is highlighting the significance of the recreational boating

sector, showcasing the many opportunities for anyone to get on the water and

reinforcing what it means to be a responsible boater.

Belatedly I’d like the House to help us welcome and thank Mr. Prittie

and the organization he represents.

I’d also like to welcome to the House two very good friends from

Nanaimo, Sandra Zuccolini-Larocque and her husband, Mike Larocque. I first

met Sandra and Mike through an organization called SECA, the South End

Community Association in Nanaimo, which does fantastic work in restoring and

making once again a thriving neighbourhood where there were many

challenges.

Sandra’s family goes back to the coal mining days in Nanaimo, and

she’s been a loyal south Nanaimo public servant, really, for all of her

life. She’s really been a volunteer and a dedicated person to all of the

people around her. Currently they’re defending and fighting for the Morden

mine, a provincial historical park, which is one of the finest examples of

preserved history on Vancouver Island.

Can the House help me welcome and thank Sandra and Mike.

Hon. M. Mungall: Joining the delegation of the Health Sciences Association is Janice

Morrison, who’s their vice-president and a constituent of mine, representing

the members in the Kootenays. She’s also a city councillor. I ask that the

House please make her very welcome.

L. Reid: Hon. colleagues, I’d like you to join with me in welcoming Antoinette

De Wit to the gallery today. She penned many a missive on behalf of the

government over the years as former director of the Premier’s correspondence

branch. I’d ask the House to please make her very, very welcome.

S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is a dear friend, Laura West. When I first moved

to Victoria nearly 30 years ago, I worked for Laura at Bagga Pasta in

Fairfield. Laura was more than a boss; she was a friend and a mentor. I got

to know her family very well — including Katie, who was at the time ten

years old and now works in Minister Mungall’s office — and Laura’s husband,

Ross.

I’m delighted to see Laura here today, and I want her to know that she

was an important part of my journey to this House. She was always

supportive, encouraging and someone I could rely on for guidance. Would the

House please make her feel most welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a friend from Smithers visiting today. She’s up in the gallery

behind me — Mandi Ayers. She’s a lab technician at the Bulkley Valley

District Hospital and a director on the Health Sciences Association board

for region 10 and a good friend.

Mandi, I look forward to having a glass of wine with you next week

when we’re both back in the constituency.

Would the members please make her welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud today to have joining us a good friend from Sicamous, Joe

McCulloch. Joe is the operations manager for the district of Sicamous. He

moved from Glasgow about two years ago. He and his lovely wife Leanne and

their three children — Millie, Holly and Angus — have really made Sicamous

their home. We couldn’t be happier to have them with us.

[10:20 a.m.]

Joining Joe today is his dad, Bobby. Bobby and Marie are also

visiting, from Glasgow. Bobby, actually, is currently working at the Glasgow

city council, teaching road safety to young school children. In his spare

time, he enjoys riding his Springer Harley-Davidson. Would the House please

make them feel very welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Derrick Hoyt, a pathologist’s

assistant at Royal Jubilee Hospital and a constituent in Oak Bay–Gordon

Head. Derrick is a board member of the HSA, who are visiting us here in the

gallery today.

What people may not know is he’s also formerly known as the “Pride of

Cranbrook.” While still active today as a coach and a judge, Derrick was a

bronze medallist in the welterweight division in the 1978 Commonwealth Games

and was a Canadian champion for two years in the light welterweight

category.

Would the House please make him feel very welcome here

today.

Hon. M. Mark: I, too, would like to welcome one of my constituents, a member of the

Health Sciences Association, who’s visiting us in the gallery today. She is

a social worker at Lions Gate Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital. She is on

the board of directors and represents 3,000 members for the Lower Mainland.

Would the House please welcome Nancy Hay to the chambers.

A. Kang: I also had the pleasure of meeting many members of the HSA over

breakfast this morning and, also, of witnessing the Minister of Health’s

spectacular poetic performance.

In particular, in the gallery today, I would like to recognize and

welcome my good friend Jing Ng, a member of the HSA and a constituent of

mine. Jing is a pharmacist at Burnaby General Hospital and is part of HSA’s

steward team here today. I would like the House to make her feel very

welcome.

J. Brar: I also would like to participate in a brief session of introductions.

I would like to welcome Marg Beddis, who is a constituent of mine. She’s a

dietitian. She has been working since 1991. She’s a good friend and

exceptional supporter. I would ask the House to please make her feel

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA AND

BIPHOBIA

J. Thornthwaite: Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and

Biphobia. Created in 2004, it has become a rallying and mobilization

point for the LGBTQ community across the globe. It is now celebrated in

more than 130 countries, including 37 where same-sex acts are still

illegal.

As activists around the world have said, this is not one central

trademark brand, and everyone is free to communicate as they wish. It is

a global celebration of sexual and gender diversities.

Out in Schools is a program that brings films into classrooms with

the goal to engage youth, through film, in the promotion of safer and

more inclusive learning environments, free from homophobia, transphobia,

biphobia and bullying. Their programs have not only been proven to

reduce bullying for LGBTQ youth but also for non-LGBTQ youth in the

entire school. Out in Schools has reached more than 100,000 youth across

B.C. since its inception and continues to fight homophobia and

transphobia across the province. Help them celebrate their 30th birthday

on June 2.

I would also like to congratulate Andrea Yeo, a trail-blazer

teacher at Seycove Secondary School in North Vancouver, for her ongoing

work on SOGI policies as far back as 2006.

On this day, May 17, 2018, we congratulate ourselves on how far

we’ve come but recognize that there is much more to do to increase

tolerance and acceptance of all youth, no matter their sexual

orientation, race, sex or religion.

J. Routledge: I, too, draw attention to the fact that today is the International

Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. It was created in 2004

to draw attention to the violence and discrimination experienced by

LGBTI people around the world. On May 17, we reflect on the alarming

situation faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex

people, and all those who do not conform to majority sexual and gender

norms.

[10:25 a.m.]

On this day, let’s think about the fact that there are 13 UN

member states where people can still be put to death for participating

in consensual same-sex activity. Let’s think about the fact that 19

percent of B.C. high school students do not identify as exclusively

heterosexual, and they are seven times more likely to attempt suicide

than heterosexual youth.

Why today? May 17 was the day in 1990 when the World Health

Organization declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. May 17 is

a day of mobilization on a global scale, but it is also a day to

celebrate.

I celebrate the fact that Svend Robinson, a graduate from Burnaby

North Secondary and a Burnaby MP was the first Member of Parliament in

Canadian history to come out as gay while in office.

I celebrate the fact that in spite of hateful emails and at least

one death threat, the Burnaby school board unanimously approved an

anti-homophobia policy in 2011.

I celebrate that sexual orientation and gender identity classroom

policies and procedures have been proven to reduce discrimination,

suicidal ideation and suicide attempts amongst all students.

In conclusion, May 17 is an acknowledgment that there is much more

to do. I want to thank the brave activists who keep fighting for a

better, more inclusive world.

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

L. Reid: I am delighted to rise today and talk about KPU, Kwantlen

Polytechnic University — a special purpose teaching university located

in Richmond. Teaching comes first; research, as resources allow, of

especially applied research. This is experiential, real-world learning

in every program.

They have an applied program mix, as per their polytechnic

university mandate, which is unique in Canada. There is a strong access

mandate with much student mobility.

Their mission reads as follows. KPU offers “all learners

opportunities to achieve success in a diverse range of programs that

blend the theory and practice, critical understanding and social and

ethical awareness necessary for good citizenship and rewarding

careers.”

I am proud of this university and its programs, which span seven

faculties: arts, business, health, science and horticulture, trades and

technology, and academic and career advancement.

The faculty of design has a new home in the Chip and Shannon

Wilson School of Design. It has been a joy to see that building grow

from the design phase through opening day in January of this

year.

Heartfelt congratulations to all involved in bringing the very

best programming to our students. I believe the best social program in

the world is a job, and you can’t help but get the best start at a B.C.

post-secondary institution.

TAE KWON DO TOURNAMENT

AND

FESTIVAL

A. Kang: Annyeonghaseyo . Did you know that it wasn’t until the

1940s that tae kwon do emerged as a martial art? On Saturday, May 19,

the B.C. Taekwondo Federation and the consul general of the Republic of

Korea will co-host the second Consul General Cup and Taekwondo

Festival.

Tae kwon do is a sport that was once Seoul-y practised in Korea

but has since grown to be become a world-recognized Olympic sport. Tae

kwon do requires discipline and self-control, and it teaches the

importance of living a healthy and balanced lifestyle.

It is so popular that it even has worldwide appeal, featured in

big screen TV or movies, starring actors like Jean-Claude Van Damme,

Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan. Just within British Columbia, there are

approximately 100 tae kwon do schools and 20,000 athletes currently

practising tae kwon do. The B.C. Taekwondo Federation is the only tae

kwon do association in B.C. hosting a membership of over 15,000

people.

The second Consul General Cup will be taking place at the Richmond

Curling Club, with an expectation of approximately 1,000 in attendance.

There will also be five age categories and three divisions, including

poomsae, board-breaking and sparring.

This is an event that will be sure to provide family entertainment

for everyone. Not only will the festival feature Korean culture, art,

food, tourism and exhibition booths, one of the objectives of this

festival is to support cultural exchange, promote interaction between

local residents and the Korean-Canadian communities in B.C. as well as

enhance the understanding of two countries and strengthen our

relationships.

A special thanks goes out to my very good friend, the consul

general of the Republic of Korea, Gunn Kim, for all his hard work and

co-hosting this event. Good luck to all of the competitors this

weekend.

SHARED BUSINESS SERVICES

INITIATIVE ON SALTSPRING

ISLAND

A. Olsen: Anyone who has enjoyed the world-famous Saltspring Island Cheese,

Saltspring Wild Cider or Saltspring Soapworks, all produced on

Saltspring Island, can attest to the quality and ingenuity of the

island’s business owners and artisans. Without these businesses, their

competition and the risk-taking entrepreneurs behind them, the island as

we know it could not exist.

[10:30 a.m.]

Two locals are using their knowledge and time to give back. Holly

MacDonald and Francine Carlin of the Salt Spring Island Community

Economic Development Commission are volunteer commissioners who have a

vision for how small businesses and non-profits could band together to

increase efficiency.

Recently they won a rural dividend grant to explore what a shared

business service would look like on Saltspring Island. This service

could take on the administrative work of many organizations, leaving

time for the farmers, potters, weavers and knitters of Saltspring to

focus on what they do best — contributing to the vibrant and diverse

marketplace of the island.

A major aspect of the island’s charm is the selection of unique

businesses, which, in many cases, are run by families who simply love

what they do. Getting the support they need to prosper and prospering on

an island isn’t always easy, but with the help of provincial funding,

Holly and Francine would help provide access to IT, marketing and hiring

services that are often out of reach for a small business. A shared

business services plan also allows for the development of a cohesive

ecosystem, providing the longevity and sustainability of Saltspring

business.

I’m so inspired by the work of Holly and Francine to create models

which allow for local businesses to flourish, and I’m very pleased that

the government has agreed to fund this initiative and look forward to

seeing the benefits that everyone experiences when innovative ideas are

supported by the province.

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, today I want to invite all members of this House and

everyone across B.C. to celebrate Child Care Provider Appreciation Day.

Join me in giving a big, big thank-you to all those who are ensuring

that our province’s babies, toddlers, kids, little ones, rug rats —

whatever you want to call them — are well taken care of.

It’s hard work raising kids, whether you’d be staying at home to

take on this work — and it is work — or working as a professional child

care provider. It’s critical work, and it is in much demand. I want to

give them all a huge thanks, with a special thanks to my husband, Romi,

for looking after my little one, Dev, at home.

Child care providers help shape young lives in truly remarkable

ways. Every day they make a true difference to the future growth of our

children and our province, and we know parents across B.C. value and

depend on this critical work. The passion and dedication shown by these

workers is truly an inspiration, and I know any member that visits a

child care centre will find this to be true each and every day of the

week.

Words are one thing, and thanks are hugely important. Action is

another, to truly embody the thanks that we give them. I know many

members will have met with child care providers, will have met with

parents looking for child care and know the challenge and stress that

this can cause.

To truly appreciate our child care providers, I believe we need to

act on what they and the parents who rely on them are telling us. They

tell me that the recent investments in child care are helping. As one

child care provider told me: “It feels like we’ve finally seen the light

at the end of the tunnel. We’re finally being heard.” As one parent told

me: “Keep going. We need more affordable child care and great people,

very importantly, to run it.”

One child care provider put it to me really succinctly. In order

to have good child care, you need good people with good training and

good wages to support them to do that work. I agree with her completely,

and clearly there is work to be done.

We need more child care providers. We’re working on it, but today

I just want to give huge thanks to them for their truly inspirational

work. Thank you on behalf of all legislatures and all British

Columbians.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

J. Thornthwaite: As families head into the long weekend, gas prices are up more

than 32 cents per litre from this time last year.

On March 21, the Premier said: “We are monitoring gas prices, and

we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a range of

options, and we will look at those options should prices remain

high.”

This government has options to provide temporary tax relief. Will

the Minister of Energy give British Columbians a break at the

pump?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the sincerity of the member’s question. All of us in

this House are hearing from our constituents — very, very concerned as

we go into the travelling months, the summer months here in British

Columbia. Gas prices are unacceptably high. Unfortunately, this is

happening right across North America. It’s critically important here in

British Columbia and higher than any other part of the continent. We

also have to keep in mind that the challenge is one of supply and

demand. The Leader of the Opposition has said as much. I agree with

him.

If there is evidence of collusion, if there is evidence of price

gouging, we certainly want to hear about that from the members of the

opposition or the travelling public. We’re doing our due diligence to

make sure that the industry is providing the lowest costs possible for

consumers as we go into the summer months.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: British Columbians are paying the highest gas prices of anywhere

across North America. Hard-working people in this province pay enough

and deserve a break at the pumps. The Premier said, “We will take steps

if necessary,” but he hasn’t done a thing except pick fights over

pipelines and increase taxes.

This minister has options, as the Premier admitted two months ago.

Why isn’t she acting?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the passion and enthusiasm of the question was more

partisan than worrying about the concerns of British Columbians, but

I’ll take it as it was delivered in the first question and respond again

and say that I agree with the member. I think all members understand

that the costs are unacceptably high for the travelling public at this

time. As a free market party, or an alleged free market party, on the

other side, they would understand that prices rise when supply is

diminished, and supply has been diminished because of cutbacks at the

Parkland refinery, the last refinery in the Lower Mainland, and our

inability to bring on new sources of supply to meet increasing

demand.

The government on this side of the House has been doing our level

best to address affordability issues. The travelling public, for

example, no longer has to pay the only tolls that were put in place by

that side of the House. Whether they’re crossing the Port Mann Bridge,

whether they’re crossing the Golden Ears Bridge, they no longer have to

pay B.C. Liberal tolls.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: On May 7, 2007, this now Premier said: “…consumers have had

enough. They’re fed up. They’re being gouged. They’re being hosed at the

pumps, and they want their legislators to do something about it.” That’s

from this Premier. Well, the Premier and the minister can now do

something about it, like temporarily reduce the provincial motor fuel

tax or even the carbon tax.

Interjections.

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

J. Thornthwaite: The Premier could actually do something about it. He could

temporarily reduce the motor vehicle tax or the carbon tax. Why doesn’t

this Premier do something to help British Columbians in affordability

instead of hosing people at the pumps?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the member from North Vancouver hasn’t heard the memo from

the Leader of the Official Opposition, who said just a couple of weeks

ago: “I do not see a need to change the carbon tax policy at this

point.” In the very same interview, the Leader of the Opposition said:

“I think it’s fair to say that the provincial government has a limited

role in this, because gasoline taxes have been set for a long

time.”

Although we do not believe that at this time there are many

options available to us, we have asked our deputy ministers to make sure

that we’re doing everything we can to protect the travelling public. We

have, for example, cut in half medical services premiums, putting

another $900 in the pockets of individuals and $1,800 in the pockets of

families. Affordability is our focus.

Again, I appreciate that when you leave the government side and

you travel across the floor the distance of 12 or so feet, the passion

about free market economics seems to disappear. Instead, those who said,

“We can’t get involved in the economy,” are now saying: “Why aren’t you

getting involved in the economy?”

[10:40 a.m.]

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

D. Clovechok: Well, from the Premier, that’s interesting rhetoric. The Premier

knows that he could give British Columbians a break. He has the ability

to do that, but he doesn’t care.

He has known from day one that he cannot block the Trans Mountain

expansion. He knows that. But again, he doesn’t care and continues to

pick fights with other Canadians. The hike in gas prices that we are

seeing now is only the beginning.

How high do these prices have to go before this Energy Minister

does something to help British Columbians?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m surprised that the free market party on the other side

doesn’t understand the difference between…. A pipeline proposal that is

designed to move diluted bitumen and export it to other jurisdictions

has zero — zero — to do with the cost of gas in British

Columbia.

Rather than pick fights with other Canadians, I have been doing

quite the opposite. Since we formed government….

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Since we formed government, we have been working in the courts

following the rule of law. We enjoined two court cases that were already

underway, and we entered a third one at the request of the government of

Alberta, who said they felt that our attempt to put in place a

regulation to protect the interests of British Columbia, to defend our

coast, was going to be counter to constitutionality.

We said: “Let’s go and ask someone about that. Let’s go to the

top. Let’s go to the Supreme Court.” The federal government said: “No,

no, no, we don’t want to test our jurisdiction, because we might not

have it.”

Now we find ourselves in the B.C. Court of Appeal, following the

rule of law, doing what civilized people do, asking a third party to

determine whether we have the jurisdiction to protect and defend the

interests of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on a

supplemental.

D. Clovechok: Wow, what a whopper that was. How disempowering it must be, Mr.

Speaker, for a question to be asked to a minister and not to be able to

answer that question.

Today 100 B.C. businesses and Indigenous, labour and community

leaders are flying to Alberta to express their support for the Trans

Mountain expansion. They’re fighting for working British Columbians.

High gas prices are a serious concern for thousands of British

Columbians who can’t afford to keep paying more to gas up their cars, to

buy groceries and to pay for other basic necessities.

The question to the Energy Minister: when will this government

stop blocking an already approved pipeline and instead do something

about the prices of British Columbians’ gas — I know you’re excited to

get up, sir — being hosed at the pumps?

Hon. J. Horgan: I didn’t mean to interrupt the member’s rant. I apologize for

standing and throwing him off his game.

If you don’t want to take my word for it, hon. Speaker, then why

don’t we talk about an economist at the University of Calgary, which,

last time I checked, was not in British Columbia but was in Alberta.

This economist, Blake Shaffer, said that the reality is nothing to do

with the pipeline. This is a normal operations…. It’s a supply issue,

not a transportation issue.

The question around gas prices. If there is collusion, if there is

gouging, we want to get to the bottom of it. But the Leader of the

Opposition, the leader of the group of free market advocates on that

side of the House, said that he didn’t believe that the carbon tax was

having an impact at this time. He also said that other taxes have been

in place for a long, long time.

I appreciate that some members want to be in one place and other

members want to be in another place. I guess that’s the luxury of

opposition. On this side, we stand up to defend the coast and the

interests of British Columbians.

[10:45 a.m.]

CLOSING OF WAVEFRONT AND

SUPPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY

BUSINESSES

S. Furstenau: A few days ago news broke that Wavefront, a Vancouver-based

incubator, ceased operations.

Wavefront plays a crucial role in supporting the growth of B.C.’s

tech sector, one of the fastest-growing sectors in our economy. It helps

get economies from the lab bench to the assembly line, and it supports

companies across their life cycle. This is particularly impactful on

businesses like VIATeC or Accelerate Okanagan, who themselves saw

funding from Wavefront and used it to help local businesses. As a

result, scores of B.C.-based companies in the start-up and growth phases

are facing a more uncertain future.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Is

the province aware of what has occurred with Wavefront? What steps has

it taken to mitigate the impacts on B.C.’s tech sector?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the House Leader of the Third Party for her question. We

are naturally disappointed that Wavefront shut its doors just last

Friday. Full details of the reasons for that are still emerging, and it

is disappointing for the tech sector in British Columbia.

This Vancouver-based agency, largely funded by the federal

government, helped mobile and Internet of things companies go through

the stage from start-up to scale-up and then, through the network of

mobile providers that they had access to, encouraged them to grow. They

helped over 100 companies test their applications and products so that

they could expand and create good jobs in British Columbia.

The ministry is working with Innovate B.C. and the B.C. Tech

Association to ensure that the cohort, those who entered in a group this

spring, will be placed elsewhere and not lose the time and the

commitment they’ve made to the projects that they have

underway.

The world is moving to mobile. The projected demand for mobile….

Revenue is huge, and we want to make sure that British Columbia is a big

part of that going forward.

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

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the answer from the minister about whom he’s working

with.

Wavefront has been receiving federal funding, as he pointed out,

and there’s potentially half a million dollars of federal money that is

at risk unless action is taken. This is funding that has been useful to

benefit tech companies in B.C. We can’t let this funding stream

disappear. What this makes more clear than ever is that we need to

ensure that funding that flows into B.C. is supporting sustainable and

robust programming. This will minimize the impact on companies and the

people they employ.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. What are we doing to make sure that the federal funding for

this project is secure and that the impacts on start-ups are

limited?

Hon. B. Ralston: Naturally, I want to express my disappointment, again, that

Wavefront has shut its doors. We are working with those companies to

find them new homes — the cohort of spring 2018.

It is an accelerator. There is an accelerator network that was a

federally funded accelerator, through a federal program. There is a

network of accelerators across the province that do great work in

helping companies start up and scale up to create good jobs for people

across the province. This is a responsibility of my ministry, and we are

working with the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic

Development — that’s the federal ministry — to make sure that the

concerns that the member raises are addressed.

This is a great week, though — I think it’s important to mention —

for technology in British Columbia. We just hosted the tech conference

over in Vancouver. The Premier gave a rousing speech, expressing the

strong support of this government for the tech sector and all the

prosperity and jobs it can bring to not only the region of the Lower

Mainland but throughout the province. The tech sector has a bright

future, and we’re right behind it.

USE OF EMAIL BY ADVANCED EDUCATION

MINISTER AND

RESPONSE TO

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

S. Bond: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education told the media that

all her emails are kept by the office of her deputy minister. But she

also said: “Any time a search comes through, I hand over my devices to

staff.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. This is a minister of the

Crown who said she has been briefed and understands her FOI

responsibility, yet this explanation from the minister makes absolutely

no sense.

[10:50 a.m.]

To the Minister of Advanced Education, why on earth would she hand

over her devices if that wasn’t where her records were being

kept?

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. This is an

important issue. People want us, as elected officials, to live up to a

high standard, and I hold myself to a high standard.

Yesterday we triple-checked my devices. On the February request

for sent records, we found three sent emails from February that should

have been provided. I have copies, and I’m happy to share them today.

I’ve asked my team to take a proactive look at all other FOI requests

from my office to ensure that we are always being comprehensive. I’d be

happy to provide an update as soon as that is complete.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: We appreciate the minister standing in the House today and

reminding us that, frankly, she had to be dragged screaming and kicking

to the place where she was able to present some emails.

Let’s review what happened. First it was the minister responsible

for FOI who made an apology, because she actually didn’t follow the

rules, and today it’s this minister. So let’s remember exactly what

happened.

This minister was asked for all of her emails, all of her text

messages, and as we discovered, not one single record was returned.

Today we actually hear: “Well, now there are three.” As we recall from

the Minister of Citizens’ Services, she told us that there was one or

accurate.

To the minister, it is time that she provides complete clarity. We

want to know where all of the minister’s emails were, whether they were

on her devices. If they were, she should release all of them and make

sure that there are just three, as she’s made an apology for today. This

minister has absolutely stood in this House and said: “No, I did

everything properly. And by the way, now — oops — there were three.”

Well, it’s time for the minister to stand up and to apologize to this

House and to British Columbians for not following the rules that are

expected of her as a minister of the Crown.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the opportunity to stand

in these chambers as the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

The point of question period for the members and the people, the

residents who are at home watching, is to hold government to a high

standard. I’m happy to provide the details of the three emails. All

three emails are media clips or information bulletins. I recognize that

we can’t show exhibit A, B or C, but they’re right here. All three

emails are right here.

I’m happy to explain the three emails. One email forwarded a media

clip of the Leader of the Opposition, who was my predecessor. One email

sent information on the January labour force survey to remind myself, as

a reminder. And an email forwarded a clip of the Premier to staff,

saying I liked a line that he used in a speech.

As I said, I have copies, and I’m happy to share them today in the

chambers. I’ve also asked my team…

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mark: …to take a proactive look at all other responses to FOI requests

from my office to ensure that we were comprehensive.

It’s important to follow the rules and best practices to ensure

that they’re followed, and I continue to do so.

M. Hunt: Yesterday the Minister of Citizen’s Services said: “Each ministry

works differently, and practices and procedures could vary.”

[10:55 a.m.]

All the more reason why we need to hear the proper explanation

from the Minister of Advanced Education on what the procedures are in

her office. If the procedures have changed, we would like to ask the

minister to please tell this House how the procedures are different in

her office.

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. Government

information management policy is very clear. Some records need to be

retained, and some are transitory and should be disposed of. The emails

we delete are transitory. For example, I don’t think the public is

interested in my travel arrangements to ensure that I have child care

for my two daughters. That’s what I use my email for. It’s transitory.

Or when we

schedule meetings.

I think people at home and across British Columbia are more

interested in knowing how we make decisions that impact them. Those are

the records that are retained at the deputy minister’s

office.

I’m happy to talk about adult basic education, a decision that we

made when we formed government. I’m happy to talk about the 2,900 tech

seats or what we did to open doors for former youth in care. But that’s

not the question.

G. Kyllo: The excuses made by this government just don’t pass the smell

test. Deputy ministers’ offices do not keep everyday emails of their

ministers. But even if they did, this is irrelevant. The emails of the

Minister of Advanced Education should have been released regardless of

where they’re kept.

The minister stands in this House and indicates that during the

entire month of February, there were three emails. For a minister of the

Crown, the level of work that is being undertaken by the ministry…. I

think British Columbians would like to know just what level of work is

actually being undertaken by the Minister of Advanced

Education.

Hon. J. Horgan: I think the partisanship is in the body of the question. Everyday

emails are transitory. Decisions by government must be documented, and

that’s exactly what we’re doing.

When we formed government, I set a very high standard. I am

disappointed that we are not always meeting that standard, but I remain

committed to ensuring that we’re doing our level best as a government to

be open, to be transparent, to do due diligence and to have best

practices when it comes to freedom of information.

This notion that because there were only three emails people

aren’t working…. The Minister of Finance in the former government stood

proudly in this place and said: “I don’t even know how to send an

email.” At the time, there was an uproar about it, but the member is

very capable. He is one of the longest-serving members in this House. I

have a high regard for him. The fact that he doesn’t care to send emails

does not diminish the work that he does or his commitment to British

Columbia.

This notion that the Minister of Advanced Education is documenting

decisions in an appropriate manner with her deputy minister, so the

public can have that information, is wholly appropriate, and I applaud

it.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING

POLICIES AND USE OF EMAIL

BY MINISTERS AND STAFF

M. Polak: I have with me, from the government records service transitory

records guide, examples of non-transitory records. In fact, it does

include the kinds of things that ministers would send in everyday

emails.

For example, one that the minister just gave us. She said nobody

would really be interested in her scheduling a meeting. What do I find

here? Work schedules are part of what you are supposed to retain and

provide for FOI. Assignments are what you’re supposed to provide.

Directions to change a proposal. Directions to recommend a different

course of action. Directives, instructions, advice.

In a $5 billion ministry, the idea that there are only three

records…. Of course, now we hear that the minister didn’t understand

that things like work schedules and assignments are part of what is

supposed to be retained.

[11:00 a.m.]

I will give the minister some free advice — that she ought to do

more than a triple-check of her emails. I will say that the minister in

charge of Citizens’ Services better take a look at how all ministers are

handling their emails, because they are not, clearly, aware of what is

non-transitory.

Will the Minister of Citizens’ Services investigate and report

back to this House on the practices that are taking place in all

ministries?

Hon. J. Horgan: I would put triple checking against triple deleting any day of the

week.

I take this very seriously. All members of this House should take

this very seriously. I have asked my deputy minister to ensure that best

practices are being used across government. I have asked him to ensure

that if training has been inappropriate, better training be put in

place. If people aren’t getting the gist of the program, we’re going to

have to find a better way to get through to them.

This is serious. I’m not diminishing the member’s question. But

the notion that people on that side of the House, who deliberately went

into servers once, twice, three times to eliminate records…. To compare

that to a new minister who says, “You need to know where I’m getting my

child care,” is preposterous.

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

supplemental.

M. Polak: The fact of the matter is that the story in this House has

continued to change. It was just yesterday that the Minister of

Citizens’ Services repeatedly told us that

these messages from the minister’s email were kept in the deputy

minister’s office. That’s ridiculous. The only messages they keep are

the formal exchanges that take place on decision notes. They don’t keep

all the sent items of the minister. If the other side doesn’t understand

that, which they don’t seem to, we are in real trouble.

This went further, to the minister first saying that there were no

records in an FOI response, then saying that she had them in drop-down

folders. I can appreciate that the Deputy Minister to the Premier is

conducting an investigation, searching out what’s on servers for the

systematic deletion that took place in his office, but I’m not seeing

similar action being taken by this Minister of Citizens’ Services with

respect to ministers.

Why doesn’t the minister reinstate the policy that requires all

ministers and ministerial staff to keep their sent items?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s delightful that the member reminds us of the Hail Mary pass

that the previous government threw out after an investigation by the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, which found that there was a

systematic attempt to delete and eradicate records, not an inability to

find records but a deliberate attempt to eradicate records.

The government of the day said: “I’ve got a good idea. Let’s tell

everyone to hold on to their sent emails.” That’s not best practices.

That’s desperation.

I’ve asked my deputy minister to make sure that we have best

practices across government, that transitory documents are well

understood and that they’re not retained because there’s a consequence

to retaining too much information. It costs money. That’s the whole

point of managing records.

If the people on that side of the House had not been spending 16

years trying to hide from their record instead of trying to demonstrate

their record to the public, they might still be on this side of the

House.

USE OF EMAIL BY

PREMIER’S OFFICE

STAFF

L. Throness: The Deputy Minister to the Premier has admitted that employees in

the Premier’s office mishandled electronic records. It’s unusual for a

deputy minister to admit this and even more unusual that senior staff

would delete every sent email for several months without being told to

do so. So someone is responsible for this.

Who in the Premier’s office ordered senior staff to delete all

sent emails?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m responsible. I’m responsible for what goes on in this

government, and I take full responsibility for not meeting the test that

I set for us as a government when we were sworn in, in July. It’s

important, not just to me and the people on this side of the House but

to British Columbians, that when we say we’re going to do something, we

follow through on it.

[11:05 a.m.]

The deputy minister in my office is ensuring that best practices

are being observed with my staff. I expect that, and in fact, it’s going

to happen.

I look forward to the questions coming back from the other side of

the House a week’s time from today, where I can have more information to

provide to them at that time.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Bill M216. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I

call the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. In Committee C, the Birch Room,

we call the continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Tourism.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M216 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for recognizing me here. It gives me

enormous pleasure to rise and speak to Bill M216, Business Corporations

Amendment Act, 2018. I’m particularly excited about this bill and the

fact that we’re debating it at second reading, as it is a bill that my

office and I worked on quite extensively to bring to fruition over the

past several….

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, Member. Kindly move second reading.

A. Weaver: I do apologize, hon. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill M216,

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Please continue.

A. Weaver: Let me start again. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to

Bill M216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018. As I said, I’m

particularly excited to be debating this bill, as it’s a bill that my

office and I have worked on to bring to fruition for the past number of

months.

We took the Attorney General up on his offer of legislative

drafting services that all opposition members have been granted. We did

this a few months ago. We are very grateful to the Attorney General for

bringing in this new approach to politics here in the province of

British Columbia. It’s very refreshing, and it allows us to ensure, when

we bring legislation or amendments forward, that it’s done so in a

manner that ensures that it’s legally enforceable and works within

existing B.C. laws.

As you will see in going through this legislation, it’s a very,

very complex piece that has many, many required changes in other

sections in order for it to be enacted here in British Columbia. We

could not have done that without the services of the legislative

drafter. Again, we are very grateful to government for doing that. I

think it bodes very well for this government as we move forward in the

years ahead.

I’m glad to see it receiving second reading, and I’m hopeful that

all members of this House can debate this bill in an earnest way as they

consider the merits of supporting or not supporting it. What this bill

does…. This is what I’d like to address to begin with. I want to spend a

few minutes canvassing this. This bill adds a new part to the Business

Corporations Act enabling companies to register as benefit

companies.

[11:10 a.m.]

This legislation is intended to encourage the adoption of business

forms that have an expanded social and environmental mission, to provide

a legal framework that supports and protects businesses that choose to

take on this broadened mandate and to ensure that there is adequate

transparency and accountability that benefit companies must adhere

to.

This framework would provide greater certainty for companies and

their investors as to the mandate of their directors and nature of the

company. This bill is intended to be complementary to the existing

community contribution company legislation passed by the previous

government. The C3, as it’s called, framework is a model for social

enterprise and is particularly useful for non-profits and charities who

need a way to raise revenue.

However, we’ve heard loud and clear that it is too limiting for

most for-profit companies to consider, so it’s been limited in its

adoption here in the province of British Columbia. I’ll speak to the

differences between these pieces of the legislation in greater detail in

a few minutes.

In the present legislation, there are two key components to it.

No. 1: there are requirements that companies must adhere to if they want

to become benefit companies. No. 2: protections are in place that we

include for these companies. I’ll canvass both of those briefly

here.

First, benefit companies must commit to conducting their business

in an environmentally, socially responsible and sustainable manner,

which takes into account the well-being of persons affected by their

conduct and endeavours to use a fair and proportionate share of

available environmental, social and economic resources and capacities.

They must also pursue one or more specific public benefits. They must

set out their purposes in their articles, including specifying the

public benefits the company is promoting.

Second, benefit companies must report their performance against a

third-party standard, which must be developed by a person or entity that

is unrelated to the benefit company. The reporting must be done annually

and must be made publicly accessible. This is important to ensure

transparency for suppliers, purchasers and customers that the company is

indeed living up to its stated goals.

Companies incorporating for the first time as benefit companies

must have the words “benefit company” or “B.Co.” as part of their name.

Companies that alter their articles to become benefit companies do not

need to change their name.

This bill also provides continuity and greater certainty for

companies established with a broader mission. A company can only become

or cease to be a benefit company if shareholders authorize it by a

special resolution that requires at least a two-thirds shareholder

majority.

The choice to become a benefit corporation is completely voluntary

and has no impact on other existing corporations, corporate forms, taxes

or government regulation. There are no financial benefits, and benefit

companies are taxed at the regular corporate tax rate.

This legislation also includes important requirements and legal

protections for directors and officers of benefit companies. It requires

that directors and officers of a benefit company act honestly and in

good faith with a view to the best interests of the persons materially

affected by the company’s conduct. This bill requires that directors

balance this broader requirement with the existing duty, already

enshrined in corporate law, which specifies they act in good faith with

a view to the best interests of the company.

It also includes key legal protections for directors. It clarifies

that only shareholders can bring a challenge against a director. Their

broader duties to public benefits do not open them up to broader

liabilities, which is very important. It also specifies that

shareholders may only seek injunctive relief against a director under

this part, not monetary damages.

Why do we need this legislation in B.C.? First of all, I think

it’s important, at this stage, to recognize the initiative of the

previous government, and particularly the member for Surrey–White Rock

at the time, Gordie Hogg, who brought forward and championed the

community contribution company legislation in 2012. However, I view

benefit company legislation and the C3 legislation as being

complementary ways for government to support social enterprise and

mission-driven companies.

The C3 structure provides a useful tool for non-profits and

charities that need a way to raise revenue, but we’ve heard that it is

far too limiting for most for-profit companies to consider. To become a

C3, companies would have to fundamentally change their corporate

structure and reduce their ability to attract investment. For example,

the so-called asset lock for C3s limits the dividends a C3 can pay to

its shareholders, and this cap is 40 percent of annual profits.

Moreover, in cases of C3 dissolution, the majority of assets remaining

after debts are settled must flow to a qualified entity, such as a

charity or a cooperative.

[11:15 a.m.]

I would fully support efforts of this government to build upon the

work started by the previous administration to support C3s, including

promoting the C3 brand, enhancing public knowledge of these types of

companies and providing tax incentives and benefits for investments in

C3s. But the restrictions on C3s mean that the majority of mainstream

businesses, even those that have a social and environmental mission at

their core, wouldn’t consider this structure.

We should provide another option for sustainable and responsible

businesses in B.C. We’ve heard from many in the social impact space,

including a number of businesses that chose to prioritize social and

environmental benefits in addition to profit, about the important role

that a benefit company legislation would play in growing this movement

and supporting the work already underway across B.C.

It’s true that directors of companies in Canada already have more

discretion to pursue a broader mandate beyond maximizing shareholder

profits than they do in the United States. However, a number of issues

arise for companies that try to embed this broader mandate in practice,

since we lack a legal framework that explicitly supports these types of

businesses.

For example, this legislation would provide clarity for directors

and for shareholders about the mandate of the company. It would help

directors avoid the risk of a shareholder challenge regarding the

director’s duties to the company. And it would take the uncertainty out

of the process of embedding a broader mandate within your

articles.

It would provide certainty for impact investors looking to invest

in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of the

company. It would enable companies to attract capital while enabling

them to stay true to their mission and protect the vision of the

company’s founders as their company grows.

One concern we’ve heard over and over again is that as companies

grow and new investors come on board or as founders consider secession

planning, they are worried about losing their company’s initial mission.

This legislation would provide greater protections for the original

mission of a business. Moreover, this legislation would provide a simple

framework for companies to adhere to that is legally and commercially

recognized.

If B.C. had this legislation on the books, if companies were able

to incorporate as benefit companies with an explicit social or

environmental benefit baked right into their articles, it would send a

strong signal that government supports this approach to business. We

would encourage more companies to pursue a socially responsible and

environmentally sustainable approach, creating beneficial outcomes for

society as a whole. We can better leverage the power of the private

sector to help us tackle the significant social and environmental

challenges we face.

To conclude, this legislation is an opportunity for British

Columbia to lead the nation in supporting businesses that want to be a

bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges facing

the 21st century.

This legislation is common elsewhere in the world. In the United

States, for example, over 30 states have passed this type of

legislation. Countries in Europe and South America already have it on

the books or are actively considering it. Successful companies of all

sizes have signed on, both here voluntarily and elsewhere through the

legal approach that’s been provided to them.

I believe that becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to

champion benefit companies is an enormous opportunity to position the

province as a leader in the new economy. B.C. is home to many socially

responsible companies. It’s part of our stellar brand as one of the

greenest and greatest places in the world to live.

But we are struggling to adjust and respond to massive

technological, social and environmental shifts that the world is facing,

from climate change to automation. We need to think differently in order

to turn these challenges into opportunities that we lead in the

development of solutions for.

Government and the non-profit sector cannot respond to these

changes alone, nor should they have to. For-profit businesses have a

huge role to play in our society. They are part of the solution and will

continue to be so moving forward.

The companies that pursue a triple-bottom-line approach are on the

cutting edge of rethinking the role of businesses in the 21st century.

They know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is

the best way to build a thriving economy for not only this generation

but also the next and the subsequent generations thereafter.

Our hope is that if other members in this House support this bill,

we can play our

part in supporting this growing movement

internationally. We can encourage more B.C. companies to incorporate

social and environmental values into their own business articles,

empowering them to promote change in our province and helping us,

collectively, solve the challenge that we all face.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: I want to thank the Third Party, the Green caucus, for bringing

forward Bill M216, the Business Corporations Amendment Act,

This is a particular area of interest to me. My background, before

coming to this place, included a significant amount of work in the area

of community-based economic development and looking at how business and

economic development opportunities build communities in ways that are

greater than simply the bottom line of the particular corporate

interest.

I also am very interested in these initiatives in the work that I

do now: the work around social innovation, looking at social enterprise,

social innovation and tools and ways that we bring all sectors and

components of society forward to be able to start to deal with the

complex issues that we face in society today, with the clear

understanding that we have an obligation to all be working together to

meet those social, environmental, cultural objectives. If we’re fine

looking for tools to be able to do that, I am interested, certainly, in

this piece of legislation adding another tool to that

process.

I’ve had the opportunity over the last number of months, as I’ve

been doing work on the Poverty Reduction file and building that plan, to

have discussions with the business community and with others about the

role that business plays in addressing those issues. It’s one component

that the previous speaker, the Leader of the Third Party, spoke about in

introducing this legislation.

Those consultations have included a business round table. We

brought leaders from many business sectors together to talk about these

objectives, about how we improve employment opportunities for persons

with disabilities, about how business makes a meaningful contribution to

support the reduction in inequality that we see in British Columbia —

all, I would note, with a significant amount of enthusiasm on the part

of those business sectors. They’ve looked for ways to accomplish that,

and they’ve supported and talked about innovative ways that they can

support those efforts.

I’ve also had the opportunity very recently to do a tour of social

innovation and social enterprise in the Downtown Eastside. It was very

instructive. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of businesses

that are supporting non-profit partners. They are owned or wholly owned

subsidiaries of non-profits that are, in fact, being able to create

employment opportunities, create training opportunities and generate

some levels of revenue to support important non-profit initiatives in

that community.

All of those are businesses that are needing to compete in the

business community, to go out and find ways to be successful as an

enterprise, and look at the way they take, in those cases, the

significant amount of their profit and return it back to the community.

That’s an important and essential tool, I believe.

This particular piece of legislation is complementary to that

work. It’s not the same, but it is complementary in the way that it

talks about the creation of these companies that would allow these

benefit companies, certainly, as a private market company, to make those

commitments around contributions into the community, whether those are

social, environmental or cultural contributions.

That is part of the mandate of the company, because they’ve made

the conscious decision to do that and to be identified as a benefit

company that has that commitment in their mandate. I think that that’s a

worthwhile and valuable enterprise.

The other thing, in the conversations I’ve had…. And I’ve had the

opportunities to have pretty extensive conversations with the Business

Council of B.C. Members here who have looked at their work over the last

number of years will know the work and the initiatives that they’ve

advanced around shared prosperity. We’ve seen the Business Council move

forward. They’ve put out documents about their view and their vision of

shared prosperity, what that might look like.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’ve met with the B.C. chamber and had very similar conversations

with leaders of the B.C. chamber. They have echoed the Business Council

in terms of their commitment and their interest in this view of shared

prosperity and reduction of inequality. It’s an acknowledgment and

recognition that the business community is increasingly viewing itself

as having a broader responsibility than simply the bottom line or the

shareholders’ return — their responsibility as part of the solution to

the complex issues that we face in our communities every day. I’m very

appreciative of that.

I’ve received very good advice from both of those business

organizations and from other business leaders about how to approach

those, as we look at, in the case of the work that I’m doing, poverty

reduction, not just as a social good but as a tool for economic renewal

as well. This particular piece of legislation, I think, begins to add to

the opportunities to address that.

As the previous speaker said, there is a law on the books right

now — the community contribution company, the 3Cs — that was brought

forward a number of years ago. It does provide very much a tool and an

avenue for the structuring of businesses that have a very focused

commitment to that social innovation, to social enterprise. It affords

them the opportunity to go in that direction.

As the previous speaker said, this particular initiative brought

forward by the Green caucus, M216, is a different vehicle. It’s a

different tool. I think that the previous speaker is quite correct when

he says it’s a complementary tool to the 3C model.

It does afford those companies that still continue to view

themselves as market-based, profit-based companies in a more traditional

or conventional way to, in fact, be able to say: “That’s what we are,

but we recognize our broader obligations and responsibilities, and we

embrace those. We do that in the mandate of our business by making these

commitments to go further or to be more diverse in what we see as our

responsibilities over and above directly a return on investment to our

investors or our shareholders.” I think it provides a very interesting

tool to be able to do that.

I’m certainly, in principle, supportive of this legislation. I

believe that this legislation does, as I’ve said, add another tool to

the toolbox for the business community to be able to make decisions for

individual businesses, for business owners, for boards, for companies to

make conscious decisions that they want to head in that direction — and

the ability for us to recognize that, through the work that they do and

through how they move forward and proceed.

As we do that work here — and you’ll see significant work around

social innovation, social enterprise moving forward in the government —

I think we do enhance that ability, potentially, with this legislation

to move forward. So I’m looking forward to being able to explore this

further.

I think, as the author of the legislation said, it is a complex

piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I do think

raises a number of questions. They’re ones for purposes of better

understanding this, not so much the words on paper but trying to better

understand how this is a tool that can be used effectively in the

business community.

How might it appeal to certain businesses and certain sectors to,

in fact, embrace the benefit-company model and say: “That’s the

direction we want to go”? And to better understand, as that occurs, how

this becomes an incentive for those companies that are seriously

considering how they broaden their mandates and the work that they’re

doing to be able to move forward and use this particular piece of

legislation as a tool to do that. There are questions around that, and

I’m interested in better understanding that as we move

forward.

[11:30 a.m.]

The bottom line is this. We know that we have an obligation, as

government, to do a better job as we look to advance what is often

called the triple bottom line. We know that civil society has moved very

much to say that triple bottom line is the direction we need to go. Our

government is very supportive of looking at the triple bottom line as

the way to move forward as we measure progress.

We know that business increasingly, as has been noted before, is

looking at how they broaden and get closer to that triple bottom line —

more traditional or conventional business. We’re seeing that. That’s a

live conversation with senior business leaders in this province, from

organizations like the chamber of commerce, like the Business Council,

that are happy and, in fact, are being proactive in wanting to engage in

that discussion.

I think we need to enthusiastically embrace those opportunities to

build on the solutions that we need to evolve and develop — to deal with

supporting our more vulnerable citizens, to deal with the complex issues

of environment, to deal with building and enhancing our culture and to

deal with the other social challenges that we face.

We are not going to be successful in accomplishing those

objectives if it is simply government that’s doing it or if it’s simply

one sector of society that’s stepping out to do that. This will require

all of us to be pulling on the same end of the rope — or as my colleague

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training often says:

“We’ve got to all be in that canoe paddling together.” I think that’s

very true.

This particular piece of legislation, I think, is a thoughtful and

sincere effort to say: “Here’s another opportunity, another avenue to

begin to pursue those same principles, visions and objectives.” I feel

very positive about that moving forward. I’m going to be happy to vote

for this legislation and look forward to further conversations on

this.

I do hope that we get the opportunity to talk about what these

tools look like moving forward, and I’m sure that those opportunities

will come in the future. Again, I want to thank the Leader of the Third

Party for introducing the legislation and for putting this on the table

for debate. It certainly embraces the principles that I think we on the

government side are very much looking to move forward on, and it does

give us another opportunity to look at how we encourage our friends in

the business community to in fact move forward and look at ways that

they can fulfil those challenges as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that we have a few minutes or some time available in this

debate, and I just thought it would be an interesting point to make an

interesting observation about this particular piece of

legislation.

As most members would know — and I know that we’ve had some school

groups in here — legislation is usually introduced by the executive

council, the cabinet, and a bill tabled before this House would have a

number in it. That would be Bill 30, 31, 32, 33. Normally, that’s done

because a bill is developed through policy work within a ministry

office. It would go to the minister, who would go to a cabinet committee

and cabinet and get in a request for legislation approved. It would then

go through and be reviewed by the legislative review committee. Then it

would be approved, then it would get a final sign-off, and then it would

be introduced here in the House. That is the traditional way that a

piece of legislation comes forward.

Private members also have the opportunity to introduce legislation

into this chamber. We see it often from the opposition, and I myself

have introduced private member’s bills from time to time. Those bills

come through a different process. When they are introduced and go on the

order paper, they have the letter M to indicate that it is a private

member’s bill. That is the way that this piece of legislation has come

forward.

[11:35 a.m.]

Often they don’t get called for debate; sometimes they do. I know

the previous government had called a bill for debate or brought in their

own version of the bill. So this is a rather unique opportunity to show

that private members can introduce a piece of legislation, that it can

make it to the floor, that our system….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague the Health Minister says the after-school special,

how does a bill become law. Yeah.

The leader of the Green Party and his caucus have developed this

piece of legislation. He introduced the bill. It’s well thought out.

It’s a piece of legislation that is in a good format, and we’re debating

it here today for second reading.

I think it’s worth acknowledging that this is one of those

occasions that people can look to, because they often just see the

back-and-forth between government and opposition and seldom realize that

there is often cooperation. Question period aside, there’s a lot of work

that gets done in committees.

This bill has come forward through the route of the private

member’s bill, and it’s a bill that we have said that we are going to be

supporting. It’s up for debate, and I know the sponsor of the bill, the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, will be closing debate. But I just

thought I’d take this opportunity to point out what is a unique and not

altogether common event in this chamber. I think it was something worth

acknowledging.

I know the Green Party may have another speaker, and I know that

we still have some time for that. With that, I’m happy to take my

seat.

A. Olsen: I don’t want to take too much time in the House, but I would like

to acknowledge the process that this has gone through. I know that my

colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has spent quite a bit of

time developing the information that is contained in this bill, but it’s

also the process that the government members have undertaken to provide

private members the expertise of the drafters.

I think that it’s important. It’s an important point to be made

here in the House that we have access to people who can help us to draft

legislation in a professional way so that when we sit down and debate

it, we know that the correct set of eyes, the legal expertise…. How the

bill is framed has been done in a way which is acceptable to this

place.

That’s something that the government has extended, not just to the

B.C. Greens but as well to all members of this House who want to take a

serious crack at developing some private member’s legislation. I think

that this is an example, the first example, in which that’s happened. I

think it’s important to note that when you’ve got ideas on how we can

improve this province, how we can make this province a better place, the

government is open to providing the tools in order to be able to put

that in front of the members of this place for debate.

I’d just like to raise my hand to the process here — as the

Government House Leader has celebrated, the fact that this bill is

coming forward. It’s going to be adding to this province, making it a

better place, I think. It brings us a time to celebrate the fact that

there is a process, for those of us who don’t sit in the government, to

bring forward our ideas to have them debated and — in the end, if it’s a

good piece of legislation or if it’s a good bill — hopefully, have them

supported by all members of this place.

With that, I take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the mover closes debate.

A. Weaver: I rise to close debate on Bill M216, Business Corporations

Amendment Act, which is being debated at second reading.

First off, I’d like to thank, for their comments, the previous

speakers — in particular, the minister who spoke extensively about the

values encapsulated within B corporations and how those values actually

resonate with the values of the present government and, clearly, the

values that we have in the Third Party as well.

For those who may not know what B corps are…. Some might think

that they’re not big companies, that they’re only small companies. There

are small companies that are B corps, but there are also multinationals

like Unilever, which is a transnational consumer goods company dealing

with foods, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care.

[11:40 a.m.]

Unilever is a B corp., and they’re proud of their branding. A

European bank called Triodos Bank brands themselves as the world’s most

sustainable bank. They are a B corporation, and they’re a very

successful one. Many people in this Legislature will know about the

Natura products — the Brazilian company that builds beauty products,

household care, personal care, skin creams. They are another example, a

Brazilian B corporation.

In B.C., one of our more celebrated ones is Hootsuite. It’s a

local start-up, B.C. grown, that grew dramatically to become a big

player in the tech sector. Many have probably actually participated in

Kickstarter campaigns. Well, indeed, Kickstarter is a B

corporation.

They’re proud of their branding, and they’re protected because of

the fact they are certified and incorporated as B corporations. They’re

protected to allow that their mandate extend beyond the traditional only

for-profit and to actually have broader societal goals as

well.

Ben and Jerry’s. We all love Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Ben and

Jerry’s is a B corporation — again, a company that’s proud.

Why this is particularly important — you heard this from the

discussion from the minister — is that we know that there’s a new

generation of young people, the so-called millennials, who are emerging

into our society and have a different set of values than we may have had

when we came out. We came out at a different time, my grey-haired

generation.

The millennials of today — I’m pointing to my colleague here too —

are looking for more than just a job. They’re looking for the quality of

life associated with that job. They’re one of the reasons why in British

Columbia, for example, we’re struggling to meet with health care

practitioners — doctors, for example. We’re graduating a lot, but for

doctors, when they come out, this millennial generation, it’s not only

about the profession. It’s about the quality of life associated with

that profession.

B corporations are critical because they recognize that in today’s

new economy, with triple-bottom-line reporting, providing a workplace

where you actually create an environment that is conducive to attracting

and retaining employees in a very progressive manner…. These are the

types of companies that are attracting the millennial

generation.

I’m absolutely delighted that here in British Columbia, we’re

moving this forward. I’m actually very pleased that this legislation

will shortly be voted on at second reading. Over the course of the

summer, I’m hoping that we will hear more from companies — we’ve been

approached by a number — and that more and more companies will actually

approach us and ask for further information so that as we move into the

fall session, we can actually have a good public discussion about the

benefits or any potential unforeseen consequences associated with B

corporations.

I will say that since bringing in this legislation, a very, very

big, multinational B.C.-based company has approached us and asked for

details about how they might move down this process. I know that there

are companies out there that are looking for this. We know

that.

We met with stakeholders in Vancouver, with business leaders

there, a couple of weeks ago. There’s actually a very integrated group

of senior professionals in Vancouver. Many of these are engineering

firms or consultant firms, but there are bigger firms — construction

firms, a number of firms — that are moving towards a B corporation

because they want to be good corporate citizens.

We recognize — and it’s good to see that government does; it’s a

shame we have no speakers from the official opposition — that it’s

actually critical. As we move forward in the 21st-century economy, it’s

critical that we actually ensure that we work with business to provide

solutions and move us forward to dealing with some of the grand

challenges of our times.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M 216, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2018, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it is a quarter to 12. I note that momentarily the

two other committees will be wanting to report out.

I know that if someone is watching in those committees, they will

note that the main chamber is ready to receive them so that they can

report out. Then we can adjourn the House.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear my colleague across the way saying that we probably need a

recess. Some of us have been sitting in here for a few hours this

morning, and a recess is probably in order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. This House will recess.

The House recessed from 11:45 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I see that we are joined in the gallery by a school group to watch

the proceedings. Unfortunately for them, it is eight minutes to 12, and

I’m about to move that the House do now adjourn so that members can go

and get some lunch.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Kahlon in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $172,581,000

(continued) .

S. Bond: Hon. Chair, good morning. And good morning to the minister and her

staff.

I have a few more questions about the speculation tax, and then my

colleague is going to move on to another area of questions.

Yesterday, as we spent time on the speculation tax…. We now

understand it, at least from our perspective, to be an asset tax. The

minister assured us that there had been modelling and that there had

been careful consideration of the creation of this tax, although

yesterday we discovered that instead of 15,000 homes being impacted,

there’s actually a significantly higher number, and the vast majority of

those are British Columbians.

I want to pursue the issue of the changes that were ultimately

made by the minister. There was a significant reaction to the

speculation tax, which, to this day, there continues to be. Then after a

relatively short period of time…. Who was included? There were

exemptions. There were changes to the original decision that the

minister made about the speculation tax.

Can the minister outline what prompted those changes — and why the

particular areas that were then removed or changed or altered in some

way? On what basis did she make that decision?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I want to take us back to budget day, because I think that’s the

important piece when you take a look at the speculation tax.

I think the first piece that is important to recognize is that the

speculation tax is being implemented as one part of a 30-point plan to

be able to address the housing crisis. I think that’s the first

step.

The second piece that’s important to note on the speculation tax,

as I’ve noted a number of times since the budget was introduced, is that

this is a new tax. As such, as I said on budget day, we were putting the

principles of the tax out, and the details were to come.

[11:20 a.m.]

That’s exactly the opportunity we took — to hear from people, to

listen to British Columbians, to be able to gather the information —

while we were working on the pieces that needed to be addressed. So the

normal implementation of process for putting a tax out — to determine,

for example, the geographic areas of the tax, the exemptions for the

tax, the rate design for the tax. Those were the areas that we had begun

working on once we’d announced the tax.

As the member would know well, you don’t have discussions around a

tax. You don’t announce that a tax is to come because of the issues of

people utilizing tax information to change behaviour, to gain benefits.

We announced the principles of the tax and that a tax was coming.

Specific details, again, are being worked on because the legislation is

coming forward in the fall.

I gave an example yesterday, and I’ll use the example again

because I think it’s a good example to show the kinds of discussion and

work that had to go on. That’s the issue of summer homes and summer

cabins. It was clear. We said from the start that we were not including

summer homes and cabins for people. There were a number of options we

looked at. We looked at the issue of value. Do you look at the value of

a place and exclude through that route? Do you look at the geographic

areas and exclude through that route? Do more people have vacation homes

in particular areas that we proposed as part of the tax? That would be

one of the examples.

Another one was the rate design. We had a bit of a discussion with

the members yesterday around income tax. One of the options for rate

design would have been to use income tax. As the member pointed out, the

issues of regressivity versus progressivity come into the issue if you

use income tax. So it was felt that looking at a simpler process…. A

more straightforward process of a credit, using the $400,000 to apply as

a credit, was a much simpler process. That, again, was feedback that we

received. “If you’re going to move ahead on this, make sure that it’s

simple for people to understand. Make sure there’s a link between paying

the tax and the information.”

Those are just some examples for the member of the kind of work,

the normal implementation, that happens when you’re drafting the

legislation and looking at the specifics, as I announced in February,

that were coming on this particular tax.

S. Bond: Well, thank you to the minister for that reaction. While I

appreciate it, you know, British Columbians would disagree with that

characterization. I’m fully aware of the responsibility of the Finance

Minister in terms of having discussions about taxes, but let’s be clear.

This minister announced a speculation tax, which caused chaos. For her

to suggest today that people knew their cabins weren’t going to be taxed

is simply inaccurate. My office was flooded with people who were worried

about their family cabins.

We can talk about implementation. Our concern is that a major

taxation initiative was announced and it sounds like it was written on

the back of a napkin, because now we’ve got changes. This is the budget

of British Columbia on which there are revenue projections. We hear on a

daily basis about how conservative the estimates were in the budget.

We’re going to explore just how conservative they were, because

apparently, the minister has all kinds of room in that budget to fix

things.

We should be clear. It was not clear to British Columbians that

cabins and vacation properties were not captured. In fact, vacation

properties are still captured in certain regions of the

province.

The minister also talks about principles. The principle that she

and the Premier announced to British Columbians was that if you paid tax

in British Columbia, you would not be captured. That’s a pretty major

digression from where we ended up.

My question was specifically related to the changes the minister

made after all of the reaction to the tax. There were areas that were

included. There were areas that were then excluded. We saw areas in

Parksville because, you know, we certainly are aware…. The member of the

Green Party brought that up as a big concern. Yet other areas who

expressed deep concerns, like West Kelowna, were not

adjusted.

My question to the minister was: what process was used? After

announcing a tax that caused confusion and chaos across British

Columbia, what process did she and her staff use to decide, suddenly,

that certain people were in and certain people were out?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think I want to start off again, because the member’s

description, I completely disagree with…. I think it’s important to say

again that the members may feel that not doing public consultation and

not talking to the public and not listening to the issues that they may

have is good practice. We don’t. We believe, in fact, in taking the

opportunity to hear from British Columbians.

This is a unique tax, and it is a new tax. That was very clear

when we announced it. We are taking, in fact, a bold measure here with a

brand-new tax that hasn’t been implemented. As expected, there are

issues that, as happens with tax policy and other policy in government,

continue to be worked on as you move towards drafting the legislation.

That’s exactly the normal kind of process that occurred with this

tax.

British Columbians certainly raised their views. The member

mentioned hearing from people in her constituency office. I certainly

heard from people in my constituency office as well. I took the time to

be able to take a look at that and took the time to look at many very

positive responses that came in around ways to ensure that as we looked

at the implementation…. As we drafted the legislation, we took into

account the many ways that we could have got to the principles of this

tax. I talked about one of them earlier, the issue of summer homes. Do

you look at the geography? Do you look at the value? There are a number

of different methods you can utilize to be able to make sure that you’re

addressing that piece.

We gathered the information. We continue working with staff. They

continue to look at the analysis. I know that the members certainly have

a copy of the press release that came out when we talked about the

specifics that we had progressed on. We addressed the geographic areas.

We addressed the rate design. We addressed exemptions and the tax credit

design. Those were the pieces that were details to come, as I said on

budget day.

S. Bond: Well, I think the principle that British Columbians have been

surprised to find out, which is pretty much the fundamental basis of

this tax, is that they are speculators, that British Columbians are

carrying the freight for the speculation tax. You know, I certainly

appreciate the minister’s description of how this tax came to be, but

let’s be clear. British Columbians had no idea that they were going to

be captured, basically because the Premier and the minister told them

they would not be captured.

We have serious concerns about the design, the implementation and

the fact that we now discover that British Columbians actually are the

majority of speculators when it comes to this tax.

With that, I’m going to ask my co-critic and colleague to move on

to our next section.

[11:30 a.m.]

T. Redies: Minister, as we’ve been discussing over the last couple of days,

it’s not just the impact of one tax that this side of the House is

concerned about. It’s the quantum of taxes hitting British Columbia

property owners.

From the pass-down impact of the EHT to come, the speculation tax,

the school tax and even new municipal taxes, property owners in British

Columbia are going to see significant increases in their property taxes

— some upwards of 50 percent or more from what they are currently

paying.

We now know that while the government tried to position the

speculation tax as only hitting foreigners and out-of-province

Canadians, the reality is that the majority of people who are going to

be affected by this tax are hard-working British Columbians. They are

British Columbians who have strived to make better lives for their

families. They’ve saved and invested their money, or they were even just

lucky to own a home and stay in it for 30 or 40 years.

The government’s answer, the minister’s answer, to our concerns

about those on fixed incomes or teachers or plumbers or nurses living on

the west side of Vancouver is: “If you can’t afford the tax, just sell

your house.”

We also know that while calling these taxes speculation or school

taxes…. These names are really just misnomers. They’re misnomers for the

government’s blatant move to tax property owners even more to fund their

insatiable spending spree.

We know the taxes are not going to specifically fund affordable

housing or education. They’re going to general revenues. They are just

calling them speculation and school taxes so they can try and fool

people that they are actually going to stop speculative activity or fund

schools. We know that’s not specifically the case.

The minister has also discussed for many months now…. I’ve raised

this multiple times. We have three levels of government intervening in

the property market in an uncoordinated way. We now have sales falling

precipitously, in a matter of a couple of months, to 17-year lows,

falling by 27.4 percent in April year over year. While prices haven’t

started to decline yet, if this continues, it’s only a matter of

time.

To the minister, what analysis, if any, has the Ministry of

Finance done on the impact of all of these interventions on the housing

market? What are they predicting in terms of housing prices, and could

they explain how falling sales and falling prices will impact government

revenue?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I want to begin by touching on a couple pieces that the member

raised as part of the statement before she got to her

question.

On the issue of funding going into general revenue or being

designated, I’m sure the member knows, when she looks at the provincial

budget and speaks to her colleague who had been in government for a

number of years, that funding does go into general revenue. It’s

government’s responsibility to make those decisions. That’s exactly what

government is accountable for — making those spending decisions, making

those investment decisions.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think for the member to raise issues about money going into

general revenue…. Again, that is exactly what government’s job is — to

make that determination and to make that determination around money that

comes in as revenue or otherwise. I think that’s an important piece to

identify for the member.

I know we had a bit of a discussion in September with the member

on this, but I think it’s important to note again that the economic

forecast is provided using a macroeconomic model, which looks at 300

equations that are put into place. I think we’ve talked a little bit

about this. Various assumptions go into the model. That would include

internal and external factors — everything from economic indicators for

the country, for the globe, other jurisdictions like China, Europe, the

U.S., obviously, because that impacts us here in British

Columbia.

It includes interest rates and many issues there, commodity

prices, population, migration levels. Those are all included as part of

the economic model that is looked at. We look at the risks. Again, the

members can see that in the budget. You take a look at the risks that

are out there, as well, and changes that may occur at the federal

level.

This is particularly important when you take a look at housing,

because as I’ve said often, government doesn’t control all of the tools

and all of the measures that impact on housing. There are federal

interest rates. There are mortgage rule changes. Those all have an

impact on housing. It isn’t simply one tool. It is a number of tools.

That’s also why the member will see prudence built into the budget

because that is important when you take a look at the outside factors

that are there.

I think it’s also important just to note — and this is right in

the budget itself — that we do not incorporate fiscal policy measures

that are coming forward in the current budget because of the timing of

those decisions. Q1 will be coming forward. Q1 will include a number of

those assumptions.

As it says right in the front of the budget book, consistent with

past practice — this is no change from what has been done previously:

“The economic forecast does not incorporate fiscal policy measures

announced in the current budget…due to the timing of these decisions.

These budget policy measures will be incorporated into the economic

outlook in the updated forecast included in the first quarterly

report.”

As existing practice — past practice continues to be existing

practice — those measures will be incorporated when we move into the Q1

report.

T. Redies: Minister, I’ve been speaking with a real estate expert who

actually does technical charting of the real estate industry. He’s been

in the paper a number of times. He does technical charting similar to a

stock market analysis. His model is highly predictive and accurate — it

goes back about 30 or 40 years — and that model is now predicting a

property price decline of 26.25 percent in the detached housing market

and a 30 percent decline in prices in the overall housing

market.

Maybe I’ll just hone in specifically on what I’m trying to get at.

If property sales fall and property prices fall, does that not impact

government property tax and transfer tax revenue? And if so, by how

much? I’ll be even more specific. If property prices fall 25 percent,

how does that impact government revenue?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll just answer this question quickly, because I know we’ll be

back again after lunch to have a further discussion.

One of the reasons that we bring the Economic Forecast Council

together is that, as I’m sure the member knows, economists have a

variety of opinions around what will happen with the market and what

won’t. There are a variety of views around that, and bringing together

the Economic Forecast Council gives an opportunity for me as Finance

Minister, for the Finance Ministry, to hear the variety of

opinions.

I take the member’s point around the individual that she’s been

talking to. There are a number of other economists who have a variety of

opinions. There are views still coming out. People are waiting to see

the federal changes and the impact of the federal changes. I think

there’s a whole variety of views out there, so I’m not going to — no pun

intended — speculate on what one economist may have to say compared to

other economists. We take a look at all of the information that comes

in. That’s part of what gets built in, in the first quarter.

I think if the member looks on page 131 of the budget document,

she can see a change in the property transfer tax of 1 percent is $20

million, up or down, depending on what occurs there. I think it’s

important to note that it also is impacted not only by the number of

sales but by the value, by the sale value of properties, as well, which

also has a view. I think that’s important to note. In fact, when you see

a moderating of prices, that can see increases in sales. You can see the

inverse effect as a possibility as well.

With that, Chair, I know we’re waiting. I move that the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, ARTS

AND CULTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $140,681,000

(continued) .

D. Clovechok: From yesterday, just a couple of questions on RMI, just to go back

to that. We had a couple that came up. Yesterday RMI was continued to

put into the contingency fund. I’m just wondering why it was not

included in the actual budget.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks for the question. The program is under review right now,

and there may be additional communities added. So whatever comes of that

review will be taken forward to the budget process in 2019.

D. Clovechok: Again, on the RMI file, will room capacity be a measurement for

the RMI going forward, or is the minister looking for ways to adjust the

accommodation unit multiplier?

Hon. L. Popham: That is one of the items that is involved in the

review.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer.

We’re going to shift to another topic now, and I’ll pass it over

to my colleague.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Minister. Welcome back to another glorious day of

estimates.

We’re going to go on to Family Day and talk about Family Day for a

little while. I’m just wondering: does the minister believe that Family

Day in any way ties to her ministry? If so, how?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes. I absolutely believe that Family Day does have a lot to do

with our ministry. Family Day allows for an extended weekend for

families to spend time together. We believe that families are connected

not just within British Columbia but across Canada. There are other

provinces that celebrate Family Day, and we wanted to make sure that we

were aligned so that we gave opportunities for families to travel and be

together.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Stilwell: Over 31,000 people were engaged in a consultation process when the

previous government had a public poll that concluded that the second

weekend of February was the preferred weekend. How many engaged with

this minister’s consultation in the changing of Family Day to move it to

the third Monday?

Hon. L. Popham: There was not a similar consultation done by our government. There

were comments that had come in to the Premier’s office, and as MLAs, we

all hear the chatter, when we’re out in our communities, about how

important it is to have alignment.

I can give an example of support that was given to the idea of

this change. The Surrey and Burnaby boards of trade both came out

publicly and supported the alignment of Family Day with other

provinces.

Just so the members know, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario,

Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provide the Family Day

holiday on the same day as British Columbia at this time. That

incorporates a lot of families. We all have family members across the

country. It also aligns a holiday in the United States — Presidents

Day.

That allows for a lot of travel into our province. Through our

ministry, we hope that the promotions that we’re investing in — letting

people know that this is the most wonderful place to visit and talking

about all the activities people can do, as families, on a three-day

weekend that they might not be able to do otherwise…. We believe it’s a

good change, and our marketing campaigns are certainly reaching out to

people to make sure that they know, not only visitors coming into our

province to experience what we have to offer but people within our

province as well.

M. Stilwell: So there was no real consultation. The minister mentioned that

there were comments that were received. Was that via email? How many

were there? Or are you just going with the Surrey Board of

Trade?

Hon. L. Popham: As an example, there was an on-line petition that was created, and

there were more than 20,000 signatures in support of this

change.

D. Clovechok: Just interesting to know. So there was no consultation done around

Family Day, just chatter, as you recently said. Chatter is an

informative way, I guess, of getting information. But was there any

reason why…?

You talk about Surrey. With all due respect to the fine folks in

Surrey, it’s not a real tourist town, although there is tourism

associated with it. Is there any particular reason why there was no

consultation done with any communities that actually rely on tourism, if

this was a change that they really wanted? Any resort municipalities or

anything? Was there a reason why nobody bothered to ask them?

Interjections.

[11:25 a.m.]

The Chair: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: This is a rough House up here, isn’t it — these

members.

Thanks for the question. There has been feedback from economists,

from business owners and, most importantly, from families in British

Columbia that this alignment was the right thing to do. When you make a

change, it’s not going to make everybody happy, and perhaps, as we know,

there are certain ski resorts that have spoken out against the

change.

But when you go into your communities and you talk to families and

what a three-day weekend means to families, it’s not about travelling,

for everybody; it’s about spending three days at home with your family.

It’s about counting on three days that you have that you don’t have to

worry about finding child care while there’s a misalignment. It’s about

inviting family members from across Canada to come stay with

you.

The reason why this change was made was based on families.

Unfortunately, when you make a change, as I said, not everyone is going

to be happy. But we also believe that there is a huge opportunity with

alignment with other provinces, with alignment with Presidents Day in

the United States and also the federal government. Creating an alignment

so people have that day off as well, not having to find child care, is

the right thing to do.

As I said, there’s been feedback from economists, industry sectors

and, most importantly, families.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

The feedback that was received — and I want to push this a little

bit more — was that it’s not just ski resorts that were opposed to this.

It’s clothing stores in the towns I represent. It’s bike shops. It’s

rafting companies and the restaurants.

A Voice: How about florists?

D. Clovechok: And florists as well, absolutely. Thank you.

It’s all of those and all of that above. So it’d be interesting to

see that. How could such a dramatic change that will have an economic

impact on families in British Columbia…? Why was it done without any

consultation around those families? It was just an arbitrary decision,

as far as we can see, that was made based upon some feedback from Surrey

and some chatter. I’m not sure how that can possibly be fair if these

communities weren’t consulted in that process. And now they’re facing

the economic impact again from this decision.

Hon. L. Popham: I would like to respond to the member. I understand that when he’s

using the word “chatter,” it’s used in a negative way, it sounds like to

me. But I would like to say, for the record, that when I go into my

constituency and I spend time grocery shopping or going to community

events, I consider that chatter, and I consider that the most important

feedback that I can get.

When I went into my community after the change was made, I heard

over and over again that families were relieved that we were aligning

and that it was a good idea. So that’s the feedback that I brought in

from my community. I understand that not every community would be happy,

but the majority of feedback that we received, as MLAs, from chatting in

our communities, was positive.

[11:30 a.m.]

D. Clovechok: The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. has opposed the move of

Family Day to the third week in February. So that is the Tourism

Industry Association of British Columbia. They’ve opposed it, citing

that B.C. residents benefit from smaller crowds at many seasonal resorts

and accommodation providers and that there are cheaper prices available,

with less competition from out-of-market bookings, over Presidents Day

weekend. Likewise, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce rejected moving the day

of Family Day by a super majority on two separate occasions.

How is this minister standing up for the tourism sector within her

cabinet if she wholeheartedly supports the moving of Family Day, in

spite of the chamber and those associations speaking so strongly against

it? Did those individuals…? Were their voices not heard or cared

about?

Hon. L. Popham: The government believes that this was the right thing to do. As

the acting minister for the tourism ministry, I believe it was as well.

That’s not to say that there won’t be some negative effects on some part

of the tourism industry. We acknowledge that.

I can tell the member that in a most recent trade mission to

China, one of the things that we focused on, from the tourism

perspective, was attracting visitors from China to come and enjoy our

ski industry. Although there may be a negative effect next year…. We

don’t know. The date hasn’t changed yet. We are working hard to attract

visitors here as well.

M. Stilwell: Does the minister believe that there are other ministries that may

be impacted by making this change to Family Day?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t believe there is going to be a negative impact. In fact, I

think there are going to be positive impacts. I can let the member know,

when I think about other ministries and how they would be

affected….

[11:35 a.m.]

When I think, for example, about our child care ministry…. When

families are struggling to find child care, this may be a day that they

don’t have to struggle, as they are looking at options for their kids.

If one parent works for the federal government and one parent works for

the provincial government, that day is now aligned, so these families

can have a day off together, to either spend it at home together or go

out into their communities and experience what the community has to

offer or travel within British Columbia and enjoy some of the things

that B.C. has to offer.

Overall, I do believe that this will have a positive effect. But

perhaps the member would like to enlighten me, if the member thinks

there will be a negative effect.

M. Stilwell: I believe what I said was just an impact. What other ministries

would be impacted? I never said positively or negatively. Just which

ones would be impacted, and which ones did you engage with in

discussions before making the change?

Hon. L. Popham: As the member most likely knows, the decision was not made through

the Ministry of Tourism. It was a government decision. We, as a

ministry, support that decision.

M. Stilwell: The minister mentioned that she doesn’t believe there will be a

negative impact with the change of Family Day. I just want to be clear

that that is her comment for the record: that there will not be a

negative impact across the board for government.

The Chair: Members, I’d just like to remind you that this is a small,

cozy space. But we’ll maintain good order.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Chair.

I think what I said was that, overall, the impact on families is

going to be more positive, and until it happens, we won’t know the exact

impact on certain ministries. I would have no way of knowing that at

this point, but a decision was made that the benefits to families would

definitely override that.

M. Stilwell: Can the minister say whether or not the Ministry of Labour was

part of discussions or part of the consultation when the decision was

made? Even though it was made by government, she sits at the cabinet

table. So hopefully, she can provide that.

Hon. L. Popham: I wouldn’t know that. But the responsibility of the administration

of the act falls with the Ministry of Labour.

M. Stilwell: An FOI request was made, and it came back with “no records” when

asked for instances of moving Family Day — within the ministry. Just

wondering why the ministry was not part of the discussion at all. Even

though it comes from government, they represent the tourism industry,

which will be impacted by this decision.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Our ministry was not responsible for the decision, so I am not

able to speak to the consultation process. What I can speak to, of

course, is how our ministry is investing in attracting visitors to our

province. Families will have the opportunity to travel together for

three days where they might not have had that before.

With this decision made…. The basis of the decision was the

quality of time that families get to spend together. Then the

responsibility of our ministry is to be looking at options, how they can

spend their time. For example, we just had an amazing opening of an

exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum last night. Families will have a chance

over a three-day weekend to go and experience whatever exhibit the

museum is offering. That’s a pretty great thing. Over 700,000 visitors

go through that museum from inside and outside of our province. This is

just one of the incredible opportunities people would have to spend time

together.

M. Stilwell: The minister mentioned that it falls within the Ministry of

Labour. I have received, through FOI, copies of emails that have been

delivered between the Deputy Minister of Labour, Trevor Hughes, and the

director of labour policy and legislation, Michael Tanner, along with

other Labour Ministry staff. The emails were at 1:05 p.m. on the day

that the news release came out about the change to Family Day, which was

February 9.

The email was short and simple. It says: “Then this happened. Had

no idea until I saw the release.” So the deputy minister responsible for

the change had no idea that the change was happening, and then forwarded

that on to other staff. Michael Tanner, the director of labour policy

and legislation, then went on to forward the link to members in Tourism,

Arts and Culture to say: “Update on Family Day, if you haven’t

heard.”

What I’m trying to bring to light here today is simply trying to

confirm that government embarked on a purely political strategy. There’s

nothing wrong with that because governments can do that, by all means,

but at least don’t masquerade it.

Don’t try to hide that there was no groundswell of support for

this change; that there was no demand for the change; that it was a

purely political decision; that you never even went out to talk to the

tourism industry — those businesses who would be impacted by the change;

that this was on the basis of purely political motives; and, surely,

that it would have been a reasonable thing to engage the other

industries that are impacted by this move.

Hon. L. Popham: The member is implying that this was based on some sort of

political stunt, in my view. I can tell the member confidently that this

decision was based on families.

At this point, I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Deba